I think that's how warrants work
It seems unwise to search a house, find porn, but then leave the house unsecured. securing the site is normally part of the warrant procedure
I think that's how warrants work
No, if a cop has a search warrant for one thing and during the execution of that warrant they find evidence of other crimes they can lay additional charges and seize whatever evidence they discover. They just can't use any of that shit as evidence in the original case if it wasn't on the warrant.
Let's say someone is running a dog fighting ring. The feds have an investigation into the illegal gambling ring, when they find evidence during a warrant search that the suspect was using stolen pets to "blood" the dogs. They can seize the evidence of grand theft and animal cruelty for the pet stealing, but since only stuff relating to gambling and tax evasion was listed on the warrant, they can't use that pet stealing info in the court case on the charges related to gambling and tax evasion. But they can lay new charges of animal cruelty and grand theft because they came across the evidence without violating the suspect's rights.
In this case, there was only the Trafficking investigation. And they found evidence of Trafficking that unfortunately was not listed on the warrant, which is poor warrant construction, since they could have easily put "Any evidence related to violations of human trafficking laws X and Y."
that's what I said?
Mine was more nuanced and informative and came from a more handsome source.
It looks like the warrant was deliberately neutered and the agents were in on it. Somebody signed that warrant. That person may well have been one of Epstein's 'clients.'
...I'm not sure that this are regular procedure. If Regular police enter in someone house because domestic dispute or any similar insignificant reason and see drugs, weapons or any other criminal stuff, they have right to arrest householder and seize evidence, even if they come from completely different reasons. In some states they even don't need to enter house they can see 'criminal activity' trough door or window and act accordingly even without warrants. Of course Afro'murica is big country with zillion local laws, but this is more or less general rule. Police must react to prevent crime and or secure evidence. FBI is different beast with even more authorization than common local police. However, someone can stretch, twist rules - laws to justify whatever he want. In fact I remember cases where policeman were accused of negligence if they "don't see" evidence of crime.
If Regular police enter in someone house because domestic dispute or any similar insignificant reason and see drugs, weapons or any other criminal stuff, they have right to arrest householder and seize evidence, even if they come from completely different reasons.
Different matter altogether than a warrant-based search. This would be using the "Plain Sight Doctrine" in an entry based on what the legal folks call "exigent circumstances." I recommend that you look up those two terms and read a few paragraphs before you respond, so as to not waste my time and energy. Thanks.
I talked to a lawfag friend today and asked about it. According to him, the FBI acted accordingly assuming that those particular CDs were not what they were looking for in the original warrant. So getting a second warrant was the correct thing to do on their part. However, leaving the site unsecured while obtaining the second warrant was sloppy at best, purposeful at worst.
(post is archived)