How is that hostile? To be aware of your rights and state they can’t do an illegal search?
Demanding a warrant to be searched is not hostile it’s the equivalent of saying no thank you. Hostile is when they have a warrant and you still refuse.
You cannot get a warrant without probably cause that a crime has been committed. So asking for a warrant to search your computer is literally asking to be charged with a crime.
IANAL, but demanding a prosecutor and judge be involved when dealing with an IT department is really dumb. If you can just agree with their legal team (and your lawyer) on the stipulations of the search and confirmation, you can't be charged with further crimes if they find anything ("fruit of the poison tree"). But insisting on getting hit with a warrant means anything they find can be used against you.
> You cannot get a warrant without probably cause that a crime has been committed. So asking for a warrant to search your computer is literally asking to be charged with a crime.
That is just completely 100% wrong. Warrants are not (or at least, shouldn't be, your mileage may vary based on your local authorities) issued like candy. Prosecutors and judges issue warrants when there is probable cause to search in the event of a crime being committed by you, or simply being committed within an area to which you have access that the public does not. That does not mean you are being charged with a crime. I would agree that more often than not, if you are having warrants issued for searches of your home or business, a criminal prosecution for you is probably not an unreasonable thing to be concerned about, but these are not the same thing. One absolutely happens without the other all the time.
> If you can just agree with their legal team on the stipulations of the search and confirmation, you can't be charged with further crimes if they find anything
This is the same fallacious thinking as "If I've committed no crime I have nothing to fear from being searched," and that's not the point: the point is it is your right to privacy that they are demanding they now have the right to encroach upon to ensure the secure and to-their-satisfaction destruction of data they erroneously sent you which cannot be performed without some element of highly invasive search, and also cannot be requested without the implication that they don't trust you to have deleted it.
This institution regardless of your individual opinions on it does not have your interest at heart: their negligence has placed the two of you as legal entities on opposing sides of a legal affair that can incredibly easily escalate to a conflict. Your lawyer is your FIRST call in this situation, and after that, you shut the fuck up and let your lawyer do their job.
So regardless, by demanding a warrant you would be insisting that the IT Department declare a crime had been committed in the first place. Even if you wanted to defend the legality of you holding onto ill-gotten data, why would you want to get the prosecutor involved at all? Getting a warrant on your property is the worst possible outcome here.
I agree you shouldn't do anything without a lawyer closing looking over the stipulation. But demanding a warrant is probably the dumbest available option. Especially when they already know you have the thing they are looking for!
>Especially when they already know you have the thing they are looking for!
I disagree, the conversation went that they wanted to Verify it was deleted. That is totally out of grounds for the city to want. The data in this case is contraband, but it was leaked by the city, and hosted by the city in the FOIA portal.
It totally misses the point, you should never consent to a search to verify you don't have it, especially to a third party. Ever. They want to poke and prod around, then it's a warrant and strict chain of custody. None of this third party forsenic firm stuff.
> If you can just agree with their legal team (and your lawyer) on the stipulations of the search and confirmation, you can't be charged with further crimes if they find anything ("fruit of the poison tree").
This part is completely wrong. “Fruit of the poison tree” only counts if the original search was illegal. If you let them search for something specific, nothing is stopping them from using anything they find, even if it wasn’t what they were searching for (as long as they found it during the normal course of searching for the thing they were supposed to be searching for)
If you get to define the terms of the search with a lawyer, wouldn't that make the terms of any additional snooping illegal?
Again, I get that a warrant is a great bar to them searching your stuff. But if they already know you have what they are looking for, a warrant seems bad!
Friend, I don't know how to say this politely, but I'll try my best: you're really missing something fundamental here and I'm not sure what it is or why you're so persistent on thinking it's okay to allow a government agency full access to your drive through third party contractors. Please, for your own sake, do some independent research. Or talk to a lawyer. Or read articles about prosecutorial abuse. Many of us have told you this is a bad idea and in no uncertain terms: it's a BAD idea to allow unfettered access to your shit.
I highly recommend you take an afternoon off and sit in a criminal court room and watch how criminal cases progress through the system. Especially for things like drug crime, and especially when evidence is weak. You will learn so much.
Well, all of them really. Sure, no warrant you can make an attempt to drop evidence because of overzealous police/executive power if there was no consent but the idea is to require documentation and to make sure the state (in this case) crosses their T's and does their I's before they can engage in this sort of conversation. Many times, if the case is weak, or not enforceable, a judge will not sign to execute the warrant or said people that want to search will not try to get one (either knowing it wont be granted or it would be denied.)
With the warrant demand talk, I would also say that once you make the demand - you give an address where you recieve service and do not follow up or communicate anymore.
> Many times, if the case is weak, or not enforceable, a judge will not sign to execute the warrant or said people that want to search will not try to get one (either knowing it wont be granted or it would be denied.)
Absolutely. Demanding a warrant is your protection against a weak case. But in this particular case, OP has already told authorities that they possessed contraband. The authorities already have everything they need to exercise a warrant. So insisting on one here is the exact opposite protection.
Again, OP was smart and worked with a lawyer to deescalate.
I don’t speak for all of us, but I would certainly be one. The “particularity” feature of a warrant would be a primary concern, as would be the involvement of someone other than LE (I.e., the magistrate or judge signing the warrant).
Again, in this particular circumstance, where OP has already admitted to being in possession of the files, would there be any difficulty in obtaining a warrant for all of his computers?
I'm honestly curious as to what there would be to gain on insisting on a warrant rather than just agree to some deal and avoid criminal proceedings.
Demanding a warrant to be searched is not hostile it’s the equivalent of saying no thank you. Hostile is when they have a warrant and you still refuse.