- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
North Dakota state Rep. Liz Conmy dies in plane crash (Video)
Posted on 4/26/26 at 3:59 pm
Posted on 4/26/26 at 3:59 pm
7
Posted on 4/26/26 at 4:02 pm to stout
That’s sad. Very creepy how there seem to be cameras everywhere these days. No matter the event, there seems to be some video.
Posted on 4/26/26 at 4:04 pm to stout
Never know when your day is coming. Hug your loved ones
Posted on 4/26/26 at 4:04 pm to atxfan
quote:
Very creepy how there seem to be cameras everywhere these days. No matter the event, there seems to be some video.
Yep
It's also one of a few reasons (DNA and Cell phone tracking the others) why murder outside of gang violence is easier to solve
20 years ago the Delphi murders would be an unsolved case we would still be hearing about in 50 years
This post was edited on 4/26/26 at 4:05 pm
Posted on 4/26/26 at 4:04 pm to stout
In all seriousness, I only fly with commercial pilots at the helm.
Posted on 4/26/26 at 4:34 pm to stout
quote:
It's also one of a few reasons (DNA and Cell phone tracking the others) why murder outside of gang violence is easier to solve
Funny you should mention cell phone tracking today. SCOTUS hears oral arguments tomorrow in Chatrie v. United States, the most important 4th ammendment digital privacy case since Carpenter 9 years ago.
Posted on 4/26/26 at 4:35 pm to stout
That’s sad… feel for her friends and family.
Posted on 4/26/26 at 4:46 pm to Obtuse1
quote:
Funny you should mention cell phone tracking today. SCOTUS hears oral arguments tomorrow in Chatrie v. United States, the most important 4th ammendment digital privacy case since Carpenter 9 years ago.
Details?
Seems like cops would still be able to subpoena cell phone info to solve a crime
Posted on 4/26/26 at 4:56 pm to BeerMoney
quote:
Hug your loved ones
Hug your thug, too.
-Baton Rouge judicial team
Posted on 4/26/26 at 5:12 pm to atxfan
quote:
That’s sad. Very creepy how there seem to be cameras everywhere these days. No matter the event, there seems to be some video.
Yet yall believe in ufos.
It’s crazy.
Posted on 4/26/26 at 5:14 pm to stout
It’s Minnesota. Entire maintenance team is probably from Somalia.
Posted on 4/26/26 at 5:38 pm to stout
Without getting too granular, it is Sunday funday after all:
Carpenter held that law enforcement has to have a warrant to review more than 7 days of cell-site location information. The 5-4 decision have 4 dissenting opinions: Alito, Gorsuch, Thomas, and, IIRC, Kennedy. They all focused on the 4th only applying to property, and in this case, the property was a third party's "property" that being the cell phone company.
Chatrie is similar but distinct in that it centers around geofencing data and not cell-site location information. Geofencing data is what apps collect.
Don't quote me on this aa I am going from memory but the police sought information from Google's Location History app. This data comes from not only cell phone towers but also Wi-Fi/Bluetooth signals and GPS.
They got a warrant for Google to provide an anonymized list of cellphones in an area around the robbery at the time. Then without further warrant, they ask Google to give them a subset of that list for a couple of hours before and after the robbery. Then the police asked Google to deanonymize three of the phones that met their criteria as a suspect.
It all goes to a reasonable expectation of privacy and general warrant unconstitutionality. It also illuminates the fact that the guilty are often fighting for the rights of the innocent, though not without selfish motivation
Note, this case is far more nuanced and technical as they almost always are. It is a potentially huge case that could go in many ways but until the opinion is published, there is no way to speculate if it will be a mountain or a molehill.
Carpenter held that law enforcement has to have a warrant to review more than 7 days of cell-site location information. The 5-4 decision have 4 dissenting opinions: Alito, Gorsuch, Thomas, and, IIRC, Kennedy. They all focused on the 4th only applying to property, and in this case, the property was a third party's "property" that being the cell phone company.
Chatrie is similar but distinct in that it centers around geofencing data and not cell-site location information. Geofencing data is what apps collect.
Don't quote me on this aa I am going from memory but the police sought information from Google's Location History app. This data comes from not only cell phone towers but also Wi-Fi/Bluetooth signals and GPS.
They got a warrant for Google to provide an anonymized list of cellphones in an area around the robbery at the time. Then without further warrant, they ask Google to give them a subset of that list for a couple of hours before and after the robbery. Then the police asked Google to deanonymize three of the phones that met their criteria as a suspect.
It all goes to a reasonable expectation of privacy and general warrant unconstitutionality. It also illuminates the fact that the guilty are often fighting for the rights of the innocent, though not without selfish motivation
Note, this case is far more nuanced and technical as they almost always are. It is a potentially huge case that could go in many ways but until the opinion is published, there is no way to speculate if it will be a mountain or a molehill.
Posted on 4/26/26 at 5:54 pm to Obtuse1
So basically, the argument is that the innocent are having their privacy intruded upon for police to go fishing to ID the guilty?
Posted on 4/26/26 at 6:19 pm to UptownJoeBrown
quote:
all seriousness, I only fly with commercial pilots at the helm.
You have no idea who is flying the plane.
Posted on 4/26/26 at 6:24 pm to stout
quote:
So basically, the argument is that the innocent are having their privacy intruded upon for police to go fishing to ID the guilty?
You could sum up the overarching idea in that way. However, it is fair to say the guilty have the same 4A rights as the innocent. In simple terms, it is mainly about fishing, which is the basis for most 4A fights.
Posted on 4/26/26 at 6:28 pm to kywildcatfanone
quote:
You have no idea who is flying the plane.
Fair point but smaller private planes seem to crash way more than commercial airlines. I wouldn’t think that it’s commercial pilots flying those planes but I could be wrong. Again I don’t know anything but in my uneducated opinion it’s caused by poor maintenance and less experienced pilots.
Posted on 4/26/26 at 6:50 pm to stout
Little planes are such death traps. Why even risk it?
Posted on 4/26/26 at 7:08 pm to jizzle6609
quote:
Yet yall believe in ufos.
Are you saying there isn't any flying objects that have not been identified?
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News