Am I misunderstanding? They grabbed the phone with a potentially bogus warrant? But then — after they grabbed the phone — they went and got a second warrant. So that makes it all OK?
Calvinball Rules
Do I have that right?
How could that not stand up to a legal challenge, if I interpret it correctly?????
What would stop any agency from seizing property without a warrant, pawing through it to look for things, then saying "we can't find the warrant" but using what they found in their seizure and search to fill in the blanks for something specific?
This stinks to high heaven, if I interpret that correctly.
Sound to me like something ought to happen to a _____ about which I cannot speak.
The judge’s order states that the phone was seized, the fbi would not provide proof of a search warrant, Eastman sued to get his property back since there was no evidence of a warrant. A hearing was set for Sep 6th. Meanwhile, the fbi replied that it was awaiting a second warrant to examine the contents of the phone. The judge accepting that claim of a 2nd warrant as proof that at least one warrant existed, canceled the hearing.