They still need probable cause to take it; they cannot just randomly grab shit.If during search evidence unrelated to that search is found it can be seized and used as evidence in other and subsequent investigations.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
They still need probable cause to take it; they cannot just randomly grab shit.If during search evidence unrelated to that search is found it can be seized and used as evidence in other and subsequent investigations.
I don't think you're in a position to really know what Trump's lawyers are doing right now...
No, I'm claiming that once inside they are free to look for "anything that might be useful to their cause",.. That's why it's called a fishing trip...
It is entirely reasonable to question the legality of property seized not specifically enumerated or otherwise authorized on the search warrant. It is also next level insane (and desperate) to put foward the suggestion that Chris Wray led an operation to intentionally plant incriminating evidence at Mar-a-Lago.
Yeah, I am.
They are shitting their pants
Joe usually walks around with a Hershey bar in his pants it happens when you get old. You start shaking hands of people who aren’t there, babbling incoherent gibberish, most of what you see on this board.Well I'm sure you would be extremely familiar with that condition...
It is EXACTLY what you are claiming here.No,.. I have never suggested that the FBI planted anything at the site.
Not at all the same thing Joe,... Extremely long reach even for you.It is EXACTLY what you are claiming here.
"I don't trust the government"
Wonderful,.. nice of them to tell you what they've taken.
If during search evidence unrelated to that search is found it can be seized and used as evidence in other and subsequent investigations.
She’s a crazy genius.
They still need probable cause to take it; they cannot just randomly grab shit.
Not at all the same thing Joe,... Extremely long reach even for you.
You need to draw clearer distinctions then, lots of stuff here and elsewhere by media personalities and elected Republicans that this search warrant was not legit, politically motivated, evidence may have been planted, etc. A healthy distrust of government is fine - that whole trust but verify concept. But it’s being twisted into paranoia and conspiracy theories to question everything. A society can’t function without trust on some level.
I mean why wouldn’t it be….do you really think the FBI executed a search warrant to get a Christmas card back?Whatever it is, I hope it’s big and juicy… cause this is a bad precedent to set of the FBI raiding former President’s homes for some innocuous documents.
I have no idea. I’m rooting for sensationalismI mean why wouldn’t it be….do you really think the FBI executed a search warrant to get a Christmas card back?
Sorry I wasn't more clear. Trump suggested this in a publicly released statement on his social media site,Who exactly, is suggesting this?..
My positions are clearly defined by my comments here,.. Extraneous news fodder generated by media personalities, politicians and pundits have no bearing on where I stand.
Yet, you regurgitate their claims of "government overreach"My positions are clearly defined by my comments here,.. Extraneous fodder generated by media personalities, politicians and pundits have no bearing on where I stand.
Sorry I wasn't more clear. Trump suggested this in a publicly released statement on his social media site,
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...s-planting-evidence-at-mar-a-lago/ar-AA10w1jf
I am in agreement with you that every citizen should demand that any government search and seizure be consitutionally compliant. There must be sufficient credible evidence to authorize a search, probable cause must be firmly established, and the seizure of property must be within within legal bounds.
Citizens have a right to legally challenge the validity of any government search and seizure. Trump has that right. So far, he has not done so. Instead, he has issued statments of complaint, suggested wrongdoing, and has tried to fund raise.
Yet, you regurgitate their claims of "government overreach"
Odd take, indeed.
Abstract"anything that might be useful to their cause"
Please show us where this is codified into the law. Provide the exact statute
More chilling is the fact that the man was POTUS for 4 yearsI also enjoyed: "while i’m not a fan of donald trump, it is chilling to realize that this could happen to any one of us after livetweeting 34 consecutive crimes."
Stop trying to put people into the rigidly defined boxes that you've created Joe...
Only one had trouble crossing that bridge.And they drown people and get away with it. But like Nancy says, nobody is above the Law! LOL!
So, it's NOT in the statute.Abstract
It is well established by court decision that police in executing a search warrant may seize items not listed in the warrant if they observe such items in plain sight - and if it is immediately apparent to them that such items are evidence of crime. The Supreme Court has stated that there is a third requirement needed to justify police seizure of such items, namely that the discovery of the items must have been inadvertent, that is, accidental or unintentional. Therefore, if the police were seeking items not set out in the warrant, their discovery could not be inadvertent. The issue is whether the warrantless seizure of evidence of crime in plain view is prohibited by the Fourth Amendment if the discovery of the evidence was not inadvertent. The Supreme Court concluded that even though inadvertence is a characteristic of most legitimate "plain view" seizures, it is not a necessary condition.
Sure sounds different than "anything that might be useful to their cause", don't it?and if it is immediately apparent to them that such items are evidence of crime.
Maybe, maybe not. If it's not specified in the warrant, first, it has to be in plain view in the area designated for search. Second, there has to be a reasonable belief it is related to a crime. On that note, anything that just mentions January 6 wouldn't necessarily be a crime. If they found a document where on the first page Trump is telling someone to storm the Capitol by force, that would be a crime.Illegality in any case, warrant-related or not is probable cause. Or if they run across a memo relating to Jan 6, it's fair game.
You guys are truly unbelievable.Because a subpoena would have only gotten them what they said they were looking for, not what they were hoping to find,... This looks suspiciously like a fishing trip.
Guess it's how you define "cause".Sure sounds different than "anything that might be useful to their cause", don't it?
No common sense or use of logic from you guys EVER!!I don't think you're in a position to really know what Trump's lawyers are doing right now...
It's more how you define "useful" or "anything" or "that" or "to".Guess it's how you define "cause".