[heavyset_go]

> "Ring will not release customer information in response to government demands without a valid and binding legal demand properly served on us."

Ring's own statement reflects what the OP stated: that Ring will turn over evidence when given a subpoena.

Ring also released a contradictory claim to what the police said Ring made available to them. Either the police are lying about a process they seem to know well and have used many times before, or Ring is lying in their statement to Ars.

[throwawaysea]

I am primarily commenting on the "they don't need a warrant" bit, and the editorialized label of a "friendly administrative subpoena". A subpoena and warrant have a high legal bar, and the difference is who they are directed to. The way OP's comment is worded, it makes it seem like some significantly lesser bar than a warrant is being exercised. A subpoena still requires a court order, like a warrant! See https://legalbeagle.com/8676593-subpoena-vs-warrant.html.

Furthermore: Clearly, the Fresno police department person who spoke may not have understood the requirements for access or may not be aware of what prior actions (such as a subpoena) precipitated a release of video.

[jellicle]

An administrative subpoena, as the name tells you, is not issued by a court and does not require a court to be involved. It's a police agency, acting on its own and without supervision, requesting documents believed to be related to a criminal case.