Anonymous Hacks Palin's Email! | 29 comments (29 topical, 0 hidden)
I was not making a conclusion, but (none / 0)
...only stating 2 potential viewpoints, just to be clear.

But this does differ from all of the other cases people are mentioning in that this hack was performed by private citizens that were not acting as agents of the police or any authority.  Sure, they broke the law, but I question all those who may say the evidence is not admissable. This was not the government tracking her emails, it was 'you and me" that gained access, albeit illegally. Maybe I watch too much Law and Order.

And another point is that the emails are not lost because she cancelled the account.  I am sure Yahoo has all of these files on backup servers or media.

To clarify my own personal opinion, I think that their breaking of the law is reprehensible and they should be jailed if caught.  However, if the law allows the admission of this evidence then it should be allowed in any proceedings. 

by TJD on 09/17/2008 06:56:38 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Yahoo (none / 0)
Right - if the account is backed up on some Yahoo server, then it's still fair game.


I wasn't saying that the account itself is not admissible as evidence just because it was hacked, but that these screenshots that have been posted are not admissible.

So, if there is a back-up of the account that can be preserved, then this can be subpoenaed. But the hacked stuff - the screenshots -  won't be able to be used in the event that the backed-up data is "lost" somehow.

People seem to think that this stuff - the hacked screenshots - are somehow evidence. They're not. That is, they can't be admitted as evidence against her in a Court.



by perdido619 on 09/17/2008 07:29:00 PM EST

[ Parent ]
fruit of the poisonous tree (none / 0)
Like any case, if investigators can convince the court that any evidence gathered from the illegal conduct would have been found in the course of a lawful investigation, it's still in play.

Law 101

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservative." John Stuart Mill

by Hubble on 09/17/2008 08:41:49 PM EST

[ Parent ]
OK - but this isn't a botched police raid (none / 0)
OK - what you posted is actually an exception to Fruit of the Poisonous Tree.

This doesn't apply to this case. And here's why:


What you posted is the inevitable discovery exception to the exclusionary rule. This applies to evidence seized by law enforcement that is tainted due to processing errors in warrants.

The idea is - do we admit evidence seized when there is a clerical error in the warrant, thus making the warrant invalid and the therefore the seizue illegal?  The ruling doesn't address "illegal" conduct, i.e., hacking or theft. The term "illegal" pertains to invalid warrants due to clerical errors, i.e., incorrect addresses, misspelled names, incorrect birthdates, etc.

Basically, what it means is, evidence obtained with an illegal warrant is still admissible if that evidence would have been obtained with a proper warrant. But even then, it's application isn't broad enough to include warrantless searches without probable cause, etc.

So, the inevitable discovery is a lot narrower than you're trying to apply it, there's nothing general about it.


But the jpgs wouldn't fly anyway, their authenticty can't be proven.













by perdido619 on 09/17/2008 10:27:09 PM EST

[ Parent ]

Anonymous Hacks Palin's Email! | 29 comments (29 topical, 0 hidden)