black_squirrel
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2013
- Messages
- 1,181
- Reaction score
- 990
It seems to me that in the Grand Rapids case, the police could have easily obtained a search warrant and the search warrant would have stood up in court. I think that the Best Buy employee was authorized by the defendant to look at the files on the computer. If he reports child *advertiser censored* to the police then I would think that would be enough for a search warrant.
In the Turnquist case, it seems that the search warrants had been obtained by police. I am not sure if the Monroe police needs a separate search warrant. But if they did, they probably obtained it. I think the problem is with the Ypsi police search warrant. The Monroe search warrant(s) are based on the Ypsi search warrant. If the Ypsi search warrant is invalid, then so are all the search warrants depending on it.
I think that the defense is questioning the Ypsi police search warrant. Even if the search warrant has been signed by a judge, it could be that the search warrant might not stand up after further scrutiny.
In the Turnquist case, it seems that the search warrants had been obtained by police. I am not sure if the Monroe police needs a separate search warrant. But if they did, they probably obtained it. I think the problem is with the Ypsi police search warrant. The Monroe search warrant(s) are based on the Ypsi search warrant. If the Ypsi search warrant is invalid, then so are all the search warrants depending on it.
I think that the defense is questioning the Ypsi police search warrant. Even if the search warrant has been signed by a judge, it could be that the search warrant might not stand up after further scrutiny.