The EFF article completely mischaracterizes a 90% legitimate warrant.
http://www.eff.org/files/filenode/inresearchBC/EXHIBIT-A.pdf
The EFF article completely mischaracterizes a 90% legitimate warrant.
http://www.eff.org/files/filenode/inresearchBC/EXHIBIT-A.pdf
>> he has "fixed" computers so that they cannot be scanned by any system for detection of illegal downloads and illegal internet use, "jail breaks" cell phones, possibly stolen ones, for people so that the phones can be used on networks other than they are meant for
He expects full control over his property and doesn't just do what he's told? We're obviously dealing with a loose cannon here!
LOL - saw your edit; how dare he want to actually own his property! :) I'd argue that the governing body that wishes to achieve the goal of nothing else (where a crime was not committed) but scanning his computer, is conducting an illegal act!
But this part kills me: "Mr. Calixte has access into ""'s computer as he set it up for him when they were friends and he knows the password. The computer has been looked at by several experts and none of them can resolve the problem."
WOW- maybe Mr. Calixte is the ultimate cryptographer and completely disguised his activity so stealthy that the so-called 'experts' cannot find the problem! NO. The problem is that there is no problem. And what the hell is wrong with the computer owner? Someone needs a lesson in password management 101.
That's not the correct standard of evidence for the allegations supporting a search warrant.
Yes, I am a lawyer.
About 20 years ago, I was driving home from work (Atlanta). I was still in college and was a co-op student at "big blue". Great job, I worked 7 days a week and actually slept under my desk at times. This one night I was driving home around 2am. I think it was a Thursday, could have been Friday. A cop in Decatur (That's home to Emory) pulls me over in front of the courthouse for a having a broken headlight. Fair enough, I was a poor college student, but I'll take the ticket. Not good enough for him, he was trolling for drunk drivers. He spent a lot of time asking me questions and after shining a flashlight throughout my car asked me if he could search my trunk. I told him "no sir, I don't think that has anything to do with a broken headlight". The next words from him were "get out of the car, boy". It went downhill from there. It was a very abusive next 30 minutes...he was careful to tell me it was only him and me out there, no witnesses, until he finally searched my trunk anyway (which he could do now that I was arrested)...in the end, the judge sent me home knowing full well what happened and didn't so much as admonish the police.
Since this happened to me, I've been careful to notice the stories of others. There are some great police officers throughout America; they deserve our respect. Unfortunately, the "brotherhood" protects the bad ones as well.
It would be great if you could explain (to us non lawyers) what did constitute a correct standard of evidence.
http://www.criminal-law-lawyer-source.com/terms/probable-cau...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probable_cause
rather than "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" (which is what is needed for a criminal conviction) and definitely is at a level such that sometimes places are searched or items are seized that never end up resulting in a criminal prosecution. The case mentioned in this thread involved a search warrant affidavit mentioning facts that made reasonable a belief that the items seized should be looked at as possibly related to a crime.