Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

POTUS 45.65: I'm Just Here For The Lincoln Project Ads

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by MichVandal View Post

    That's how it was explained. They may be finding state secrets that were a crime to take, but if they find other criminal paperwork within those documents, they can be used.

    Or put a more relatable way- if you are found with drugs when you are being searched for trafficking alcohol, the drug charges can be brought.
    That the same way we've seen on LivePD of a simple traffic stop for speeding escalate into trafficking 80 lbs of weed?
    “Demolish the bridges behind you… then there is no choice but to build again.”

    Live Radio from 100.3

    Comment


    • Originally posted by dxmnkd316 View Post

      I thought they basically go back and ask the judge to amend the warrant? As long as it's found within the boundaries of the existing warrant, it's not poisoned. I thought I remember Orin Kerr describing that a week or two ago but could be mistaken.

      Edit: Meaning, if the warrant says you can search the person's safe for drugs, if you also find evidence they kidnapped the Lindbergh baby in the safe, it's not automatically inadmissible.
      I believe you are right. Otherwise the particularity language in the 4th would be rendered meaningless.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by aparch View Post

        That the same way we've seen on LivePD of a simple traffic stop for speeding escalate into trafficking 80 lbs of weed?
        That is a little different situation as that is likely brought on by **something** being in "plain sight".

        A better example would be if a business has a warrant issued for their Payroll records and then kiddie porn is found on the same hard drive that the payroll records are kept.
        It's never too early to start the Pre-game festivities

        Go Cats!!! GO BLACKHAWKS!

        Cuck the Fubs... Let's Go WHITE SOX!!!

        Wildcat Born, Wildcat Bred....

        Comment


        • Originally posted by burd View Post

          I believe you are right. Otherwise the particularity language in the 4th would be rendered meaningless.
          The particularity is to allow the search. "We believe person X possesses Y. Here's the evidence giving us probable cause to believe so, and here's where we'd like to search."

          Cops can then look wherever Y could be located in the places being searched. If they find Z during the search for Y, that is still admissible, provided Z was either in plain sight or in a place Y could've been found.

          Say they're looking for a samurai sword; they can look in the closet but not inside the shoeboxes within the closet. If instead they're looking for a Saturday night special pistol, they could open the shoeboxes. If they find drugs in there while looking for the pistol, that's still admissible evidence.

          Same thing with phones. If they seize your phone looking for evidence of drug sales, but find child porn during the phone dump, that's still admissible.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by unofan View Post

            The particularity is to allow the search. "We believe person X possesses Y. Here's the evidence giving us probable cause to believe so, and here's where we'd like to search."

            Cops can then look wherever Y could be located in the places being searched. If they find Z during the search for Y, that is still admissible, provided Z was either in plain sight or in a place Y could've been found.

            Say they're looking for a samurai sword; they can look in the closet but not inside the shoeboxes within the closet. If instead they're looking for a Saturday night special pistol, they could open the shoeboxes. If they find drugs in there while looking for the pistol, that's still admissible evidence.

            Same thing with phones. If they seize your phone looking for evidence of drug sales, but find child porn during the phone dump, that's still admissible.
            makes sense. Thx for clarification.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by dxmnkd316 View Post

              You might be right, I don't think the situation is the same should they assassinate a former US President on US soil.
              We can always go to the classic move:

              Cornell University
              National Champion 1967, 1970
              ECAC Champion 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1973, 1980, 1986, 1996, 1997, 2003, 2005, 2010
              Ivy League Champion 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1977, 1978, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1996, 1997, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2012, 2014, 2018, 2019, 2020

              Comment


              • Originally posted by unofan View Post

                The particularity is to allow the search. "We believe person X possesses Y. Here's the evidence giving us probable cause to believe so, and here's where we'd like to search."

                Cops can then look wherever Y could be located in the places being searched. If they find Z during the search for Y, that is still admissible, provided Z was either in plain sight or in a place Y could've been found.

