[doc1019]

Although I think this POS, should be prosecuted, any good defense attorney could punch many holes in this one.

They raided this home on the results of a home burglary? And dropped the charges on the buglers.

How do they know that the files collected came from the defendant? They could have been part of the burgers home stash, etc, etc.

[Psalm 144]

Warrants are sworn out on reliable information. Someone turning themselves in for one crime in order to report a more serious one is pretty reliable, especially when they bring tangible evidence of the greater crime.

This is NOT evidence which the State has seized illegally. It has been dropped into their laps by private individuals.

The only way this guy gets off is if there is nothing incriminating in the materials seized at his home pursuant to the warrant. If the only evidence is what the two burglars brought in, he does have a case that no one can establish these materials were in his possession.

[mkjessup]

They raided this home on the results of a home burglary? And dropped the charges on the buglers.
How do they know that the files collected came from the defendant? They could have been part of the burgers home stash, etc, etc.

LOL, buglers, burgers, what's next, boogers?

Oh wait, the booger is the child porn dirtbag.

"Buglers, Burgers and Boogers, oh my!"

(just having some fun with ya, Doc ;)

[Atlas Sneezed]

They raided this home on the results of a home burglary? And dropped the charges on the buglers.

How do they know that the files collected came from the defendant? They could have been part of the burgers home stash, etc, etc.

---

Te exclusionary rule applies to deter cop misbehavior, not to prevent getting evidence from other miscreants (often co-conspirators).

The cops can “know” by fingerprints on the discs, or more likely by other porn in the house after they get a search warrant.