←back to thread

558 points mikece | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | 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 #
SamoyedFurFluff ◴[] No.45030548[source]
I mean, at minimum I doubt anything on his phone is relevant from a year, two years ago.
replies(1): >>45032155 #
1. pcaharrier ◴[] No.45032155{3}[source]
This a good point too. Information can become "stale" to the point that it's no longer enough to support a search warrant or a conviction. One example of such a holding here (though the defendant lost the motion to suppress on other grounds): https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3002057/united-states-...