Latest Breaking News

freedom fighter jh

(1,784 posts)

21. I know.

Sat Sep 13, 2014, 11:43 AM

Sep 2014

The system does a good job protecting those who do the illegal searches by saying the evidence is inadmissible and that's the end of it.

Think about it: Don't police keep records of searches and who does them? Or consider a the OP's situation: The military is conducting an illegal search. That is clear. There is no mention of any punishment. That is what has to change.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

42 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Porn conviction tossed over military’s surveillance role [View all] alp227 Sep 2014 OP

As much as I hate to see a good christx30 Sep 2014 #1

+1 nt Live and Learn Sep 2014 #2

It sucks, and the dude is scum, but justice was had. joshcryer Sep 2014 #4

This message was self-deleted by its author bl968 Sep 2014 #3

Whoa....they searched computers across the ENTIRE state? SoapBox Sep 2014 #5

Just checking. candelista Sep 2014 #17

No they used torrent tracking. Ash_F Sep 2014 #37

That makes a million times more sense. Thanks! leeroysphitz Sep 2014 #42

Navy Guilty of Illegally Broad Online Searches - "routine practice" - not an isolated incident bananas Sep 2014 #6

:( unhappycamper Sep 2014 #11

It's much more palatable to America when BB looks like this SwankyXomb Sep 2014 #14

I wonder how many cases relied on such illegally gathered evidence. nt cstanleytech Sep 2014 #29

Do they Just Search! imthevicar Sep 2014 #7

If they can gain access to computers across and entire state... Veilex Sep 2014 #16

OK Am I the only one concerned about this magic program that can search the hardrives leeroysphitz Sep 2014 #8

See post 37 Ash_F Sep 2014 #38

The exclusionary rule works to protect the people who run the system, . . . freedom fighter jh Sep 2014 #9

Um, no. eggplant Sep 2014 #20

I know. freedom fighter jh Sep 2014 #21

No, the punishment is already built in. eggplant Sep 2014 #25

Doesnt this also open up the states that used such evidence in cases to civil lawsuits? cstanleytech Sep 2014 #30

I'm not sure what you are asking. eggplant Sep 2014 #33

Well I'm just wondering if say it can be proven that the states used this evidence to get cstanleytech Sep 2014 #34

RE: All credible evidence should be admissible in court.... PosterChild Sep 2014 #22

I have not. Can you explain? nt freedom fighter jh Sep 2014 #24

Certainly, I would be glad to... PosterChild Sep 2014 #26

Thank you. freedom fighter jh Sep 2014 #27

My understanding is... PosterChild Sep 2014 #28

I thought it was a crime for anybody... Helen Borg Sep 2014 #10

Yes, it is. The problem is, the circumstances under which the crime was uncovered. Hoppy Sep 2014 #12

Can't use illegally obtained evidence in court. Crime and conviction two different things. McCamy Taylor Sep 2014 #19

The best part of this is the reference to Posse Comitatius. Hoppy Sep 2014 #13

with cloud drives and the like, you might simply assume that everything on your DeadEyeDyck Sep 2014 #15

Sounds like someone in the Navy likes child porn. McCamy Taylor Sep 2014 #18

I am skeptical that this program can search hardrives across the ENTIRE state Ash_F Sep 2014 #23

Might not be a program thats the main source but rather it could the ISPs. cstanleytech Sep 2014 #31

Blue_Tires just posted a brief explaining what happened. The article is poorly written. Ash_F Sep 2014 #39

They explained the "how" in the court document: Blue_Tires Sep 2014 #32

That is a pretty long brief. Can you pinpoint the line? /nt Ash_F Sep 2014 #35

Oh.... ok they are torrent tracking Ash_F Sep 2014 #36

Sorry, I do not think that there is any privacy online Tumbulu Sep 2014 #40

There is especially no privacy when you use torrent files. randome Sep 2014 #41