As for your assertions about Rodriguez, I think you'd better reread the opinion, which states, inter alia:
But as we have discussed, what is at issue when a claim of apparent consent is raised is not whether the right to be free of searches has been waived, but whether the right to be free of unreasonable searches has been violated.
The freedom from unreasonable searches is all the Exclusionary Rule protects, and that protection was not violated in Rodriguez.
Yes, obtaining a warrant should merely be pro forma but there is no reason to believe that anything seen in pursuing the vice case is not covered under either voluntary surrender or plain view, and NOTHING has been endangered by the actions of the NYPD or Bharara's office in this investigation.
You and I will have to agree to disagree. My thoughts on this are yes, the emails from Hillary to Huma or whatever may be covered under “plain view” but does that only go to the header and not the contents? Could the case be jeopardized by someone going further and opening the email.
I am not sure Huma voluntarily gave the computer to the NYPD. It was stated on another thread that the US Attorney had issued a search warrant for the computer and if that is the case, you know there are limits to the warrant.
Yes, I was a cop and I’ve had evidence thrown out because the Judge thought we went too far. In other words...you found the box...you control the box...you have time to get a search warrant to “open” the box.
And I did re-read Rodriquez and you are correct, I mis-read the appellate courts language as the Court’s language, I stand corrected.