monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

With no apparent sarcasm, an Arizona attorney on Sunday proposed that the late Justice Antonin Scalia’s votes in cases pending before the Supreme Court should still count even though he died before the court issued its rulings.

“There’s no Ouija board required to figure out how Justice Scalia would vote on these things, he’s already voted,” attorney Kory Langhofer said during a discussion on Phoenix, Arizona, television station KPNX. “We’re at the second-to-last step in how these cases unfold when Justice Scalia died.”

The focus of this article is on the legal impact of the last phrase of the Fourth Amendment, the requirement that search warrant not be “general” warrants authorizing “fishing expeditions” into anything and everything, but instead particularly describe, with specificity, “the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

A federal appeals court held that a warrant which permits a general search and seizure of all other evidence of criminal activity,‟is a general warrant prohibited by the Fourth Amendment.”

Lack of specificity was similarly a problem in Williams v. County of Santa Barbara, #00-11122, 272 F. Supp. 2d 995 (C.D. Cal. 2003), ruling that warrants for the search of a residence were not supported by probable cause because the affidavit provided no basis to support the belief that evidence of crime would be found there and broadly sought “every conceivable kind of document” relating to the residents‟ personal and business financial activities."

See Owens Ex Rel. Owens v. Lott, # 03-1194, 372 F.3d 267 (4th Cir. 2004), holding that a search warrant for a residence which authorized a search of “all persons” present for drugs was not adequately supported by detailed information to support probable cause to believe that all occupants of the premises were involved in criminal activity.

"When we have obtained emails in the course of our ongoing criminal investigation, we have secured either the account owner's consent or appropriate criminal process," Carr said.

I doubt they would have made the claim of a signed agreement if they didn't have proof of the signed agreement. Since they have a signed agreement, yes, they can turn over records at their own discretion. The GPS says there was no assurances between the transition and the GPS and unless there was something in writing, I don't see how an unproved assurance claim trumps a signed agreement.

I may be, as a landlord, the owner of public record of a particular house. But that does NOT give me (or anyone else) the right to either (a) search the property to my heart's content or (b) give permission to law enforcement officials to do so when the use of the property has been given to a tenant. The tenant's belongings are not mine, even if the real estate itself is. HIS consent is required, not mine.

Doesn't even matter what they signed.

Anyone over the age of 12 and under 70 should understand that emails better not contain anything you don't want to share.

Virtually EVERYTHING you write or send on government owned equipment can be viewed....t doesn't matter if it's official memo's, personnel evaluations, sending office gossip, or the schedule you prefer when you wish to pick your nose. It doesn't belong to you, it belongs to the government. When you begin federal employment, be it transition team,or routine government work, it is no longer private.

Wow, you are such a big dope.