Lewdog
Gold Member
- Apr 26, 2016
- 23,939
- 3,196
Wrong, they couldn't subpoena, because they wouldn't have known to subpoena them without the illegal information.
Wrong again. If the police didn't produce the information, they can legally be subpoenaed.
You don't know your ass from a hole in the ground.
WRONG. They have to have probable cause to subpoena it. They can't use an anonymous source to do that on. Again... stick to engineering.
If they have a copy published on the internet, that's all the "probable cause" they need. And, yes, they can use an anonymous source.
You're dumbass. Just admit it before you make a complete ass of yourself.
Wrong. They can not use an anonymous source as probable cause for a warrant to obtain someone's private email. I could post on here you told me you killed someone and buried their body under your house. Do you really think they could get a warrant to search your house and dig under your house on that? You are a fucking loon.
Your example doesn't fit your claim.
If you wanted a warrant to prove that some defamatory photo someone published on the internet was a fake, and he admitted it in an email that was published on the internet after it was hacked, then a judge would issue a subpoena for the original email. That's exculpatory evidence, and a judge cannot refuse either side the right to present it as evidence in a trial.
For one that doesn't fit this argument that what Wikileaks publishes can be used in a court of law, or if it can be used to get a warrant for someone's private email. Your argument would be a civil trial, and one in which the photo of the person was being asked to prove if it was fake was being requested by the plaintiff. That has nothing to do with what we are talking about.