Quote:
|
Originally Posted by The_Jazz
Let's put it in another light - what if during the serving of a completely legitimate search warrant for a completely open-and-shut murder case, the murder weapon is discovered on top of a map labeled "other murders" showing where other bodies are buried. Is that map off limits and therefore the other murders? A search warrant is necessary to investigate those other murder sites since they're all private property. I can't imagine that there's some invisible line being crossed here.
|
In this instance that you've described, i'd say they are perfectly within the law to get warrants for the other places specified on the map. This isn't quite in line with the scenario I had above though. Say, for instance, your scenario warrants don't come up with anything. no bodies or evidence that there was anything buried there. Should the police be able to go back to the home where they found that map and now search the entire place because they stumbled upon something that looks to have been faked or didn't turn up any crime?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by The_Jazz
The courts have held that those engaged in criminal enterprise have no right to privacy and indeed it seems like more of a common sense issue to me than a Constitutional one.
If the government has credible evidence that a crime is being committed, then I wholeheartedly support their duty to collect evidence on that crime. The 4th does not define "unreasonable", but I agree that there is a point where a line is crossed between execution of a duty and harrassment.
|
and this is where the grey line for scarfo comes in. They could find no evidence because of the encryption, so they were allowed basically unfettered access multiple times with only the one warrant. Would anything that he typed on the computer at that time be subject to prosecution?