This brings up an interesting point. I agree that the evidence would not have been used. But, why not?
This kid was obviously not working for a law enforcement agency or any government agency, so does the 4th Amendment actually apply here? I know, a very steep, ice covered slope, but an interesting thought...maybe. The 4th Amendment does nto specifically mention law enforcement or gov't agencies as being those who would be conducting the searches. I don't buy it, but I would be surprised if the argument has not be tried before. On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 12:11 AM, Dana <dana.tier...@gmail.com> wrote: > > We agree there. The stuff he found would not have been usable in > court. Publishing the business letters might have been a legitimate > free speech case, but that's not what he did. There's an invason of > privacy there if you can use such a word for a politican who made her > Down's syndrome son and teenaged daughter's sex life part of her > campaign. > > > > On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 9:55 PM, Scott Stroz <boyz...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Sure, as long as the evidence is acquired legally. > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology-Michael-Dinowitz/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:317311 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
