All the courts that would issue these types of warrants will be easy to find. This isn't the sort of thing you do over a traffic ticket or shoplifting. It's not the court you go to when your neighbor owes you fifty bucks. These are murder and kidnapping cases. The people processing these warrants today are likely already on a first name basis with the clerks of these courts.
Think about it, how do you validate any court order? Why is this only a problem now? I think it's beacuse they want to side step the judicial oversight process. Keep that intact, as the constitution requires, and this issue disappears.
Local-ish courthouse for me only has a contact info for regular business hours. So if not in business hours, then what? There's ~3200 counties (or equivalent) in the US. There's no way to be on a first name basis with the clerks of each county courthouse, let alone if you have a big county with multiple different types of courts.
Your local courthouse may not even do jury trials. It doesn't do the sort of cases that require 3AM emergency warrants. If it's that important it can go in front of a district or federal judge, otherwise it can wait for business hours.
Local police departments don't need the ability to engage a global surveillance apperatus at the drop of a hat. Stuff like that can be ran up the chain first.
Who would you even give the data to if they are closed? Fax it over the the courthouse if you are concerned, or tell them it's at your location ready for pickup. If they are legit that won't be a problem.
The data is collected by the LEO, not the court. But yes, you can fax it to the law enforcement office, whose number should also be independently verifiable.
Can you point us to an incident where this has ever happened, namely, where a service provider didn't to respond to a demand immediately while they verified its authenticity and someone went to jail for it? Or even got a finger wagged at them by a judge? Third-party records production is almost never time-sensitive to the degree that, say, a warrant to search for drugs or contraband is, and there's little risk of spoliation of evidence.
You cannot conclude that because someone has been held in contempt for intentionally failing to respond to a records production request because they simply didn’t want to do it, that someone would also be held in contempt for delaying production for a few hours while they make a good-faith attempt to verify the authenticity of a request. Judges take all the facts and circumstances into account—including intent—when making these kinds of decisions, especially those that involve depriving someone of their liberty.
Is being unable to independently verify a request for information or a warrant a real problem, or are you just making up problems that may not actually exist?
Let's stick to reality, folks.
If you have ever received a demand from a court that you couldn't verify the authenticity of, I'd like to hear from you.
They're also "we think this kid is selling marijuana" cases. Law enforcement doesn't even need a warrant, they can just send a request for data and every company will just rubber stamp it and give them whatever they want.
They do not! And you'll be surprised how tricky it is to find local/state courts as someone with non-regular contact with the legal system.
Even more fun would be the process of jurisdictional verification. All of which I'm sure the "Officers" would be more than happy to leave you be with your electronics and whatnot long enough to verify, right?
Longer I'm alive, the more insane our system seems to me on a daily basis. Not sure if it's just cognitive decline or rapidly amplified cynicism as I dig into the signalling nightmare that is the interface between the executive and the judiciary system.
> And you'll be surprised how tricky it is to find local/state courts as someone with non-regular contact with the legal system.
Name one court that signs warrants to service providers that can't be verified by spending 5 minutes doing some basic research, or that has a LEO office serving such warrants that also can't be verified.
The topic at hand isn't whether a lawyer or a court officer can, but whether EVERYONE can in a timely manner such that if a police officer or LEO (or someone impersonating one, since we're talking zero trust) can be told to go sod themselves by a layman.
Fundamentally this is a signal/info propagation problem. Processes take time.
The people who process these requests, particularly at the large companies that possess such data, are typically dedicated to the task and possess the specialized knowledge needed to do so. They have often developed significant relationships with the law enforcement community.
Do you know them?
Do you have a connection that you could entrust with giving you a positive or negative answer as to whether the armed man with no sense of humor in the cop uniform outside is the real deal?
I don't. Hell, even if I had a lawyer on hand, I doubt the lawyer would go "hold up.. checking the registries, yup it's legit"; rather they'd tell you to cooperate then maybe challenge outcomes down the road when the paperwork catches up.
For most, the answer is they take it on faith anyone usurping that authority would have such a shit ton of bricks dropped on them, no one would be stupid enough to do it. Obviously, that logic is showing it's age.
Frankly, if I were the courts/LE and found out this was going on, there'd be a new Public Enemy #1. Trust is too important.
