339
Judge Blocks Trump Admin From Searching Data Seized During Raid on Reporter's Home
(www.commondreams.org)
this post was submitted on 22 Jan 2026
339 points (99.4% liked)
News
37935 readers
3017 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
IT guy here, unless the computer case was sealed, they could pop the drive and use it to make a disk image or simply clone it to another drive, the only way I can see how that could be detected is if you have a log of how many hours it has been powered on and compare it to the drives log.
The point is, none of that data can be used as evidence. If the DOJ presents any evidence that could only have come from that drive (cloned or otherwise) their entire case goes out the window and they get in trouble. Though with the way consequences are being ignored lately I doubt that's their main concern.
They can always use parallel construction
Parallel construction is a tactic that is used specifically in situations similar to this, in the interest of hiding illegal evidence usage by investigators (amongst other things)
They present a viable way they found that evidence. They've been doing this since forever, using illegal information, then constructing a plausible case for how they found it legally for the courts, which only matters if the accused has good lawyers in the first place.
And even that would require a software layer log that wouldn't kick in until the software is fully booted. There would have to be a hardware layer controller logging spin up via firmware for that to work.
If they threw this into a cloaner, there's really no way to tell.
But they wouldn't even need to do all that, they would just shop around for a trump appointment judge in a nearby district, and then convince them to retroactively rubber stamp a warrant based on some flimsy probable cause, exactly like the Patriot Act was written for. No need to parallel construct.
Oh no! What would happen to them if they were caught?
Assuming the courts actually follow their own rules, which depending on the judge is a crapshoot now. And if it got there through appeals, the SC is just as likely to allow because they're complicit.
Also, they'll still have to data to do whatever the fuck else they want to with it. Like going after others.
Exactly, getting the data was the point, discovering who was talking was the point. They can construct ways to find them and prosecute them from there.
So is the 2nd amendment, that hasn't stopped them even before the modern political climate. The entire text is a single sentence, explicitly in reference to a regulated militia. That doesn't stop them from saying it means everyone and their fucking dog.
Totally agree. They wanted to insist we can be armed, so we will.
A reminder that the California gun control stuff really kicked off in the 1960s when Reagan, with NRA support, passed gun control laws in response to the Black Panthers arming themselves to monitor the cops. And the Black Panthers have started showing up in Minnesota. History loves to repeat itself.
I don't believe that would happen
If caught they could be on the receiving end of a rebuke from the judge. I know, pretty serious blow to their feelings but sometimes harsh measures are neccessary.
How do you figure that? They already would've accessed it, and they are looking for who is talking first, they can find evidence elsewhere if this is disallowed. And they could absolutely violate this without the court knowing, not the least as the court is working on the honor system with these cops.
You seem to be under the impression that the prosecution would admit they got the data from there in the first place. They wouldn't. Police and prosecutors lie and judges let them, no longer the neutral arbiters of dispute but the hammer of (in)justice.
They do this all the time, as others reminded me the term for it is parallel construction, and they almost always get away with it. This information is classified so it's not like even if you suspected they found the information there you could subpoena it and prove it. If you could prove they had access to it there they would claim they didn't notice it and there case came about in another way.
And if both of those arguments failed, judges might just let it through anyway on a decades old (unconstitutional) scotus precedent that says if authorities acted in good faith fruit from the poisoned tree can be used. ;
You really don't know how bad the courts are, most people don't. No one makes a big deal out of it so how would you know, unless you were sensitized to it first seeing firsthand them abuse their power.
But as I said you wouldn't be able to prove they got it in that raid. You wouldn't be able to subpoena the information from that raid to prove they found it then at all. And even if you could, that precedent allows them to use it anyway.
I know it's supposed to work the way you are talking about, but it doesn't anymore. For a very small number of people does it work the way it's supposed to, and that was before this administration went mask off.
How on earth do you even detect that a drive has been accessed? What is there to hide?
I think what he's saying is, even if they do access it, they can't ever bring any of that info into a court anywhere without admitting they accessed it.
They can only use information they obtain illegally from this data that has some kind of parallel construction from another source.