Suppose a private entity commits a state crime, and their defense is "the feds made us do it"... except it's not true, and the feds merely offered a negotiated cash deal, and never took any of the required steps to prove a legitimate need and actually compel action.
Even if I have sympathy for the person/company caught between competing jurisdictions, "they have reputation and I like money" simply isn't a credible defense against the state-crime charges.
> Realistically if Flock didn't cooperate, the Federal government would just show up with a warrant, subpoena, or other document.
Not necessarily, their ability to get a warrant/ subpoena is not a foregone conclusion... If it were, we wouldn't even have the test/authorization system in the first place!
A prediction is not a substitute for the process. Imagine the same equivalence being used to kill a suspected murderer: "Well I was really sure sure the guy would get the death penalty in a trial anyway, so... No problem, right?"
> Cooperating with the Federal government cannot plausibly be a crime in the United States.
Quibble: I'm pretty sure you intended to include it, but this is missing an important "legal under federal law" piece. If a real government agent shows up at your door telling you to do something heinous like strangle a baby, there is no plausible way that's legal just because you "cooperated with" the agent.
While I can see your point about "strangle a baby", I don't think there are any events that unfolded like that. If someone shows up and asks me for something they technically aren't supposed to have, how am I supposed to know that?
> If someone shows up and asks me for something they technically aren't supposed to have, how am I supposed to know
Well, in this case, you know because "you" happen to be a ~$3.5b company with a legal department that already works regularly on negotiations and compliance to state/local rules, and likely months to calmly investigate and decide on a policy.
Has Flock Security made any statements claiming they were tricked or rushed by the feds?
No because there would be no reason for them to do that. I'm not even sure how an agent could "trick" someone in this scenario.
But if some federal agents show up & ask for some data then you respond with "sure, let me just run this by legal" they might just follow up with "OK, take a few days if you need to. The DoJ has really been breathing down our backs to go over these mortgage documents you signed last year. We can use this time to do that"
Replace your mortage with your daughter, brother-in-law, cousin, or whatever family member you prefer.
Even if I have sympathy for the person/company caught between competing jurisdictions, "they have reputation and I like money" simply isn't a credible defense against the state-crime charges.
> Realistically if Flock didn't cooperate, the Federal government would just show up with a warrant, subpoena, or other document.
Not necessarily, their ability to get a warrant/ subpoena is not a foregone conclusion... If it were, we wouldn't even have the test/authorization system in the first place!
A prediction is not a substitute for the process. Imagine the same equivalence being used to kill a suspected murderer: "Well I was really sure sure the guy would get the death penalty in a trial anyway, so... No problem, right?"
> Cooperating with the Federal government cannot plausibly be a crime in the United States.
Quibble: I'm pretty sure you intended to include it, but this is missing an important "legal under federal law" piece. If a real government agent shows up at your door telling you to do something heinous like strangle a baby, there is no plausible way that's legal just because you "cooperated with" the agent.