Surely only the innocent would be that naïve - the real nasties would have either left theirs at home or got an untraceable one on the black market - or dark web - can't think of a non racist way to express it(!?)

Thank you Brittany.

What if they weren't using wifi? I know in all of DC the cell towers were completely overwhelmed.

I thought warrants had to be targeted? What the fuck kind of dragnet patriot act bullshit is this?

I was wondering how far they would go. If it would just be peoples who picture got taken Or everybody with a cell phone on or both. I guess it might be both. I suppose it being deemed an insurrection which to my limited knowledge on the subject is 10 years in prison and a find . Also what other crimes committed I’m guessed could also be tagged on the charges. Including terrorism charges if a group is deemed such. Like using certain symbols related to certain groups Or membership in such groups. Also the new public shamming laws of cancel culture effects lives as well . That’s just my guess.

Innocent? No criminal rioter who stormed Capitol literally during a Trump speech at the same time few miles away elsewhere( so they are no Trump fans either) and they did so during a constitutional certification process! Half way! Everyone knew it would achieve nothing, except causing potential harm. Nobody there was innocwnt.

It's called I.P. tracing of any device in the location.

You are a criminal by storming and rioting inside the Capitol. It's just a fact. Congress was endangered, high crime. They disrupted the constitutional certification process. It only makes sense everyone is hel accountable who did this

You are a criminal by storming and rioting inside the Capitol. It's just a fact. Congress was endangered, high crime. They disrupted the constitutional certification process. It only makes sense everyone is hel accountable who did this

Its a geofencing warrant which has extremely questionable legality and is probably unconstitutional. A lot of arrests from these will be challenged on the grounds they were unlawfully obtained.

No. It was very kuch lawful and constitutional. To argue otherwise is not to know law

There are absolutely fourth amendment concerns with geo fencing. This clearly is a subject you know nothing about.

Seems the prosecutors and lawyers don't either,clown. This is why lwt the adults do this,kid. You can sit and watch and eat your lollypop quietly. You might even learn something from the adults

You don't even know what geofencing is you retarded faggot let alone how it applies differently for different sorts of tech companies. Explain to me the difference between a geofencing subpoena served to Google vs one served to AT&T?

Hahaha. And yet your fantasies of how it works will be laughed out of court, look at what you originally stated. You're lost, kid.

No response to the specifics about what I expected. You have no idea.

I will not spoonfeed you answers, you need to do your own research. Not difficult if you take the time. Take some accountability

You don't even know the difference between a Google and an AT&T dragnet warrant. This clearly isn't a conversation for someone as thick as you. You probably don't even know what the 4th amendment is.

The constitution is an old outdated paper that can be overrriden by new laws and has many times.