I would like to expand the discussion on law enforcement's ability, in
Minnesota, to seize computer equipment in one's home or business, with a
warrant, based on the "assumption" that there "may" be information
contained on the hard drive that may be important in convicting another
person or persons because of e-mail believed to be stored on the hard drive
and to hold the computer equipment for whatever time "they feel necessary"
without the injured party being able to challenge, by Minnesota Statute,
either the seizure or the right to establish a reasonable discovery period
which would then require law enforcement to return the PC.
I know of a case where a personal computer has now been held for 9 months
and the injured party still has not got their computer back or any specific
date that they can expect it. The offer was even made to give them the hard
drive to get the PC returned. It forced the owner to buy a new computer as
they needed it in their daily business and job.
Paul Double
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 09:07:03 -0500
>From: "Phil Carlson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>The recent comments on searches at school and other places have turned on
the Constitution's protection from "unreasonable searches and seizures".
The key here (and in other case law that I deal with in my city planning
career) is what is "reasonable" or "unreasonable." If Judge Peterson or
anyone else has good definitions of these words I would be delighted to see
them. Or is it just up to the interpretation of whomever sits on the bench
in any given year?
>
>- Phil Carlson
WinonaUn
