SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : View from the Center and Left
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Ilaine who wrote (21275)6/16/2006 6:11:25 PM
From: Lane3  Read Replies (1) of 541908
 
Your idea, that this will help keep evidence from being destroyed was already answered years ago, when an exception was carved out for cases where there was reasonable suspicion that evidence would be destroyed.

I thought that was the scenario in the SC case. I thought that they had a special warrant that allowed them to knock, announce, wait fifteen seconds, and then burst in. In which case all that's at issue is the redundant knock and the ten second difference. I didn't think they were talking about a standard warrant where there is no particular expectation of evidence being destroyed or the inhabitants shooting at the cops or any of those other exceptions. Are you telling me this was an ordinary case of cops getting a warrant for someone's emails in a fraud case, the kind of warrant where they wait for you to answer the door? If it is, the SC hearing the case seems pointless to me.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News