News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on USA v David Correia: Devices sent from client to attorney not privileged [pdf]. Parent comment

Re:USA v David Correia: Devices sent from client to attorney... by withinboredom on Wednesday June 24, 2020 @10:23AM (#23628201)
By this logic, the police can wiretap an attorney's office because they don't always talk about "work." Then it's just a matter of some watercooler conversation in the station to get what you really want to know.

Yeah, I know that it's illegal, but corruption doesn't care.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:USA v David Correia: Devices sent from client to attorney... by gamblor956 on Wednesday June 24, 2020 @11:07AM (#23628682)
That doesn't follow. The de minimus non privileged communication would not support a warrant for a wiretap and would poison every case handled by that firm.

(Parallel construction would generally not be permitted, as that's usually only allowed for technical or inadvertent procedural defects in gathering evidence, not intentional and unlawful violations.)

[ Parent | on HN ]