343
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
343 points (99.4% liked)
News
37008 readers
1911 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I figured that because that’s literally how evidence works.
For the evidence to be viable the chain of who had it and where is needed.
One of the first questions to be brought up is where did this evidence first originate.
And if the data was accessed via the phone the courts already said no you can’t access than that makes the data inadmissible and in all likelihood has the defense walking free.
As for finding different evidence elsewhere you are correct and that’s is what will have to happen, something the Trump DOJ would hate because to them they already had what they needed.
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.
Because they would have to. Any lie or failure to establish where they got the data makes it inadmissible evidence.
Yes this parallel construction was brought up but given how rather public this story is it’s going to raise brows and be asked about its origins
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.
Indeed but at the same time the DOJ needs to show that the source was indeed not the raid.
“The origin is the department records office.”
“How did it get in the records office.”
“We stored it after a different raid that was found illegal.”
And even mask off it’s still “works for the small number of people.”
The masks are off but the system is still the system