[NYRepublican72]

Why do they need a warrant if they presumably had one for the Weiner investigation, exactly? If they open up Outlook for example to look for e-mails from Weiner to his underage accusers and happen to stumble upon Huma/Clinton e-mails, is there a tenable argument that they exceeded the boundaries of the warrant or would the plain sight rule come into play?

Any FReepers in law enforcement or criminal lawyers have an idea?

[FredZarguna]

offduty and I have a running argument about that on this thread. I believe anything seen on this computer under a warrant is covered under the doctrine of Plain View. You're looking for X, and while searching for X, you happen to see Y. Y is not covered by the warrant, but is evidence of a crime and is not in my opinion, covered by the Exclusionary Rule.

I also happen to believe that if the reports are correct, this laptop was voluntarily surrendered. When police are given consent to search (either by the target of an investigation or by a third party with control over a premises) they do not need a warrant, and they do not have to be searching for specific items at all.