                Say they're looking for a samurai sword; they can look in the closet but not inside the shoeboxes within the closet. If instead they're looking for a Saturday night special pistol, they could open the shoeboxes. If they find drugs in there while looking for the pistol, that's still admissible evidence.

                Same thing with phones. If they seize your phone looking for evidence of drug sales, but find child porn during the phone dump, that's still admissible.
                The shoebox example is really good. Thanks.
                Code:
                As of 9/21/10:         As of 9/13/10:
                College Hockey 6       College Football 0
                BTHC 4                 WCHA FC:  1
                Originally posted by SanTropez
                May your paint thinner run dry and the fleas of a thousand camels infest your dead deer.
                Originally posted by bigblue_dl
                I don't even know how to classify magic vagina smoke babies..
                Originally posted by Kepler
                When the giraffes start building radio telescopes they can join too.
                He's probably going to be a superstar but that man has more baggage than North West

                Comment


                • Originally posted by dxmnkd316 View Post

                  The shoebox example is really good. Thanks.
                  Yes, that was great.
                  Cornell University
                  National Champion 1967, 1970
                  ECAC Champion 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1973, 1980, 1986, 1996, 1997, 2003, 2005, 2010
                  Ivy League Champion 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1977, 1978, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1996, 1997, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2012, 2014, 2018, 2019, 2020

                  Comment


                  • Dump tried to push officials to Prosecute those he didn’t like

                    https://***********/katiephang/statu...0XQAO2bAnK6pvQ

                    Comment


                    • Dumpy big mad about this ad, threatening to sue Fox News for airing

                      https://***********/projectlincoln/s...0XQAO2bAnK6pvQ

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Deutsche Gopher Fan View Post
                        Dump tried to push officials to Prosecute those he didn’t like

                        https://***********/katiephang/statu...0XQAO2bAnK6pvQ
                        The irony of his worshipers thinking this is some kind of political witch hunt.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Deutsche Gopher Fan View Post
                          Dumpy big mad about this ad, threatening to sue Fox News for airing

                          https://***********/projectlincoln/s...0XQAO2bAnK6pvQ
                          Please sue. You need more distractions for your "lawyers".

                          edit- and the content of the message is pretty amusing, too- when the people who were ripped off cheered when the person who ripped them off got a pardon. That's kind of hard to fathom, but it very much happened. And they are super angry that Bannon and co are still going to be held accountable for ripping them off.

                          Getting that kind of worship is special.
                          Last edited by MichVandal; 09-08-2022, 10:09 AM.

                          Comment


                          • They don't care how bad they get ripped off, long as they're owning the libs.
                            What kind of cheese are you planning to put on top?

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Deutsche Gopher Fan View Post
                              Dumpy big mad about this ad, threatening to sue Fox News for airing

                              https://***********/projectlincoln/s...0XQAO2bAnK6pvQ
                              I think at this point we need a big long scroll of people he "threatened to sue" but never did.

                              Cornell '04, Stanford '06


                              KDR

                              Rover Frenchy, Classic! Great post.
                              iwh30 I wish I could be as smart as you. I really do you are the man
                              gregg729 I just saw your sig, you do love having people revel in your "intelligence."
                              Ritt18 you are the perfect representation of your alma mater.
                              Miss Thundercat That's it, you win.
                              TBA#2 I want to kill you and dance in your blood.
                              DisplacedCornellian Hahaha. Thread over. Frenchy wins.

                              Test to see if I can add this.

                              Comment


                              • The ad is so beautifully done I could watch it over and over again.

                                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BJ0vPIo9eyY
                                **NOTE: The misleading post above was brought to you by Reynold's Wrap and American Steeples, makers of Crosses.

                                Originally Posted by dropthatpuck-Scooby's a lost cause.
                                Originally Posted by First Time, Long Time-Always knew you were nothing but a troll.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X