The law doesn't work that way though. One is not allowed to use one investigation to find evidence of an unknown crime intentionally. They have pushed the limits of the investigation here in an attempt not find evidence of the crime (being so minor they should already have enough if they can do it), but to find evidence of something else not covered by the initial investigation.TsunamiWombat said:
That is why search warrants always have very clear aims and targets (only allowed to check living room not bed rooms, or search physical property but not digital). A warrant gives you ablity to search for evidence to support a stated investigation only. Another way to look at it is: if an officer breaks into someones house and finds them torturing someone, they can stop them but they cannot use that testimony in court against the person, because it was obtained without reason and illegally.
I do find it troubling that they even allowed it in court considering the basic information given. The attempt to keep it secret as well isn't making me want to support the state on this either.
We shall see in time what is what about this case, but as it stands I worry about the state of things in the US (as their legal state also affects alot of other countries at the moment)
