In this scenario you have had a close family member murdered, let's say a wife/sister/child.  Take a second, if you never have, to think about the results of that type of immediate loss.

 Also you are not a suspect, however a co-worker or friend of your murdered family member is a suspect.  Would it be reasonable, to you, for law enforcement to have warrants that access local internet searches?

 For instance anyone looking up your address, work/school, etc.  Researching your life online, looking up ways to hide a body and such.

 Would you be ok with law enforcement having a warrant that could find people that were looking up your relative prior to their murder?

I think they should need some evidence to present to a judge before being granted a warrant.
What level of evidence is debatable, but more than he/she looks suspicious or I never liked them much.

What say yee?

"I think they should need some evidence to present to a judge before being granted a warrant.
What level of evidence is debatable, but more than he/she looks suspicious or I never liked them much."

 This would be normal warrant procedures, so the amount of evidence needed for any other type of search warrant.  An LEO could not say he never liked the victim's co-worker much and get that approved.


"Since this is your hypothetical, what makes them a suspect? A Judge should consider that answer before granting a broad warrant."

 Evidence.  Witness saw them together, video footage of them in the same area at the same time, they keep showing up at her work IF they are NOT a co-worker.  They show up at her house uninvited if they are a co-worker, etc.  Reports from others indicating suspicious behavior I believe counts as well.

 Webstermark brings up the second part of this discussion, broader search warrants.

 Are internet searches actually private?   If somebody was searching for your wife/daughter's address, her work address, "how to hide a body", "how to conceal DNA evidence" etc.  Would you be ok if law enforcement secured a warrant to look for those internet searches?

 Or would you lean more towards them not being able to engage in internet search history warrants?  This of course means its less likely the person who killed your family would be caught.

 This would be similar to getting threatening phone calls at all hours and the police being able to trace the calls by searching all phones that dialed your number.

 

As a follow up, are you in favor of the IRS scanning through bank records of transactions over $600 looking for patterns of tax fraud and then launching an investigation?

 I do think the $600 is too low of a number, other than that I am indifferent to it as I don't cheat on my taxes.  If the IRS wants to investigate people who do not claim reportable and only the word reportable with the exemption of all other know words - "Reportable income" and exclusively reportable income and not imagined scenarios of taxing losses, then go ahead.


So because you’ve got nothing to hide, privacy isn’t a concern to you?

 So because you’ve got nothing to hide, privacy isn’t a concern to you?

 I think if I choose to use a FICO banking structure I agree to the contracts contained within, which includes reporting gains, and only gains, as reportable income.  Don't put your money into institutions like that if you want actual privacy, use alternatives this is exactly why they were invented.  The people getting around this - they aren't complaining, they are doing something about it.  Did you go sign and send the documentation I provided to fight this?

 Anyone that thinks the IRS should break the law by ignoring reportable income, for any reason, is barking up the wrong tree.  Change the reportable income, stop expecting law enforcement to ignore law.

 It's like all the people complaining about a section of highway that went from 65mph to 55mph in one small section and back to 65mph.  It was an easy ticket spot for LEO and people complained that cops were giving tickets, for speeding.  For actual speeding.  So we got with the DOT had them put up mileage average line studies and got the speed limit reduction removed.  So much more effective than complaining that the cops write tickets.


 So to the original topic:

 Would it be reasonable for law enforcement to search camera footage for all vehicles that were in the area of a murder?  I think so, but I don't know where the change to digital impacts the ability to investigate.  If someone is digitally searching for an address, or physically searching, how do we decide when the internet search is protected?  

 

* MnSpring Eegore wrote on 10/14/21 at 07:46:27:

" ... No any person should not be able to just say "Crazy" and have all guns taken away. ... "

Does, 'double negative' come into play with that statement ?
Remove the word, 'no', and the word, 'not'.
See what it now says.


"... Using two negatives usually turns the thought or sentence into a positive one.
Double negatives are generally discouraged in English because they are considered to be poor grammar and they can be confusing. ..."

Some 'double negatives' listed below, as per:
https://examples.yourdictionary.com/examples-of-double-negatives.html


   The evidence is certainly not irrefutable.
   This gem is not uncommon.
   The results are not inconclusive.
   His rebuttal was clearly not nonsensical.
   The price of the car is not insignificant.
   It is not unnecessary to tell the truth all the time.
   The new disease wasn't non-infectious.
   He wasn't irresponsible about his duties.

Would it be reasonable for law enforcement to search camera footage for all vehicles that were in the area of a murder?  I think so, but I don't know where the change to digital impacts the ability to investigate.  If someone is digitally searching for an address, or physically searching, how do we decide when the internet search is protected?

I think what you’re talking about is the expectation of privacy. Driving on a public road doesn’t carry an expectation of privacy. Right now anyway, internet searches and websites should carry some amount of an expectation of privacy.