Judge Rejects Defense That FBI Illegally Hacked Silk Road, on a Technicality

Re:Judge Rejects Defense That FBI Illegally Hacked Silk Road... by dietrichepp on Friday October 10, 2014 @09:23PM (#8440904)

> The government can't have it both ways. Either the server is owned by Ulbrecht and they violated his rights, or the server is now owned by Ulbrecht, and thus they can't prove he is the DPR.

It's not that simple. The courts follow procedures for these things: the courts respond to claims made by various parties, and if there is no claim that the evidence is dirty, or if the claim that the evidence is dirty is not proved for whatever reason (even silly technical reasons), then the evidence is admitted.

Don't forget that this is only one court. Higher courts could find the judge's ruling incorrect.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Judge Rejects Defense That FBI Illegally Hacked Silk Road... by Estragon on Friday October 10, 2014 @11:38PM (#8441158)

I started to read Alderman v. US after Forrest said that 4th Amendment rights cannot be vicariously asserted. I'm a little unclear on how this works. Could an investigator warrentlessly burgle the residences of two conspirators A & B, and use evidence found in B's place against A and evidence found in A's place against B, all without violating the fourth amendment? How about email accounts? If so, why don't investigations against known conspirators proceed this way all the time?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Judge Rejects Defense That FBI Illegally Hacked Silk Road... by bd_at_rivenhill on Saturday October 11, 2014 @11:37AM (#8442393)

Seems like it should be possible for the defense to argue that the prosecution must stipulate that the server was his property, in which case his rights were violated, or that the prosecution must stipulate that it was not his property and that they have no case against him. What is wrong with this argument in a legal sense?

[ Parent | on HN ]