> Having an IP address alone is not generally probable cause enough to get a warrant, because they are regularly rotated, and shared, across geographic areas.

> Having an IP address alone is not generally probable cause enough to get a warrant, because they are regularly rotated, and shared, across geographic areas. It might not be enough to convict her, it is enough to get a warrant. While they do rotate, ISPs do this with law enforcement a fair amount and I'm pretty sure they keep track of who owns which IP at any given moment. > And that's assuming nothing proxying that connection at all. A clever knowledgeable person would proxy, most people wouldn't know how. This is why I said it would be a foolish hacker. It's also possible someone else tapped into her wifi and did it. Or maybe there was no IP. I'm just suggesting what is the most obvious piece of evidence which a judge would accept to grant a warrant here.