Post a New Reply
Reply to thread: Something to remember
Username:
Post Subject:
Post Icon:no icon
Your Message: Smilies [get more]	[quote="admin" pid='216' dateline='1734484454'] The Supreme Court put the scope of such a wholesale seizure in perspective by explaining that it “would typically expose the government to far more than the most exhaustive search of a house.” Riley v. California, ––– U.S. ––––, 134 S.Ct. 2473, 2491, 189 L.Ed.2d 430 (2014) (emphasis in original). United States v. Winn, 79 F. Supp. 3d 904, 919 (S.D. Ill. 2015) [/quote]
Post Options:	Disable Smilies: disable smilies from showing in this post.
Thread Subscription: Specify the type of notification and thread subscription you'd like to have to this thread. (Registered users only)	Do not subscribe to this thread Subscribe without receiving any notification of new replies Subscribe and receive email notification of new replies Subscribe and receive PM notification of new replies

Attachments
Your allocated attachment usage quota is Unlimited.
	New Attachment:

Thread Review (Newest First)

Posted by admin - 12-19-2024, 10:24 PM

I mean I can't see a court allow a general search warrant, after all they are unconstitutional, and it's been well established by the courts that they are unconstitutional. (Marron v. United States, 275 U.S. 192 (1927) all the way to (Groh v. Ramirez, 540 U.S. 551 (2004)

Posted by admin - 12-19-2024, 03:15 PM

well ... I am waiting. It shows how stupid these people are because they come on here and make a statement and can explain themselves. FYI I am not going to jail, not over a GENERAL WARRANT.

Posted by admin - 12-19-2024, 07:45 AM

Like I said before, prove it

Posted by - 12-19-2024, 04:09 AM

You're going to prison so get it out of your system now

Posted by admin - 12-18-2024, 01:14 AM

The Supreme Court put the scope of such a wholesale seizure in perspective by explaining that it “would typically expose the government to far more than the most exhaustive search of a house.” Riley v. California, ––– U.S. ––––, 134 S.Ct. 2473, 2491, 189 L.Ed.2d 430 (2014) (emphasis in original). United States v. Winn, 79 F. Supp. 3d 904, 919 (S.D. Ill. 2015)

Posted by admin - 12-18-2024, 01:06 AM

“The major, overriding problem with the description of the object of the search—“any or all files”—is that the police did not have probable cause to believe that everything on the phone was evidence of the crime of public indecency.” United States v. Winn, 79 F. Supp. 3d 904, 919 (S.D. Ill. 2015)