> they may have talked to other people planning attacks.
I'm not particularly concerned with crimes that we believe "may have" occurred. Of course, they may have. Anything may have happened -- I'm asking for more than just correlation that criminals know criminals. Do we have any evidence, or even any hints or clues, that the phone contains evidence that would help solve or prevent any crimes?
I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you're getting at here. The legitimate concern is prevention of future attacks. They may have collaborated with people who were never apprehended on the attack that actually happened.
> They may have collaborated with people who were never apprehended on the attack that actually happened.
Right, but we don't go searching everyone's papers just in case they are conspirators.
If Alice punches Bob in the face, then is hit by a bus and dies, we don't go searching through all of Alice's stuff just in case there might have been someone else involved with the Bob-punching incident, right?
Is there any evidence, any at all, that the shooters collaborated with anyone?
> The legitimate concern is prevention of future attacks.
I'm not questioning the "legitimate concern", but I don't think "legitimate concern" should be sufficient to get a warrant.
> If Alice punches Bob in the face, then is hit by a bus and dies, we don't go searching through all of Alice's stuff just in case there might have been someone else involved with the Bob-punching incident, right?
Wrong. If Alice announces that she's looking for people to attack then of course we go looking so see why she's doing that and if other are others involved.
This wasn't some random emotional attack like a bar fight. Stop setting up nonsensical strawmen for your arguments, argue the hard cases not the easy ones.
If your argument/objection can survive the hard cases then you have something, arguing the easy cases is meaningless.
> Wrong. If Alice announces that she's looking for people to attack then of course we go looking so see why she's doing that and if other are others involved.
What, in your opinion, are the limits of that investigation.
So
1. Alice announces she's looking to attack someone.
2. She attacks Bob.
3. She dies.
I gather that, in your opinion, we can search her possessions. Let's say she has a living mother and a best friend who died a week before the attack. Can we search her mother's things? How about her best friend's?
You look at the scenario at hand and see if it makes sense to search this person or that.
I said it to someone else today, I'll tell you too: The law is not like a mathematical proof with exact rules. People with STEM backgrounds tend to think of the law that way because it seems to be all about rules. But it's not. It's about human judgment and gut feelings.
Sorry, meant to say "ought", not "is". I'm mostly interested in what you think is appropriate, not what the justice system would do, today, with the laws and courts as they are.
What should be sufficient to get a warrant? It seems to me that making warrants harder to get (or impossible), would actually be bad for society at large. In the case of warrant you have a targeted tool, one aimed at a specific person or group, and a demonstrated need approved by a third party that is not law enforcement.
The alternative is dragnetting. Or not having investigative tools. I don't know that I like either option as a citizen.
