{"title":"“先发制人的压制”——法官声称有权在数字证据被发现之前就认定其不可采信","authors":"B. Simpson","doi":"10.15394/JDFSL.2012.1132","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Vermont state prosecutors have asked the Vermont Supreme Court to end a state trial judge’s practice of attaching conditions to computer warrants. The Vermont judge’s conditions are drawn from five conditions established in the 2009 decision of the 9 Circuit Court of Appeals in the Comprehensive Drug Testing, Inc. case (CDT II). This is the first time the validity of the “CDT conditions” will be decided by a state court of final jurisdiction in the United States.","PeriodicalId":43224,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Digital Forensics Security and Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2012-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"“Preemptive Suppression” – Judges Claim the Right to Find Digital Evidence Inadmissible Before It Is Even Discovered\",\"authors\":\"B. Simpson\",\"doi\":\"10.15394/JDFSL.2012.1132\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Vermont state prosecutors have asked the Vermont Supreme Court to end a state trial judge’s practice of attaching conditions to computer warrants. The Vermont judge’s conditions are drawn from five conditions established in the 2009 decision of the 9 Circuit Court of Appeals in the Comprehensive Drug Testing, Inc. case (CDT II). This is the first time the validity of the “CDT conditions” will be decided by a state court of final jurisdiction in the United States.\",\"PeriodicalId\":43224,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Digital Forensics Security and Law\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2012-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Digital Forensics Security and Law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.15394/JDFSL.2012.1132\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"COMPUTER SCIENCE, INFORMATION SYSTEMS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Digital Forensics Security and Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15394/JDFSL.2012.1132","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"COMPUTER SCIENCE, INFORMATION SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
“Preemptive Suppression” – Judges Claim the Right to Find Digital Evidence Inadmissible Before It Is Even Discovered
Vermont state prosecutors have asked the Vermont Supreme Court to end a state trial judge’s practice of attaching conditions to computer warrants. The Vermont judge’s conditions are drawn from five conditions established in the 2009 decision of the 9 Circuit Court of Appeals in the Comprehensive Drug Testing, Inc. case (CDT II). This is the first time the validity of the “CDT conditions” will be decided by a state court of final jurisdiction in the United States.