4 ms·
The source of that statement is the police, who have an incentive to lie at this point. And the statement is uncorroborated, and remains so by their own doing,
by rdiddly 5y ago
The source of that statement is the police, who have an incentive to lie at this point. And the statement is uncorroborated, and remains so by their own doing, since they're also apparently claiming the right to keep the warrant secret until after the investigation is over. Which doesn't sound too kosher. So you might've been right.
- gruez 5y ago>since they're also apparently claiming the right to keep the warrant secret until after the investigation is over Don't you have to present the warrant to the subject at the time of the "search"? In other words, you can't go knock on someone's door, claim that you have a warrant to search the house, and refuse to show it to him.
- detaro 5y agoDon't know how it works for this specific case, but for surveillance warrants it's obviously not a requirement (e.g. tapping someone's phone doesn't really work if you tell them at the same time that you are doing that), with different places having different rules if and when exactly the target has to be informed.