You agree with the judge in all aspects save the not requiring a warrant in the first place-- which i think is the only strange there here at all. The judge rul

You agree with the judge in all aspects save the not requiring a warrant in the first place-- which i think is the only strange there here at all. The judge ruled exactly as you think. The defendant argued that the warrant lacked jurisdiction, being based in VA and he lived in FL. The rules of warrants allow for implanting of tracking devices in the jurisdiction and its ok if they are then taken out of the jurisdiction. the judge argued that you take a digital trip to Virginia's servers, download the porn, and then head back to florida with the contraband. This met the interpretation of the warrant issuing guidelines so it was a valid warrant under the rules. Further, the warrant specified who and what was to be collected: IP address, mac address and a few others. The IP address was actually provided by the client "voluntarily" when the rest of the payload came back. But the stretch--and just incorrect part, to me, at least-- is that the judge opines that a warrant was not necessary in the first part because the internet is known to be treacherous so everyone knows you can be hacked. He gives a big list of hacks, half of which were government actions, and then points out you can't have a reasonable expectation of privacy, and therefore its not an unreasonable search and seizure.