Posted on 10/29/2016 6:28:46 PM PDT by hotsteppa
I’ve noticed that in history there are many fools who fail to appreciate who they should heed.
For example Winston Churchill.
I recently learned that starting out in the early 30s, Churchill had a friend with access to secret intel. Not sure I have the name spelled correctly:
Dezmund Morton/Norton.
That intel was mainly about secret German plans to build up their military. People failed to listen. Called Churchill a ‘war monger’. They shunned him. France did too.
Of course, if Chuchill had been silent there would have been even less motivation to prepare. But he pressured England just enough that they devoloped a vital radar system and the Spitfire. I doubt he personally had anything to do directly with such developments, but people sensed danger.
People here might have indirectly inspired Wikileaks and O’Keef, maybe through someone three levels down the grapevine.
Wouldn’t it be ultimate irony if Hillary! was taken down by another wayward Weiner
“....there would be a sender and receiver clearly marked in the header...”
There would be a sender/receiver but quite possibly that same sender/receiver could be operating under a plethora of monikers which would necessitate looking through more than the obvious.
For the evidence to be considered tainted, wouldn’t it depend on who stumbled upon it? The only roll they are playing is whistleblower, and possibly witness. Say if it’s Family Services or some other state agency who alerts the FBI.
It takes about 30 minutes to write up a subpoena. Maybe another hour or two to get a judge to sign off on it.
Any attempt to distract from the main subject by saying there is no subpoena is spin.
If the DOJ is dragging its collective feet on providing a subpoena then the Dems are simply blowing smoke by raising this issue.
Your point is well taken, but the document you sighted also showed a case where the police, under a search warrant for a specific item, found child pornography on the suspect’s computer. The detective spent the next 5 hours chronicling the depth of the pornography. The court held that only the first email was admissible and granted the motion to suppress on the remainder.
Until there is sufficient case law that settles the single vs multiple container issue, we have different Circuit court definitions of what can be viewed under plain view and what cannot.
The bottom line is, I still believe the US Attorney’s office is trying to get it’s ducks in a row before going to a Judge and asking for a search warrant. Since the computer is physically controlled by the police, there is no hurry to get the warrant and they area trying to get it right.
One more interesting note...someone pointed out the emails were work product of either Huma or Hillary acting in their official capacities in the State Department. Since that email is technically “government property” is this just an exercise that could be resolved easily. What say you?
The problem is not with sufficiency, there is plenty of that. The problem is that the Supreme Court needs to resolve differing interpretations in lower courts. However, I disagree this is a plain view problem. The problem really is in defining the extent of a warrant's scope when a computer or mobile device is involved.
In the pornography case you cite, their is no plain view issue: the warrant describes a search for pornography on a computer, and the court held that the scope of the warrant did not extend to other areas on the computer searched for the same evidence. It's more like: you get a warrant to look for child pornography films, and wind up finding some on a usb drive in a coffee can. ["Elephant in a matchbox" restriction.]
I still believe the US Attorney’s office is trying to get it’s ducks in a row.
I'm not sure what the USA office is doing. Personally, I think they're just stalling. But we don't disagree that caution is proper and getting a new warrant is the best thing.
Since that email is technically “government property” is this just an exercise that could be resolved easily.
I don't think so. I've read other FReepers making this claim on other threads. But it isn't the content necessarily that creates the issue. Remember the Exclusionary Rule is a protection against violating a restriction on searches and seizures which are unreasonable.
Occasionally, the seizure of property is itself an issue, but that's pretty rare (outside of forfeiture cases.) In the instant case, I don't think anyone would say that taking possession of government property or work product is unreasonable. But even though it's US gov't property, the search for it can still be deemed unreasonable, which would make its discovery tainted.
Take the computer out of it, and ask the same question: a veteran is believed to have stolen some computers before discharge, which he has under his bed. The computers are clearly still DoD property. Can the police break down his door without a warrant? No.
If Anthony Weiner or any other private party saw the material, no warrant is required. If anyone acting under government authority saw them, a new warrant may not be absolutely necessary depending on a number of factors, but only the dumbest lawyer in the world would fail to file a new, more descriptive affidavit and get a new warrant. There is case law covering that.
By the way: a very enjoyable discussion. Thank you.
Giggity.
Just a note to say that I appreciate your compilations. I know that this work takes a lot of time and dedication, and I appreciate it very much.
Glad to help. Thank you for the encouragement!
You’re very welcome!
Your points are spot on. I think we agree more than disagree on this. You obviously have extensive training in the law. I agree the Supreme Court will ultimately have to decide what standard will be used.
Having executed many search warrants in my former career and also having Judges throw out evidence that you would think would fall under “plain view” I guess the definition of “plain view” is in the eye of the beholder.
A good discussion as well. Thanks for your expertise on the issue.
Yep - earlier I was saying "Comey/Holder/Lynch have so tainted the "Justice" System that it is no longer relevant to justice".
Holder was terrible and Lynch doubled down - as only a Leftists woman would be wont to do....
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.