4 ms·

nah, appeal. reviving it involved modifying someone’s personal property. I like that this is in the 9th circuit so I think the defendant and this country’s sub

• singleshot_ 2y ago
  Analogize to those cases where they seize an inoperative gun and then go to certain, specific lengths to make the gun operate before charging the possessor with possession of a (potentially) operative gun. Distinguishable because it’s not a search. Can you draw a rule from this?
  • yieldcrv 2y ago
    I would argue that what theyre doing is outside of the scope of the warrant they already used, and also possible that the defendant asked the wrong question for this challenge And that those other cases should have been challenged too, if they weren’t I’ve seen too many things that were either difficult to challenge or only affected people too poor to challenge, to just accept a common practice because its common. I will accept prior case law from federal appeals courts though I feel like there should be a limitation on government power here either way as they changed the circuitry and firmware. they should at least give more information about the firmware, for mounting a defense we should have information about the firmware itself