What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
MichVandal said:
"but that also says there are documents that he owns, right? How else would there be just one document in a box?" says a concerned sic.
Click to expand...

Which is the equivalent to jamming a confidential finance report from the CFO in your box of desk doo-dads and knick knacks hoping that security doesn't notice on the way out as you leave the company. And then the company realizing you have said financial report a year later.

Conservatives wanted the Government to be run like a business, and they got it.
 
aparch said:
Which is the equivalent to jamming a confidential finance report from the CFO in your box of desk doo-dads and knick knacks hoping that security doesn't notice on the way out as you leave the company. And then the company realizing you have said financial report a year later.

Conservatives wanted the Government to be run like a business, and they got it.
Click to expand...

From some other lawyer analysis I've seen- if you find illegal *stuff* while doing a legal search for other documents, they can be used against that person. But I'm sure this will only apply to the "right" people according to sic.
 
aparch said:
Which is the equivalent to jamming a confidential finance report from the CFO in your box of desk doo-dads and knick knacks hoping that security doesn't notice on the way out as you leave the company. And then the company realizing you have said financial report a year later.

Conservatives wanted the Government to be run like a business, and they got it.
Click to expand...

This is the best breakdown I have seen. Well done!
 
Sadly yes... If Dump refuses to bite his Cyanide capsule, things get mighty hairy for his employer to come after him, no matter how dirty he is.
 
MichVandal said:
From some other lawyer analysis I've seen- if you find illegal *stuff* while doing a legal search for other documents, they can be used against that person. But I'm sure this will only apply to the "right" people according to sic.
Click to expand...

I didn't practice crim law, but it seems the following language from the 4th A suggests it's not that simple:

"and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Might be an "incremental step" situation. Mrs. uno will know.
 
burd said:
I didn't practice crim law, but it seems the following language from the 4th A suggests it's not that simple:

"and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Might be an "incremental step" situation. Mrs. uno will know.
Click to expand...

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.
 
dxmnkd316 said:
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.
Click to expand...
But it also has to be truly an “accidental” discovery. If you get a warrant to search for a stolen car, you can’t rifle through the papers in a filing cabinet because there’s no reasonable possibility that you’d find the car there. Now if your warrant is to look for papers, then pretty much anywhere that papers might reasonably be stashed would be in bounds.
 
dxmnkd316 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
MichVandal said:
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.
Click to expand...

That the same way we've seen on LivePD of a simple traffic stop for speeding escalate into trafficking 80 lbs of weed?
 
dxmnkd316 said:
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.
Click to expand...

I believe you are right. Otherwise the particularity language in the 4th would be rendered meaningless.
 
aparch said:
That the same way we've seen on LivePD of a simple traffic stop for speeding escalate into trafficking 80 lbs of weed?
Click to expand...

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.
 
burd said:
I believe you are right. Otherwise the particularity language in the 4th would be rendered meaningless.
Click to expand...

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.
 
unofan said:
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.
Click to expand...

makes sense. Thx for clarification.
 
dxmnkd316 said:
You might be right, I don't think the situation is the same should they assassinate a former US President on US soil.
Click to expand...

We can always go to the classic move:

46g4ik.jpg
 
unofan said:
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.
Click to expand...

The shoebox example is really good. Thanks.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top