4 ms·
1) This is only partially accurate - it expands the venues for warrant applications, but it doesn't do it willy-nilly. The government would be allowed to "shop
by tomku 10y ago
1) This is only partially accurate - it expands the venues for warrant applications, but it doesn't do it willy-nilly. The government would be allowed to "shop" for judges inside of the set of jurisdictions where illegal activity allegedly took place. Obviously if you're conspiracy-minded you could claim that the government will claim that every hacking attempt includes a target in Nowhere City, Wyoming where a judge that's particularly enthusiastic about remote searches is, but that's something that could actually be challenged at trial. I share your concern about being able to find a "lowest common denominator" judge though, even if it's not across the entire country.
2) This rule doesn't really change the legality of the FBI hacking foreign PCs, something that I don't personally support either. It makes it easier to get warrants that might result in foreign searches, but as you note, just because a warrant is legal in the US doesn't mean that another country will smile and say "Oh, it's fine". This is one of the reasons I don't like "remote searches" in general.
- esbranson 10y ago> that's something that could actually be challenged at trial How so? How is a judicial order challengable because the judge is in Wyoming? Or are you saying that the defense is going to bring a mind reader to testify about the motives of the government?
- azernik 10y agoWhen you're at trial, you claim the search warrant is invalid because the judge lacked jurisdiction, and try to get all the evidence obtained through that warrant thrown out. It has NOTHING to do with motive - if the warrant is improperly obtained it doesn't matter what the motive of the government was. See e.g. http://www.socalcriminallawyer.com/challenging-the-validity-of-a-search-warrant-california/ http://www.socalcriminallawyer.com/challenging-the-validity-...