This is the best summary I could come up with:

One of them, Gavin Seymour, asked the court to throw the evidence out because it violated the Fourth Amendment’s ban on unreasonable searches and seizures by being overbroad and not being targeted against a specific person suspected of a crime.

But in this case, the trail had run cold and police were seeking a “reverse keyword” warrant for the Google search history in a quest to identify possible suspects.

The state Supreme Court ruled that Seymour had a constitutionally protected privacy interest in his Google search history even though it was just connected with an IP address and not his name.

If dystopian problems emerge, as some fear, the courts stand ready to hear argument regarding how we should rein in law enforcement’s use of rapidly advancing technology.

“At the risk of sounding alarmist, I fear that by upholding this practice, the majority’s ruling today gives constitutional cover to law enforcement seeking unprecedented access to the private lives of individuals not just in Colorado, but across the globe.

A third teen, Dillon Siebert, who was 14 at the time and originally charged as a juvenile, pleaded guilty earlier this year to second-degree murder in adult court under a deal that prosecutors and the defense said balanced his lesser role in planning the fire, his remorse and interest in rehabilitation with the horror of the crime.

The original article contains 783 words, the summary contains 225 words. Saved 71%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!

I don’t have any hope for any of this improving.

The EU is currently working on legislation to search through all chat messages sent by everyone ever, so the only way to keep any privacy is to take it into your own hands.

For more biased (but probably agreeable to Lemmings) coverage, see the EFF’s article: eff.org/…/colorado-supreme-court-upholds-keyword-…

They claim the search warrant, which was overly broad and without individual probable cause, did not violate Google’s millions of US users’ fourth amendment protections, because the court said the police were acting in good faith under what was known about the law at the time.

So, ignorance of the law actually is an acceptable defense?

because police were acting in good faith under what was known about the law at the time.

A terrible smell.

‘Good faith’ is such a weak reasoning. How can it be used for the actions of officials, and even more so when they act against constitutional rights? Shouldn’t a police know both what the law is and what they are doing? What if the police and this court are both equally clueless about the law?