INCLUDE_DATA

May 29, 2009

The Judge Says ‘Not on My Watch!’

toast

To conclude: taking into account the troublingly [sic] weak evidence of (1) Bennefield’s reliability in connection with the allegation of unauthorized access to and hacking into the BC grading system, and (2) nexus, the search warrant affidavit fails to establish probable cause. Accordingly, because the search and seizure were not conducted pursuant to a lawful warrant, all ongoing forensic analysis of the items seized from Calixte must cease, see Commonwealth v. Kaupp 453 Mass. at 106-107, n.7 ([valid] search warrant required to search seized computer), and the items must be returned forthwith. See Commonwealth v. Sacco, 401 Mass. 204,207 and n.3 (1987). Cf. Matter of Lavigne, 418 Mass. at 836. With respect to the two seized laptop computers and any other property that the Commonwealth claims do not belong to Calixte, the Commonwealth is to undertake to identify the owner(s) of this property, and, with prior notice to Calixte, return the items to those owners.

With that the single State Supreme Court judge gave the police and Boston College the judical slap that they deserved. They are to stop all further review of his equipment and return said devices forthwith. Glad to see some judges still believe in the 4th Amendment.

The initial story we covered here.

More here.

Filed under Courts, Litigation, news in brief by Dr. Dog

Permalink Print Comment

Leave a Comment

 

Go Daddy $14.99 SSL Sale!

 

ss_blog_claim=499bf3240b2f94786784658946b8559e
ss_blog_claim=499bf3240b2f94786784658946b8559e