3 ms·
I agree, but still, I don't think it was appropriate for the judge to approve this warrant. Just because person X is suspected of a crime doesn't justify a sear
by teawrecks 4y ago
I agree, but still, I don't think it was appropriate for the judge to approve this warrant. Just because person X is suspected of a crime doesn't justify a search/seizure from person Y who just happens to be nearby at the time. Imagine a police officer legally searching your car just because the car next to you was suspected of a crime. It's just not reasonable. I hope the EFF or someone can help push back on this.
- kshacker 4y agoAre these examples even comparable? A camera can provide direct evidence.
- JohnFen 4y agoI think they're comparable. Both are the police searching the private property of an innocent bystander.
- bell-cot 4y agoAnalogy - if it was 1950, a robber fled on foot through a residential neighborhood, and he no longer had the wad of stolen money when the police finally got grabbed him - would it be reasonable for the police to search in the shrubbery, groundhog holes, loose dirt, sandboxes, etc. of the private property in that residential neighborhood for the stolen money? Does your answer change if, instead of stolen money, the police are looking for the robber's weapon, or the victim's empty wallet, or some other "we have good reason to suspect that he ditched it somewhere around here" evidence?
- JohnFen 4y ago> would it be reasonable for the police to search Yes. And my answer would not change for the other case. It's also reasonable for the property owner to demand that the police get a warrant first. I'm not arguing about whether or not these powers are OK. I'm just arguing that, in my view, both of the situations the OP mentioned are equivalent in that they're both searches of private property.