Topic: Ross Ulbricht: FBI Didn't Have Search Warrant, Violated Fourth Amendment (Read 2967 times)

Personally I think he's screwed. I agree his only defense is to challenge how they found him in the first place, because if he pleads guilty to being Dread Pirate Roberts that basically seals his fate in the second trial where he faces 2 counts of murder for hire, one being a federal witness. I predict the prosecutors will quote some obscure federal law about terrorist financing or something equally stupid that allowed for the FBI to act without a warrant and the judge will hear it in a closed courtroom, and agree that sure all is in good order where Ross can proceed to get his multiple life sentences because he cannot plead out. If he fails this challenge and is found guilty, his next only hope is for the political climate in the US to change at a later date where he can file an appeal to challenge the no warrant arrest. That's assuming he even survives prison, all those bitcoins that were auctioned off belonged to other drug dealers. They may run into him inside at some point and ask for their money back.

did anything like this ever get off on a technicality?

I feel sorry for the guy, appears to be desperately trying everything without believing that he's doomed.

Why do so many people call this a "technicality"?
Vital, primary freedoms are of supreme importance, not a technicality.

...

I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights.

The constitution is the law of the land and is superior then any other laws in the US.

The motion isn't really to actually just throw out the case/dismiss the charges. It is actually an attempt to learn how the Government located the servers in the first place, and to determine IF that was done legally. If it was not done legally, then they are asking that the evidence be thrown out due to the "Fruit of the poisonous tree" meaning that if they hadn't found the servers, he would not have been caught (at least not when he was anyway).

This REALLY is the big question here, the biggest part of which is, why the hell are they in fact taking soooo damn long to show how they did it?? Most people take silence as an indicator of guilt, and if they did do everything "by the book" then why the hell not just say how it was done??

I wouldn't call an unconstitutional search to be a technicality and I would hope no judge wouldn't either.  That being said we don't really know how strong the claim of a 4th amendment violation is.  A judge may disagree and allow the evidence to be presented.

The motion isn't really to actually just throw out the case/dismiss the charges. It is actually an attempt to learn how the Government located the servers in the first place, and to determine IF that was done legally. If it was not done legally, then they are asking that the evidence be thrown out....

1. The Government’s Location of the Silk Road Servers
As set forth ante, all of the searches and seizures conducted pursuant to warrants and/or
orders were based on the initial ability of the government to locate the Silk Road Servers, obtain
the ESI on them, and perform extensive forensic analysis of that ESI. Thus, all subsequent
searches and seizures are invalid if that initial locating the Silk Road Servers, obtaining their ESI,
and gaining real-time continued access to those servers, was accomplished unlawfully.

a. Discovery of the Means By Which the Government Located the Servers

A definitive answer as to whether the government gained access to the Silk Road servers
lawfully or unlawfully is not possible at this stage because the government has not disclosed how
it located the Silk Road Servers. However, it is apparent that the government did not seek or
obtain a warrant to acquire the ESI on those servers, as the subsequent warrant applications note
that the ESI was provided in response to a request pursuant to a Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty
(hereinafter “MLAT”).
As a result, Mr. Ulbricht seeks discovery of the means and methods employed by the
government to locate the Silk Road Servers, and the contents of the MLAT request(s). Those
discovery demands are set forth post, in POINT II, at 60.
The discovery demanded is essential to determine whether the entire series of warrants
and/or orders are infected by the government’s access to the Silk Road Servers, which included
not only their ESI, but also an ability to monitor activity on those servers continuously and in
real-time.

IMO this case is too high profile for a judge to grant a dismissal. They are throwing the book at him to make an example so that others won't think about following in his footsteps

The media attention on this case is so large that there won't be a chance for a fair trial. I think Ross will figure it out the best way to deal with it though.



His BTC were auctioned even before the trial is finished. Personally I don't think he can be held responsible for running a web server, in the same way that Google cannot be held responsible for what videos people put on YouTube.

There will be no chance at all that the charger will be dropped, you can't blame them for trying though. I really hope Ross comes out on top on this one though, he has a strong case.

If they broke the law to catch him I hope he's set free and even recovers the funds they stole.  Can't be picking and choosing who goes to jail outside of the legal system we have in place, simple as that.

Go ahead and quote the rest if you want. Doesn't change a thing. Whether or not Iceland gave their assent to the US to rifle thorough a 'person, house, papers, or effects' does not abrogate the universal right to be free from such usurpations.

Ever read the preamble?

The Declaration of Independence?

The Federalist Papers?

The Anti-Federalist Papers?

Maybe these foundational texts are too archaic for your tastes.

How 'bout the Heller decision (2008) where the Supremes declare that the rights enumerated in the BoR are indeed rights that predate, and are superior to, any possible foundation of the good ol' US of A?

You're out in the weeds on this one.

As explained in the DoI, they are inalienable, and exist as granted by the creator.

Absolute twaddle. There is no such thing as 'Constitutional Rights', as the rights enumerated in the BoR predate the Constitution. This makes them superior to any governmental division or jurisdiction. As explained in the DoI, they are inalienable, and exist as granted by the creator.

That is not 100% true. Constitutional rights only apply to US citizens regardless of where in the world they are. The constitution does not grant any rights to anyone who is not a US citizen.