> How is an IP address even remotely considered "evidence" enough to search someone's home? Because it localises a particular network request to a piece of har

> How is an IP address even remotely considered "evidence" enough to search someone's home? Because it localises a particular network request to a piece of hardware, e.g. a modem, located within that home. In my opinion, in the absence of evidence that someone was running a Tor exit node, or that their wireless network was unprotected, there is a high probability that the network request was originally sent by a device within that home, or by a network user known to the owner. Regular people aren't like technical people: a lot of them have no idea that their nefarious behaviour can and will be tracked back to their home. I would guess that most warrants granted solely on an IP address actually turn up incriminating evidence.