[frogblast]

Without first hand knowledge, I'll take a guess: if the owner of the vehicle isn't available or cooperating, then getting access to the USB drive requires opening up the vehicle without a key, which could require some time or specialized tools, or cooperation from the manufacturer.

But in general, this isn't really much new. If you have home cameras, and police can obtain a search warrant, then you can be compelled to provide the video, or they can seize any device (such as entire computer, your server closet, etc) that could reasonably contain the video.

[bastawhiz]

> police can obtain a search warrant, then you can be compelled to provide the video, or they can seize any device (such as entire computer, your server closet, etc) that could reasonably contain the video.

Yes but the police can't start occupying my house or deny me access to it because I wasn't home to let them in.

[frogblast]

> Yes but the police can't start occupying my house or deny me access to it because I wasn't home to let them in

With a search warrant, they can. You can be kept out of your home until they complete the search and seizing of the items named in the warrant. Depending on what is being searched for (excavating your basement looking for bodies?) that could take quite some time.

So the Tesla situation getting press isn't because the precedent is new, it's because most Americans (many in this thread included) don't understand what the law has already been since long before Teslas ever existed, and are surprised at what they find.

[woooooo]

Taking your frickin car is new.

A judge made a decision that past jurisprudence applies to towing cars that happen to have cameras nearby, nobody was doing it until that first warrant got signed.

[bastawhiz]

The difference is that when the police are done, my house is still in the same spot. In this case, my car is gone. The police aren't going to put it back.

[pcaharrier]

I dealt directly with search warrants for a handful of years and this is correct.

[uoaei]

> opening up the vehicle without a key, which could require some time or specialized tools, or cooperation from the manufacturer

That would require a search warrant, something the comment you're replying to already mentioned. Search warrants typically specify the means of access.

[JohnFen]

> or cooperation from the manufacturer.

I would have thought this was the path of least resistance (as well as doing less harm to the car owner) since they're getting a search warrant anyway.

[frogblast]

The path of least resistance is skipping the search warrant and asking the owner politely, which the article indicates is what is happening.

But if that doesn't work, then preserving evidence is considered to be very important. For example, it would be a problem if the car owner deleted the video.

[neaden]

While I can see why the police would find it a problem, I don't like the idea that that means they get to potentially have 24/7 access to my property just so they can check.

[JohnFen]

I don't see how preserving evidence enters into the decision to seize the entire car rather than the drive.

[frogblast]

The drive is inside the car. How do they get at it, and guarantee it isn't tampered with in the meantime?

[JohnFen]

They have Tesla (the company) unlock the car, then remove the drive. They already have the search warrant, which could compel Tesla to assist. They have a cop babysit the car until the seizure is completed, like they have to do anyway.

[dzhiurgis]

Sorry, but towing is much easier than dealing with Tesla's lawyers.

But Tesla should add remote wipe too, just like with iPhones.