• vrojak@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 hours ago

      This is the first time I hear about this, is this just a way to get normally inadmissable evidence admitted through some bullshit loophole or is there an actual good reason to have this system?

      • MrTolkinghoen@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        edit-2
        2 hours ago

        It sounds like they’re buying time to find evidence that is admissable in court (ie not their illegal methods they used to first book the defendant while they try to scrounge together what they do need.)

        So goes like this. You use illegal surveillance to track someone without a warrant. You arrest them and plant evidence as cause for lock up. Meanwhile now you can actually get a warrant to search the defendants computer, house, etc… To try to find something that does give you evidence of guilt that will actually be used to prove you think they’re guilty.

        Obviously he’s innocent though.

      • b161@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 hours ago

        This is common knowledge for anyone who was around during the Chelsea Manning / Edward Snowden era and all the revelations of the depths of NSA spying, PRISM, etc.

        Everything is being recorded, analysed, manipulated to whatever degree they’re technically capable of, laws be damned.