Quote:It's the law. If this was centered around anybody else by HRC the constitutionalist would be in an uproar.


There is previous case law on Huma's side as well. You should read United States v Ganias.

<a class="bbc_url" href='https://epic.org/amicus/ganias/'>https://epic.org/amicus/ganias/</a>

 

No, jj was correct.

 

They're allowed to search for anything covered under the warrant. I think what you're getting confused about is when they find something not covered under the warrant. Just because they find something not covered, it doesn't mean they can't seize it or use it against the person it incriminates. It only means they can't continue looking and expect to use whatever evidence they found without getting another warrant that includes the newly discovered information.

 

As jj stated, they stopped and got new warrants. These people aren't stupid, and I would bet they have their best Detectives working these high-profile cases. 

 

The case law you showed was pretty clear about how they held on to evidence outside of the scope of the warrant and waited for evidence to validate them having the evidence that was already not explicitly stated in the warrant.

 

This case law has nothing to do with what is happening here.

---