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.
There is that as well, I did not see that the person Greydle originally responded to was not you haha. Saying that any information would be admissible as evidence in a military tribunal.
And they may be right, still. I know the legal system, but am less familiar with the rules of Military Justice.
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.
There is that as well, I did not see that the person Greydle originally responded to was not you haha. Saying that any information would be admissible as evidence in a military tribunal.
And they may be right, still. I know the legal system, but am less familiar with the rules of Military Justice.
In any case, thank you for your response.
They likely had a sealed warrant.