[fitblipper]

Why do you feel that info is relevant? If my driver's license expired yesterday and then I get pulled over while I'm driving to the DMV today to get it renewed, should I not get a citation?

Just because they had permission before and after their actions took place doesn't make it ok if they didn't have permission at the time of the action. To say otherwise seems to be begging for abuse of a loophole. I guess that's why they had to claim the action wasn't one a warrant was required for...

[rayiner]

It’s relevant for the same reason it’s relevant in your driver’s license example. You drive somewhere while your license is valid. Then you replace the car battery, which has died. Then you renew your license, and drive somewhere else. Have you done anything wrong? No, because you need a license to drive the car, not to repair the car.

Same thing here. The government needs a warrant to seize the device or search for information on the device. Does it need a warrant to repair a broken device that it has properly seized, before then getting a warrant to search the device?

[btilly]

It's not relevant for the same reason that it isn't relevant in the driver's license example.

If you don't have a license, then get a friend to drive you. Or get an Uber. But you can't drive yourself. If you do, no matter how reasonable you feel your case was, you'll be in trouble.

In this case, they had an inoperable device, and they had a judge. Absolutely nothing stopped them from filing for yet another warrant and then proceeding only when they actually had it. But no. They wanted to skip their paperwork. They shouldn't get to.

The paperwork exists for a reason. That reason is why we shouldn't retroactively hand out warrants. And that's why we shouldn't do it here. The fruit of the tree and all that. The government knows how to do it right, and absolutely shouldn't. They don't get to beg a friendly judge for forgiveness later. They had no excuse for not simply doing it completely right.

[LorenPechtel]

The repair is a repair, not a search. No data was obtained.

I do have a problem with this, but only because of the time. The cops shouldn't get to take ages to examine stuff unless there's a huge amount of stuff to examine.

[btilly]

But they did not simply "repair" it. They added something that leaves the device more vulnerable. Not just to the government, but to anyone with access to the toolkit that the police are trying to use. Which includes foreign actors and random hackers.

No, attempting to create a damaged version should not count as repair. Nor should we be lightly OKing the government's desire to do so.

[subroutine]

There is no law stating the government cant repair a broken device that was seized as evidence, while having a lapsed search warrant.

There is a law against searching a device without a valid warrant.

The judge ruled that repairing a device seized as evidence is not a search.

I'm failing to see what the government did, that was against any law or policy.

[Suppafly]

>Does it need a warrant to repair a broken device that it has properly seized

Logically, yes. If you borrow someone's car to drive it, you don't have permission to change out the stereo.