They may only detain you for a very short period of time (during which you may end the encounter when you wish) unless they can articulate a specific, reasonable belief that you may have committed a prosecutable offense. They can't accost you on the street and decide to talk to you (or make you sit in a car) for hours. They can't extend a traffic stop by more than a few minutes, because traffic violations are not crimes. Having access (we assume) to the video that was recorded in the store is clearly not a crime. Even refusing to hand it over would not be actionable. The only way they could legally detain him is if they caught him trying to alter or delete the video after they identified it as potential evidence. There is no way they had reason to believe he had committed a crime. What they did is at least false imprisonment. If they were concerned about destruction of evidence, they can hang around and make sure he doesn't delete anything while they get a warrant. They can't interfere with him otherwise. it is a clear violation of his civil rights, which is a crime by the police. We all know charges won't be filed, but that doesn't change the facts.
The article is incorrect in saying that his objections are based upon the recent Riley/Wurie cases. Those cases ruled that the police can't search through your data, upon arrest, without getting a warrant. In this case, the police DID get warrants. He is arguing that the warrants did not, as required by 4th amendment jurisprudence, list EXACTLY what they were looking for and how it tied into the specific crime being investigated. The defense is arguing that the warrants were simply to seize and examine the electronics without restriction, hoping to find something incriminating. That would arguably make it a "general" warrant, which is unconstitutional.
I reject his premise. Greenwald didn't violate 18USC798. The information release was not "prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States" because WE are the United States, and WE need to know our gov't. is doing this crap. Neither was it "for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States".
So no law has been violated. I do agree that it is a first amm. violation to prosecute the publisher if he did not personally break a law in obtaining the information.
The anon in comment 17 is, while being an ass about it, quite correct.
It is not a violation of anyone's rights to skip Miranda, it simply means those statements cannot be admitted into a court proceeding unless they are later repeated after the warning.
While it has no reason to be publicized, the police do this on a smaller scale every single day. It is common to talk to a suspect before the Miranda caution trying to elicit important information about criminal activity.
The law doesn't do what's being discussed here. It says written policies must be implemented regarding social networking sites. There are no restrictions in the law regarding them. Perhaps those policies will attempt to restrict friending somehow, but there's no indication of that in this law.
It says a teacher can't have his/her own "work-related" site that is not accessible by admins and parents. Further, it says a teacher's personal website (non-work related) must be available to all, or zero current/former students. No exclusive access for any particular student.
That's all it says.
I'm not prepared to declare it failed, but it needs to be pared back to the original creation. "Useful arts" was a term used to reference artisans, not artists. It was for craftmanship and manufacture. Science included things like philosophy and Literature (which I find highly questionable, but there you have it). There was never any basis for covering paintings, advertising, or photography among most other things. I don't really believe a good argument can be made that society needed to provide copyright protection to pictures.
I don't see the trip-wire argument working for Caters. In that case, the photographer has set up all the elements (field, depth, light, etc.) and has a near 100% expectation of getting the shot when an animal appears. He is taking the picture using remote control. In this case, he did not take the picture, either remotely or physically. Had the animal not pushed the button, there is no picture. The only way to claim any ownership here is by saying "It's my camera, my picture.", which probably everyone in this forum already knows does not actually confer copyright ownership.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Lance.