@granick @elizabeth_joh @OrinKerr Point of clarification: DOJ has warrant for Farook Lexus w/boilerplate abt devices, but not phone itself?
-
-
Replying to @emptywheel
@granick@elizabeth_joh@OrinKerr But they wouldn't need warrant for phone itself bc SB county consented?1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel
@emptywheel@granick@elizabeth_joh@OrinKerr Phone's listed in the attachment to the search warrant application IIRC.2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Riana_Crypto
@emptywheel@granick@elizabeth_joh@OrinKerr And without the SW, they couldn't seek an AWA order. SW supplies the jurisdiction under AWA.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Riana_Crypto
@emptywheel@granick@elizabeth_joh@OrinKerr The 2015 D.P.R. opinion which DOJ says granted order under AWA, didn't, bc no prior order/SW.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Riana_Crypto
@emptywheel@granick@elizabeth_joh@OrinKerr Even tho there was consent. But order was granted under FRCrP 41, not AWA as DOJ keeps saying.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Riana_Crypto
@Riana_Crypto@granick@elizabeth_joh@OrinKerr Part of BP lang on devices in Lexus warrant.pic.twitter.com/Qj4jPatMIn
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel
@emptywheel And the SW expired in like late January, right?3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Riana_Crypto
@Riana_Crypto Note those other docs which could be free-standing SWs (signed by Pym) which we don't get.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel
@emptywheel Yeah, IIRC gov was selectively asking to unseal bits and pieces here and there prior to the Feb 16 ex parte application.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
@Riana_Crypto My guess is there may be device warrant from Jan 29, but I wonder whether that also specifies request to Cellebrite?
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.