Again, that any warrant because of any thing one of the criminals might have said is SPECULATION. The only thing we know is that at least part of the home was searched due to being a crime scene, which would be reasonable. Such a search would not include hard drives as, absent a warrant that named the kind of evidence that could be found on a hard drive, one could not reasonably expect to find evidence relating to a simple home invasion and defensive shooting on the hard drive.
The search no doubt was to find shell casings and other evidence directly related to the invasion and defensive shooting. Anything else is speculation. Outrage over speculation is kinda silly. So, again, I recommend we stop talking about what might have happened and focus on what did.
I was not speculating on this particular case, I was merely commenting on a statement that the local PD isn't going to sieze hard drives for crimes such as this. In fact many, if not most, search warrants today include the siezure of digital records that may contain evidence. With todays high usage of digital media, such requests are routinely authorized in warrants so long as the application and affidavit make a reasonable argument that there may be evidence contained within digital equipment and media. Seizures of such equipment in order to search for a link between the victim and assailants is not beyond the scope of what is happening in the real world. Considering that the victim is facing a murder charge at the time of the investigation (justifiable homicide is a legal DECISION made by a district attorney or the court, not the fact that the shooting occurred in your home), a judge or magistrate is highly unlikely to disapprove seizure and subsequent search of the digital materials within the home if the application and affidavit make a half way decent argument that they are necessary to do a complete investigation.
The kind of evidence that would be named on the warrant would be "sieze all digital equipment and media capable of recording or communicating including computers, computer hard drives, portable storage devices, digital phones and cameras, modems, routers, including electronic, and optical storage equipment and media. To search said equipment and media for e-mails, browser history, word processing documents, posts on social media, posts on blogs, posts on web boards, video or photographic depictions, audio recordings discussing violence or violent tendencies, (and there is more). That may contain evidence of any prior contact between the suspect and the victim (remember the suspect is now our intrepid home owner), of any premeditation to commit violence, (and whatever else they've had success with in the past with the particular magistrate they're applying to for their warrant).
The digital footprint that most people leave on any given day is huge and most are clueless that they are leaving it. Not only our active online "travels" but our cell phones, IPods, and computers leave location information everywhere we take them. The digital footprint left by our cars is nearly unknown and growing exponentially. Pulling the data in your cars computer can give details of speeds, times, brake application, and even location if equipped with GPS. Those nifty services like OnStar have massive amounts of digital imformation on where your car has been and how its been operated. Then there are the myriad video cameras, both private and public, that observe our movements.
The police are becoming more and more knowledgeable about these digital footprints and including searches and siezures of the data in their warrant applications on an ever more frequent basis. Big Brother is watching and he is very likely to want to dig into your digital footprint if you ever come under their scrutiney. This is not speculation, it is what appears on warrants in this country on a daily basis for "crimes" that are totally unrelated to computers and computerized communications. The only "restrictions" on their ability to sieze everything digital is the person signing the warrant and that's not always a judge or even a lawyer. The scary part is that if they come across something totally unrelated to their immediate search, but criminal, if they immediately stop looking at it and apply for a new warrant, it will be held up as admissable in court.
What is speculation is saying "the search no doubt was to find shell casings....". There's a good probability of that, but without knowing for a certainty, it's just speculation.
