←back to thread

558 points mikece | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.305s | source
Show context
duxup ◴[] No.45029937[source]
>Michael Carson became the focus of a theft investigation involving money allegedly taken from a neighbor’s safe.

>Authorities secured a warrant to search his phone, but the document placed no boundaries on what could be examined.

>It permitted access to all data on the device, including messages, photos, contacts, and documents, without any restriction based on time period or relevance. Investigators collected over a thousand pages of information, much of it unrelated to the accusation.

Yeah that's pretty absurd.

replies(3): >>45030333 #>>45030529 #>>45030813 #
sidewndr46 ◴[] No.45030529[source]
What's more absurd is that a warrant could ever establish such a restriction. If the suspect had a file named "Not evidence of me stealing my neighbor's safe" and "Definitely not a video of me practicing how to break open a safe" would it be fair to assume the warrant doesn't allow access to it?
replies(6): >>45030548 #>>45030683 #>>45030701 #>>45030787 #>>45031342 #>>45031513 #
1. lesuorac ◴[] No.45030701[source]
If the warrant doesn't have a restrictions on it then it's a "General Warrant" and that was a major complaint of the founders of the USA.

They really didn't like it when cops showed up and took their furniture (think filing cabinet) because "it might contain evidence of sedition".