5 ms·

This is terrible advice based on a real misunderstanding of the law.

by eli 3y ago

legitster 3y ago
How so? What lawyer would insist on their client getting searched via a warrant?
- rootsudo 3y ago
  Well, all of them really. Sure, no warrant you can make an attempt to drop evidence because of overzealous police/executive power if there was no consent but the idea is to require documentation and to make sure the state (in this case) crosses their T's and does their I's before they can engage in this sort of conversation. Many times, if the case is weak, or not enforceable, a judge will not sign to execute the warrant or said people that want to search will not try to get one (either knowing it wont be granted or it would be denied.) With the warrant demand talk, I would also say that once you make the demand - you give an address where you recieve service and do not follow up or communicate anymore.
  - legitster 3y ago
    > Many times, if the case is weak, or not enforceable, a judge will not sign to execute the warrant or said people that want to search will not try to get one (either knowing it wont be granted or it would be denied.) Absolutely. Demanding a warrant is your protection against a weak case. But in this particular case, OP has already told authorities that they possessed contraband. The authorities already have everything they need to exercise a warrant. So insisting on one here is the exact opposite protection. Again, OP was smart and worked with a lawyer to deescalate.
    - 0cf8612b2e1e 3y ago
      I bet the lawyer was even more adamant that their client would not surrender their property/submit to a search without a warrant.
- eli 3y ago
  Damn near all of them. I would challenge you to find a defense attorney who would, in general, advise you to consent to a search even if you "have nothing to hide."
  - legitster 3y ago
    We're not talking about a blanket consent to search. We're talking about a controlled destruction of something dangerous.
    - ethbr1 3y ago
      I believe the issue people are taking with this approach is there is no "non-blanket consent to search." If you invite law enforcement into your home, and they find probable cause or evidence of another crime, then they get to use that to prosecute you. You don't get to say "but I had an agreement they would only enter my house for the singular purpose of X."
- singleshot_ 3y ago
  I don’t speak for all of us, but I would certainly be one. The “particularity” feature of a warrant would be a primary concern, as would be the involvement of someone other than LE (I.e., the magistrate or judge signing the warrant).
  - legitster 3y ago
    Again, in this particular circumstance, where OP has already admitted to being in possession of the files, would there be any difficulty in obtaining a warrant for all of his computers? I'm honestly curious as to what there would be to gain on insisting on a warrant rather than just agree to some deal and avoid criminal proceedings.
    - singleshot_ 3y ago
      Well, then, you can just read my comment again. Particularity & a third party outside of law enforcement would be two great places to start.
- cortesoft 3y ago
  > If you can just agree with their legal team (and your lawyer) on the stipulations of the search and confirmation, you can't be charged with further crimes if they find anything ("fruit of the poison tree"). This part is completely wrong. “Fruit of the poison tree” only counts if the original search was illegal. If you let them search for something specific, nothing is stopping them from using anything they find, even if it wasn’t what they were searching for (as long as they found it during the normal course of searching for the thing they were supposed to be searching for)
  - legitster 3y ago
    If you get to define the terms of the search with a lawyer, wouldn't that make the terms of any additional snooping illegal? Again, I get that a warrant is a great bar to them searching your stuff. But if they already know you have what they are looking for, a warrant seems bad!
    - chaps 3y ago
      Friend, I don't know how to say this politely, but I'll try my best: you're really missing something fundamental here and I'm not sure what it is or why you're so persistent on thinking it's okay to allow a government agency full access to your drive through third party contractors. Please, for your own sake, do some independent research. Or talk to a lawyer. Or read articles about prosecutorial abuse. Many of us have told you this is a bad idea and in no uncertain terms: it's a BAD idea to allow unfettered access to your shit. I highly recommend you take an afternoon off and sit in a criminal court room and watch how criminal cases progress through the system. Especially for things like drug crime, and especially when evidence is weak. You will learn so much. Please do that for yourself?
  - kingofkyiv 3y ago
    [dead]

