3 ms·

> ... establishes the existence of evidence ... This phrase doesn't sit well with me. They cannot establish the existence of evidence without having found it.

> ... establishes the existence of evidence ... This phrase doesn't sit well with me. They cannot establish the existence of evidence without having found it. They can't find it without a proper search. They can't execute a proper search with a warrant or reasonable suspicion. The existence of evidence is established once it's found and documented. Edited to add: if they can arbitrarily establish the existence of evidence, and then don't find it, then "obviously" the suspect is a no good dirty rotten evidence destroyer.

pas 7y ago
That's why I said it's always a matter of certainty. It's up to the judge, the (grand jury), the tribunal, etc. It's not arbitrary. It depends on other pieces of legal proof, like statements from witnesses, other material evidence, etc. For example in case of hidden partitions people usually get busted because forensics find data directly referring to it (eg. in caches, metadata, logs, thumbnails).
- LegitShady 7y ago
  >It's up to the judge, the (grand jury), the tribunal, etc. The judge has the power to let them search your property. Nobody has the power to let them search your mind, and they can only do so by imprisoning you or otherwise depriving you of your rights. The distinction between a search warrant and self incrimination is a big one. You should always have the right to say nothing. If forensics and data know for sure you did something, the stuff in your mind is unnecessary. Either they have the weapon or not, so to speak. You shouldnt be placed in a position where the justice department "is entitled to" the knowledge in your head.