The requirement of a subpoena doesn't prevent the government from taking actions that private actors could legally do, it compels private actors to act according to state whims.
If someone volunteers information, it is not a "circumvention" of the subpoena.
Breaking into Google and stealing information for a criminal investigation would be circumventing it.
Because search is the scope of our discussion, the answer is that the government can read your wife's book for the same reasons they can read your book.
Is one suggesting not detailing our crimes in any recorded format and making it public if we do not want said recordings to be part of a government investigation?
No... Government asks nicely, and business decides whether being a known narc will kill their business prospects, then either hand over the data, or ask the Government to pretty please get a warrant so they have an excuse.
And it's still a violation of the 4th amendment. Now, whether the fact that the violation occurred is surfaced in court, and successfully used to exonerate a defendant, is where the problems occur.
It is not a violation. Third Party Doctrine. You waive 4th Amendment once you share something with someone else. This is the same legal phenomena that pretty much guarantees LE will get access to card based financial activity, and telephone metadata.
They'll need a warrant for a wiretap, but tracing contact graph has been open season for as long as I've been around.
No, it is more nuanced than that and depends on the nature of the information. Banks hold massive amounts of highly personal information about their customers, and this knowledge is an unavoidable consequence of the business relationship. I think most people would agree that the government needs a warrant to obtain this information, even if the bank was willing to sell it anyway.
> I think most people would agree that the government needs a warrant to obtain this information, even if the bank was willing to sell it anyway.
I don't think it is legal for banks to sell their balance information to other private entities either. But if it were, then I think it would be permissible for the government to be one of the buyers.
Your interpretation of 4A is not backed by any legal precedent.
> there is a deep body of legal precedent interpreting 4A
I don't think there's any landmark decision contrary to the interpretation of 4A that I'm putting forth.
As it stands now, the interpretation I am putting forth is the one the government abides by - it can buy data from brokers without warrant if there is no compulsion.
> I don't think there's any landmark decision contrary to the interpretation of 4A that I'm putting forth.
There are tons of case law that have interpreted 4A out to it's currently upheld boundaries - boundaries that aren't well represented by the original wording.
> the interpretation I am putting forth is the one the government abides by - it can buy data from brokers without warrant if there is no compulsion.
You can believe that if you choose. It is curious tho, why you feel a compulsion to keep roping compulsion into it.
> You can believe that if you choose. It is curious tho, why you feel a compulsion to keep roping compulsion into it.
Because that is where the current boundaries are at? That is the DHS/DOJs interpretation of 4A, and so far there has not been any successful court challenge of it.
