drawn at every ISP that hosted the connection.
According to the article, the ISP had been questioned, and had provided the address of the router from which the requests/data had passed. Of course, they know that ISPs are just service providers, and the law gives them protections as well, so your suggestion is silly.
On the other hand, most of the time when a router has been hosting child pornography, the computers in the house are the ones that were involved.
Even if they could secretly invade the guy's router and dump the information, and found that some other computer had been hooked to the router, it would still be likely that the offending computers were in the house.
They found out about the other computers as a result of serving the warrant on the house and going through the computers and router at that address. Just as they found out about the house by going to the ISP that hosted his connection.
You keep acting like this is some bizarre police action, when in fact it is simply following the evidence, something police do routinely. And yes, that means they question people that they find to be innocent, and those questions can lead them to the next clue.
I don't think most of the people here object to the search warrant per se. I think probable cause existed, and a search warrant was justified. I think most people object to the way the warrant was served - breaking down the door in the middle of the night with guns drawn. This could easily have ended with an innocent man (or his family members) or some law enforcement officers wounded or dead, particularly in states where people take the 2nd Amendment seriously. And if they wanted to question them as part of serving the search warrant, they should have mirandized them, as being held at gunpoint by law enforcement certainly qualifies as being in custody.
I don't think most of the people here object to the search warrant per se. I think probable cause existed, and a search warrant was justified. I think most people object to the way the warrant was served - breaking down the door in the middle of the night with guns drawn. This could easily have ended with an innocent man (or his family members) or some law enforcement officers wounded or dead, particularly in states where people take the 2nd Amendment seriously. And if they wanted to question them as part of serving the search warrant, they should have mirandized them, as being held at gunpoint by law enforcement certainly qualifies as being in custody.
Great so our rights are now based on "most of the time" status. So if most of the time serial killers are white males (which is true) we must provide white males less rights since most of the time they are the culprit.
We don't need a constitution or rights when the seriousness of the charges outweigh the individual liberties and freedoms of a single person/family--right?
So you're saying the ISP has more rights than an individual in this country. Why not afford the individual the same rights that the ISP has? They assumed it wasn't an ISP owner or employee that was doing this when they requested the details on the IP address. If that person worked at the ISP they could have destroyed the evidence. But guns drawn weren't needed there. But they were at a house that had an open wifi device--and anyone who knows anything about wifi knows that anyone could attach and surf from it. Pretty much the same situation as the ISP has...but the ISP was provided a reasonable request and they answered.
But they weren't...so you're argument that likely really doesn't cut it here.
Yes, it is bizarre that the police would not know it was an open wifi device BEFORE breaking into a home with guns drawn and risking life of those in the house and those of LE. It really doesn't make any sense. They should better investigative work before resorting to gestapo tactics. Now if they thought a child was locked up in the house...yes what they did made sense because a life was on the line.