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.
It’s not “more rights” — there was no expectation that the offender was using the ISP computers. I just don’t understand your argument. I wouldn’t expect the police would go into AT&T with guns blazing if they picked up a phone conversation indicating someone was breaking the law either; they would use standard procedure to gain access to the AT&T database to find the location of the phone call.
But they WOULD break into the house. IF they then found someone had hooked up a wire to the house, and was calling from somewhere else, that’s what they would learn based on their warrant search of that house.
It seems like you are asking the police to always act as if there is some further-distanced perpetrator who is purposely or accidentally setting up the identified suspect. It doesn’t make sense.
Now, if your complaint is simply that they shouldn’t have gone in with guns drawn, well I don’t like that tactic either, and it’s used all too often. I understand that the police always think they might meet an armed felon ready to blow them away, but frankly that’s what we pay them for.
But I don’t think whether they come in with guns or not should be based on how certain they are that the house they are invading is the right house with the right perpetrator. The warrant is what established that standard.