Judge Rules Blanket Search of Cell Tower Data Unconstitutional

Scope of the ruling & what’s actually unconstitutional

• Commenters clarify this is about blanket cell-tower “tower dumps” (mass lists of all phones hitting a tower), not all use of phone data.
• Narrowly targeted requests (e.g., “was this specific number on this tower at this time?”) are seen as more likely to remain constitutional because they are particularized.
• The breadth is key: sweeping in data from large numbers of uninvolved people resembles a “general warrant” barred by the Fourth Amendment.

Good-faith exception vs. “fruit of the poisonous tree”

• Much debate centers on why evidence wasn’t suppressed despite being obtained via an unconstitutional warrant.
• Some explain the long-standing “good-faith exception”: if police fully disclose what they’re doing, get a warrant, and reasonably believe it lawful, courts often admit the evidence even if the warrant is later ruled invalid.
• Supporters say suppression is meant to deter intentional or reckless violations, not honest reliance on a judge’s mistake.
• Critics argue this neuters the exclusionary rule, incentivizes “constitutional crapshoots,” and creates a double standard where citizens can’t rely on ignorance but the state effectively can.

Police power, accountability, and judicial responsibility

• Many comments express deep distrust of U.S. policing: comparisons to gangs, references to civil asset forfeiture, qualified immunity, and near-impunity for rights violations.
• Some argue judges who approve unconstitutional warrants face no real consequences, and that without accountability the Constitution becomes “optional” in practice.
• Others caution that punishing judges for later-overturned decisions would destabilize the legal system, given evolving precedent.

Interrogations, lying, and citizen behavior

• Long subthread on police deception: it’s generally lawful for officers to lie in interrogations (e.g., claiming a friend “already confessed”), and this is seen as abusive, especially toward innocents.
• Strong recurring advice: do not talk to police without a lawyer, even as a victim or witness, due to risk of being turned into a suspect.

Third-party data, geofencing, and future battles

• The ruling is viewed as one step in a larger fight over the “third-party doctrine” (whether data held by companies loses Fourth Amendment protection).
• Commenters note geofence and cell data were heavily used in other cases (e.g., Jan 6 investigations); some welcome limits, others worry about losing a powerful investigative tool.
• Concerns raised about parallel construction and paid data brokers as workarounds to warrant limits.