4 ms·

This was my thought originally, but then I read the article. I no longer believe this is what happened. Official Best Buy policy is exactly as you state -- we

This was my thought originally, but then I read the article. I no longer believe this is what happened. Official Best Buy policy is exactly as you state -- we don't perform an invasive search for illegal content, but if we find it in the course of normal operations, we will report it. Official Best Buy policy is that individual employees will not accept payments from the FBI. But, one supervisor did accept payments from the FBI. That same supervisor remained in contact with the FBI for years. And that same supervisor lied under oath about receiving those payments. He was in regular contact with the FBI, accepted regular payments from the FBI, and -- what's more -- felt the need to lie about that relationship. I think it's extremely likely that he was having those he supervised perform searches that would not otherwise have been performed has he not received payment from the FBI. That's probably the factual question that this case will boil down to -- would this material have been uncovered if a different supervisor, following all of Best Buy's policies, had been in charge that day?

randcraw 10y ago
And now that the supervisor's paid service to the FBI has been revealed, will all past convictions based on his efforts (and the court and defense costs of those found not guilty) be subject to overturn/redress as unlawful violations of search? They should be, but I doubt it'll happen.
fjdlwlv 10y ago
Shouldn't it boil down to fruit of the poisonous tree, and the illegally obtained evidence is inadmissible regardless of how it could have been parallel constructed?
- throwaway729 10y ago
  My suggestion is that this question boils down to the one that I identified. If the search was executed only because the supervisor was effectively acting on behalf of the FBI, then the evidence was probably illegally obtained. Prosecution will argue that the search would've happened and been reported regardless of the supervisor's relationship to the FBI. So that the relationship, while perhaps shady, actually had zero bearing on the events that took place. The judge will have to decide which of those is more likely to be true. The conduct of the supervisor and the FBI is probably going to be a huge PITA for the prosecutor to explain away.

randcraw 10y ago

And now that the supervisor's paid service to the FBI has been revealed, will all past convictions based on his efforts (and the court and defense costs of those found not guilty) be subject to overturn/redress as unlawful violations of search? They should be, but I doubt it'll happen.

fjdlwlv 10y ago

Shouldn't it boil down to fruit of the poisonous tree, and the illegally obtained evidence is inadmissible regardless of how it could have been parallel constructed?

throwaway729 10y ago
My suggestion is that this question boils down to the one that I identified. If the search was executed only because the supervisor was effectively acting on behalf of the FBI, then the evidence was probably illegally obtained. Prosecution will argue that the search would've happened and been reported regardless of the supervisor's relationship to the FBI. So that the relationship, while perhaps shady, actually had zero bearing on the events that took place. The judge will have to decide which of those is more likely to be true. The conduct of the supervisor and the FBI is probably going to be a huge PITA for the prosecutor to explain away.