This is probably the correct conclusion to arrive at, at least at this point in extremely limited jurisprudence, but it still raises some questions courts will likely have to confront in the future…
The seizure of the devices happened with appropriate warrants, the actual search was done with appropriate warrants, there’s apparently some weird time limit on the search warrant on a seized device, and some of the maintenance involved took place outside that weird time restriction.
The actual hacking of the device and the actual search of the contents of the device were with a warrant.
There is no actual logic to having time windows to access confiscated devices that are not ever going to be returned. Anything that’s not technology is completely unaffected by that silliness.
There’s no world where a legally confiscated physical object is held to the same standard.
Searches and warrants are nothing new, except in the context of phones and other electronic devices. Are you suggesting that should be immune to something that has been around for centuries?
I don’t see the issue here.
The seizure of the devices happened with appropriate warrants, the actual search was done with appropriate warrants, there’s apparently some weird time limit on the search warrant on a seized device, and some of the maintenance involved took place outside that weird time restriction.
The actual hacking of the device and the actual search of the contents of the device were with a warrant.
It takes a discerning taste for boot leather to call the civil liberty protections weird.
There is no actual logic to having time windows to access confiscated devices that are not ever going to be returned. Anything that’s not technology is completely unaffected by that silliness.
There’s no world where a legally confiscated physical object is held to the same standard.
Searches and warrants are nothing new, except in the context of phones and other electronic devices. Are you suggesting that should be immune to something that has been around for centuries?