3 ms·
It might make more sense if we consider a physical analog: it's already generally the case that the police don't need to get a warrant to enter private property
by MarkusQ 3y ago
It might make more sense if we consider a physical analog: it's already generally the case that the police don't need to get a warrant to enter private property in a hostage situation, or when there's an active shooter, etc. This doesn't mean it's _necessarily_ a good thing in either case, but it's less sensational if you don't frame it as something unprecedented.
- wongarsu 3y agoThose analogs are covered under exigent circumstances. But there is no imminent danger attached to a hacking case. This feels more like "somebody stole my briefcase, which is justification to search my home without a warrant".
- zmgsabst 3y agoPerhaps less contrived: Police observed a drug dealer drop off a package in my bush, then someone else take it later — so they can search my house, just in case. Traditionally, searching your house would require a warrant based on those events… and likely showing more of a nexus, that you were involved.
- lukeschlather 3y agoExcept the briefcase is a computer, and the computer is still in your home, and this is about not needing permission to search the briefcase even though it's still in your possession, because the briefcase has also been stolen and may be actively used in committing crimes despite the fact that you are not committing crimes and it remains in your possession.