This is terrible advice based on a real misunderstanding of the law.

by eli 3y ago

This is terrible advice based on a real misunderstanding of the law.

legitster 3y ago

How so? What lawyer would insist on their client getting searched via a warrant?

rootsudo 3y ago
Well, all of them really. Sure, no warrant you can make an attempt to drop evidence because of overzealous police/executive power if there was no consent but the idea is to require documentation and to make sure the state (in this case) crosses their T's and does their I's before they can engage in this sort of conversation. Many times, if the case is weak, or not enforceable, a judge will not sign to execute the warrant or said people that want to search will not try to get one (either knowing it wont be granted or it would be denied.) With the warrant demand talk, I would also say that once you make the demand - you give an address where you recieve service and do not follow up or communicate anymore.
- legitster 3y ago
  > Many times, if the case is weak, or not enforceable, a judge will not sign to execute the warrant or said people that want to search will not try to get one (either knowing it wont be granted or it would be denied.) Absolutely. Demanding a warrant is your protection against a weak case. But in this particular case, OP has already told authorities that they possessed contraband. The authorities already have everything they need to exercise a warrant. So insisting on one here is the exact opposite protection. Again, OP was smart and worked with a lawyer to deescalate.
  - 0cf8612b2e1e 3y ago
    I bet the lawyer was even more adamant that their client would not surrender their property/submit to a search without a warrant.
eli 3y ago
Damn near all of them. I would challenge you to find a defense attorney who would, in general, advise you to consent to a search even if you "have nothing to hide."
- legitster 3y ago
  We're not talking about a blanket consent to search. We're talking about a controlled destruction of something dangerous.
  - ethbr1 3y ago
    I believe the issue people are taking with this approach is there is no "non-blanket consent to search." If you invite law enforcement into your home, and they find probable cause or evidence of another crime, then they get to use that to prosecute you. You don't get to say "but I had an agreement they would only enter my house for the singular purpose of X."
singleshot_ 3y ago
I don’t speak for all of us, but I would certainly be one. The “particularity” feature of a warrant would be a primary concern, as would be the involvement of someone other than LE (I.e., the magistrate or judge signing the warrant).
- legitster 3y ago
  Again, in this particular circumstance, where OP has already admitted to being in possession of the files, would there be any difficulty in obtaining a warrant for all of his computers? I'm honestly curious as to what there would be to gain on insisting on a warrant rather than just agree to some deal and avoid criminal proceedings.
  - singleshot_ 3y ago
    Well, then, you can just read my comment again. Particularity & a third party outside of law enforcement would be two great places to start.
cortesoft 3y ago
> If you can just agree with their legal team (and your lawyer) on the stipulations of the search and confirmation, you can't be charged with further crimes if they find anything ("fruit of the poison tree"). This part is completely wrong. “Fruit of the poison tree” only counts if the original search was illegal. If you let them search for something specific, nothing is stopping them from using anything they find, even if it wasn’t what they were searching for (as long as they found it during the normal course of searching for the thing they were supposed to be searching for)
- legitster 3y ago
  If you get to define the terms of the search with a lawyer, wouldn't that make the terms of any additional snooping illegal? Again, I get that a warrant is a great bar to them searching your stuff. But if they already know you have what they are looking for, a warrant seems bad!
  - chaps 3y ago
    Friend, I don't know how to say this politely, but I'll try my best: you're really missing something fundamental here and I'm not sure what it is or why you're so persistent on thinking it's okay to allow a government agency full access to your drive through third party contractors. Please, for your own sake, do some independent research. Or talk to a lawyer. Or read articles about prosecutorial abuse. Many of us have told you this is a bad idea and in no uncertain terms: it's a BAD idea to allow unfettered access to your shit. I highly recommend you take an afternoon off and sit in a criminal court room and watch how criminal cases progress through the system. Especially for things like drug crime, and especially when evidence is weak. You will learn so much. Please do that for yourself?
- kingofkyiv 3y ago
  [dead]