6 ms·
I think I explained the reasoning as to why it is not clear and the journalist (and you) are reading into something that isn't there. Would you have preferred i
by bladegash 6y ago
I think I explained the reasoning as to why it is not clear and the journalist (and you) are reading into something that isn't there. Would you have preferred if the e-mail stated, "Conduct initial exploitation once you have a search warrant or receive consent"?
That qualification is unnecessary for a supervisor directing their subordinates that are well aware of their authorities and the policies/procedures that need to be followed to do their job. This isn't staff legal counsel offering legal advice to a federal agent, this is a routine communication between a boss and their employees.
- trhway 6y agoit is you who is reading what isn't there - like "search warrant" and "consent". I refer to the words what is explicitly there - like "exigency" (which allows to bypass search warrants and consent) and clearly sets the context, especially when we are talking about FBI Fly Team.
- bladegash 6y agoI am not reading into it, I said from the beginning the statement in the email is ambiguous. The word “exigency” isn’t explicitly there in the email. It is referenced by the author as being present in a separate email (which for some reason they didn’t include...?) and then qualified via a source as being facetious. Even if it was there and taken literally, I fail to see anywhere in law, case law, the email, and/or the article that suggests “exigency” is sufficient justification for violating an individual’s 4th Amendment rights. To the best of my knowledge, that does not exist.