3 ms·
After all, they've sent their message[1]. Which is the whole point of the exercise. It is insufficient in cases like this to simply return something and act li
by olliej 3y ago
After all, they've sent their message[1]. Which is the whole point of the exercise.
It is insufficient in cases like this to simply return something and act like that makes it alright. That's no different from being caught stealing a TV, and then returning the TV, which sure as heck doesn't get you out of criminal convictions.
Everyone involved: the attorney, the police, and the judge signing the "warrant" needs to be fired and prohibited from being involved in any part of the legal system again, and the county needs to pay financial restitution - there's no way any of the seized equipment can be trusted anymore so needs to be replaced, and you need punitive damages so that other counties can see that the "find out" part is expensive.
[1] And presumably imaged, tampered with, and damaged all the equipment.
- dbcurtis 3y agoA section 1983 suit seems reasonable, but I don’t think that happens much outside of voting rights, and outside of the feds bringing the case. But I am no expert.