Authorities can search and seize property of any civilian without a warrant if said civilian is just a witness? If yes, then who decides and how is it decided that someone is a witness?
If for example I happen to stand in front of my window and witness a crime being committed in the street, they could search my house without any consent or warrant?
* https://www.ccc.de/en/updates/2018/hausdurchsuchungen-bei-ve...
* https://blog.torservers.net/20180704/coordinated-raids-of-zw...
The long and short of it is that there was a warrant, the question is whether the warrant itself was issued on a legitimate basis.
That is probably not an instance, where a search warrant would be reasonable. But if for example you denounce someone for embezzlement, and during the investigation it comes to light that you have profited from this act of embezzlement yourself, a search warrant would be given (against you) despite of you beeing a witness.
>> they could search my house without any consent or warrant?
They do need a warrant, handed out by a judge. The idea is, that a judge gets a request for a warrant and decides if it is reasonable or not. The problem is, that the judiciary is so overwrought, that almost any judge will decide in favor of a warrant, even if its not reasonable.
I am almost certain, that this warrant would not be reasonable if a judge with time had thought about what actually happens here.
So a judge who makes mistakes like this, should be kicked out. Of course, that will never happen. I'm not sure if there is even a reasonable procedure to file a complaint and get such a judge kicked out.
> The warrant lists specific items. This was not respected.
Assuming that fact, was it legal?
[1] https://blog.torservers.net/20180704/coordinated-raids-of-zw...
But that discussion is pretty useless, since our version of the exclusionary rule is more toothless than an American could possibly imagine. Basically, everything found can be used in court.