Posted on 01/13/2025 1:35:09 AM PST by CFW
The Wyoming Supreme Court is considering whether and when it’s appropriate for law enforcement agents to search a criminal defendant’s lawyer.
Jason Gay, of Tynsky Law Office, filed a petition last week to the state’s highest court, asking it to decide if it’s unreasonable for sheriff’s deputies to search a lawyer and his office – and potentially his home – when the attorney isn’t suspected of a crime, among other questions.
The contested case isn't clear-cut: Gay's client is both a defendant in a criminal case and the victim of alleged crimes.
Gay represents Chet Walker, a Robertson, Wyoming, man accused of multiple counts of violating a protection order his wife had against him, during a monthlong tumultuous relationship and falling out between the pair.
A Uinta County Sheriff’s Deputy went to the local jail to interview Walker on Oct. 11.
Walker told the deputy there was a video on his phone that he wanted to submit as evidence that his wife had violated a protection order, court documents say.
Walker’s phone also has videos of his wife attacking him, according to the court file.
Walker offered to hand his phone over to the authorities – to verify certain original videos.
But Gay had the phone in his possession since Walker was in jail, and Gay had been using it to find case evidence, says Gay’s petition.
(Excerpt) Read more at cowboystatedaily.com ...
Very disconcerting.
I imagine they could also solve a lot of crimes if they started water-boarding priests to find out what has been said at confession.
I'm thi king the ex wa is his whole phone searched for other crimes.
All in all, the client and the lawyer are both pretty stupid for not extracting the evidence needed and getting the phone itself out of the picture ASAP.
The sheriff's office and the migistrait are hiding something. It's an obvious witch hunt, Blanket searches are illegal in the United States.
Already was done to Giuliani and Cohen in connection with Trump. But not in Wyoming.
It seems to me that if the phone's owner (Walker) wants the phone turned over to the police for any reason, then his lawyer's possession should be terminated. Gay is using the phone for some purpose, but the owner wants it used by a different agency for a different purpose.
Why should the lawyer be allowed to hold onto the phone against the owner's wishes? Semantically, this is theft on the lawyer's part in my mind.
Yeah, I don't this one will float.. The lawyers pretty much own the legal system nowadays and there ain't noway they'll stand still for this one.
You can’t search a lawyer or anybody else without probable cause. The rules are the same.
The police are not your friends and the search of Gay was not find favor to Walker.
I agree that the police are not your friends. I'm confused by "not find favor" in the sentence - can you rephrase it? (If it's a law term, I clearly don't have the background needed!)
The cops were not looking for evidence to help Walker.
The various law channels on YT are educational.
I’m confused.. Did the guy tell his lawyer to Shari the phone with the popo, and the lawyer refused to do so, against his client’s wishes?
Or did Walker say he’d share the phone, so the popo just went to the lawyer’s house and took it?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.