[Gondring]

What this decision means to Stuart Romm is beside the point. The legal precedent is ominous for plenty of innocent people who accidentally stumble across illegal images.

And here we are again, where any American who loves the Constitution should know that Mr. Romm's case is not the point...it's the more general idea of "possession" being the crime.

Anything that can be used against the criminal can be used against the citizen, which is why proper safeguards must always be in place. In this case, since innocent people have been convicted (or had to go through great trouble and embarrassment in fighting prosecution), we know the proper safeguards are not in place. This, of course, is a different issue from the laptop searching.

[Fred Nerks]

"(or had to go through great trouble and embarrassment in fighting prosecution)"

Examples?