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.
Distraction. The confiscation of laptops thing is real.
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.