> So why does the intent of the investigator, to confirm versus discover, matter? Well you could argue then that they should be allowed to look at everything b

> So why does the intent of the investigator, to confirm versus discover, matter? Well you could argue then that they should be allowed to look at everything because if they do they could discover any number of crimes by looking at all communications. Here's the thing. Lets' say hypothetically there is a crime committed at a high school. Are people generally ok with the police opening every single school locker to see who is a potential suspect for that one crime? And what if while doing so they discover evidence of another crime? Is that ok and usable? If it is then we get to a point where it's conceivable that the police will then use any reason to say there is a crime to which they need to open school lockers knowing that they will almost certainly find evidence of some crime in one of them.