Can you elaborate? I think Greydle’s point is valid.
Them being stolen would not give the authorities lawful permission to go through the contents. As soon as the laptop was determined to be, say, Pelosi’s, it would need to be returned.
The fact of them being stolen alone does not give proper cause to inspect the contents.
The only loophole here would be if they did not know the owner of the stolen item, inspected its contents to determine an owner, and immediately encountered something illegal.
Then the contents could be searched and be admissible as evidence.
Well if their contents are copied or leaked while "stolen" then there's nothing they could refute legally there.
But im starting to rethink it after reading another anons comment about the stolen laptops being cover for the white hat clean up teams who then confiscated them with authority.
This. In a military tribunal, any information on those laptops is admissible evidence.
Nope. They were stolen.
Can you elaborate? I think Greydle’s point is valid.
Them being stolen would not give the authorities lawful permission to go through the contents. As soon as the laptop was determined to be, say, Pelosi’s, it would need to be returned.
The fact of them being stolen alone does not give proper cause to inspect the contents.
The only loophole here would be if they did not know the owner of the stolen item, inspected its contents to determine an owner, and immediately encountered something illegal.
Then the contents could be searched and be admissible as evidence.
Well if their contents are copied or leaked while "stolen" then there's nothing they could refute legally there.
But im starting to rethink it after reading another anons comment about the stolen laptops being cover for the white hat clean up teams who then confiscated them with authority.
They likely had a sealed warrant.
They are government property.
Not in a military trial.