6 ms·

Very interesting. So, at a minimum, you must disclose that a thing is your property to prevent illegal searches of that thing from being admitted in a case agai

Very interesting. So, at a minimum, you must disclose that a thing is your property to prevent illegal searches of that thing from being admitted in a case against you. That means that if you can be convicted under either of - thing.BelongsTo(you) - thing.Contents fourth amendment protections will not save you. Am I reading this right?

dietrichepp 12y ago
> Am I reading this right? Fortunately, no. The article explains it better than I could: > That argument may seem like a Catch-22. If Ulbricht were to claim ownership of that server he would seem to incriminate himself. But Forrest writes that Ulbricht could have nonetheless claimed the server in a pre-trial statement that couldn’t be used against him as evidence. “Defendant could have established such a personal privacy interest by submitting a sworn statement that could not be offered against him at trial as evidence of his guilt (though it could be used to impeach him should he take the witness stand),” she writes. “Yet he has chosen not to do so.”
- zo1 12y ago
  That sounds completely broken. So he has to "pre-trial" admit to owning the "evidence" or "tool of committing the crime", or something. Thereby admitting "guilt" without it being admissible in court later on. So then, everyone knows he's guilty, because he admitted it, but they can't "prove it" because of a technicality of using that evidence. The reason that sounds broken to me is that he has to first admit guilt in order to defend some "noble" right to privacy that'll allow him to be acquitted. If he does that, his entire life is ruined because he will forever be tainted in the media and law-enforcement as "guilty, but got away due to a technicality". They will never stop hounding him, and will actively put him under their investigation spot-light for his entire life. This applies whether he's actually guilty, or not.
rtkwe 12y ago
There's one bit that I'm not sure how to read because I'm not a lawyer: > “Defendant could have established such a personal privacy interest by submitting a sworn statement that could not be offered against him at trial as evidence of his guilt (though it could be used to impeach him should he take the witness stand),” It sounds like he could provide proof that he owned the server having the contents of the server thrown out. Then provided he didn't take the stand in his own defense the affidavit couldn't be used. Not entirely certain though.
- pdabbadabba 12y ago
  Almost there. The affidavit could only be used if he took the stand and gave testimony inconsistent with the contents of the statement.
- Rapzid 12y ago
  He didn't own the server though, did he? I thought it was leased.
  - rtkwe 12y ago
    Leased provides the same protections as ownership afaik, just because you have leased a car doesn't mean the police can search it with impunity.
Natsu 12y ago
The 4th is a complex one. There's a full flowchart here: http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=2256 http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=2256 The rule most relevant to this case is found here: http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=2210 http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=2210 Essentially, you don't have standing to challenge a seizure for abandoned property and one way you can abandon property is by denying ownership.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]

dietrichepp 12y ago

> Am I reading this right? Fortunately, no. The article explains it better than I could: > That argument may seem like a Catch-22. If Ulbricht were to claim ownership of that server he would seem to incriminate himself. But Forrest writes that Ulbricht could have nonetheless claimed the server in a pre-trial statement that couldn’t be used against him as evidence. “Defendant could have established such a personal privacy interest by submitting a sworn statement that could not be offered against him at trial as evidence of his guilt (though it could be used to impeach him should he take the witness stand),” she writes. “Yet he has chosen not to do so.”

zo1 12y ago
That sounds completely broken. So he has to "pre-trial" admit to owning the "evidence" or "tool of committing the crime", or something. Thereby admitting "guilt" without it being admissible in court later on. So then, everyone knows he's guilty, because he admitted it, but they can't "prove it" because of a technicality of using that evidence. The reason that sounds broken to me is that he has to first admit guilt in order to defend some "noble" right to privacy that'll allow him to be acquitted. If he does that, his entire life is ruined because he will forever be tainted in the media and law-enforcement as "guilty, but got away due to a technicality". They will never stop hounding him, and will actively put him under their investigation spot-light for his entire life. This applies whether he's actually guilty, or not.

rtkwe 12y ago

There's one bit that I'm not sure how to read because I'm not a lawyer: > “Defendant could have established such a personal privacy interest by submitting a sworn statement that could not be offered against him at trial as evidence of his guilt (though it could be used to impeach him should he take the witness stand),” It sounds like he could provide proof that he owned the server having the contents of the server thrown out. Then provided he didn't take the stand in his own defense the affidavit couldn't be used. Not entirely certain though.

pdabbadabba 12y ago
Almost there. The affidavit could only be used if he took the stand and gave testimony inconsistent with the contents of the statement.
Rapzid 12y ago
He didn't own the server though, did he? I thought it was leased.
- rtkwe 12y ago
  Leased provides the same protections as ownership afaik, just because you have leased a car doesn't mean the police can search it with impunity.

Natsu 12y ago

The 4th is a complex one. There's a full flowchart here: http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=2256 http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=2256 The rule most relevant to this case is found here: http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=2210 http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=2210 Essentially, you don't have standing to challenge a seizure for abandoned property and one way you can abandon property is by denying ownership.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]