UPDATE: THERE IS AN AMENDED ORDER BY JUDGE HIRSCH which has what has rapidly become an internet/legal phenomenon with the now famous "needle and haystack" reasoning, soon to be etched in the pantheon of legal analysis.
InReSearchWarrantMarch14 15PDF Updated by Anonymous PbHV4H on Scribd
There are a few things that our Judge Milton Hirsch does not like. These items are well known
He does not like hitters who do not run out a ground ball.
He does not like split infinitives.
He does not like Fingerprint evidence.
He does not like abridged editions of Shakespeare (neither do we).
And now we know he does not like search warrants that ask for ALL of the target's social media records. (existing as we do in cyber-space, we don't like these either).
Particulary, the Judge does not like that the warrant applications ignore the requirement that the warrant identify the documents to be seized "with particularity" (pun intended by careful design).
Amongst the many quotable highlights by the Judge, who when he was a lawyer was known as "The Dr. Ruth of the Fourth Amendment" [FN1]:
The warrant in this case provides that, “This court finds that it is impractical for [Meta] to sort the evidence of the articulated crimes specifically sought herein from innocent or innocuous documents or records intermingled therewith.” When, and upon what factual predicate, did I make this finding? I conducted no hearing. I received no evidence. I took no testimony. This entirely conclusory statement is offered without a shred of support. I claim no expertise whatever with respect to computers or social media, but I find it impossible to believe that Meta (formerly Facebook), one of the largest and certainly one of the most “tech-savvy” businesses in the world, is utterly without reasonable means to conduct word searches or other specific searches of account data that would make possible a much narrower and more particularized seizure than the one sought here.
In Research Warrant Application Dated March 13 PDF by Anonymous PbHV4H on Scribd
20 comments:
He should simply refuse to sign the warrant. Instead by giving eight pages of “reasons” why he didn’t sign, he gives the government direction on what they need to do. This is not the job of a neutral and detached magistrate. In an effort to be clever he has become nothing more than the police legal advisor. And of course because of who it is, you’ve lost the ability to see why it’s wrong.
Excellent analysis and for sure they will not take this up. Better to just ignore it, but Judge Hirsch hundreds of nails right on the head. It would be great if some of his colleagues adopted it.
He also doesn't love full justification.Bravo CJ Hirsch!
A little bit like the student who, having arrived at the correct answer to 27 divided by 9, responds to being called upon by announcing:
I shall share the answer to the problem and the steps taken to arrive at such answer, such that the audience of my fellow students and our teacher may follow along, see my thinking, walk in my footsteps, and determine if indeed I have arrived where I believe I am, namely the correct answer to 27 divided by 9.
The history of mathematics begins in earnest with the Greeks, though the Egyptians brought much to the table....
Anybody else anxious for the florida bar elections to be over so you know who- we've all got the 5500 dozen emails and texts- will stop urging us to vote.
We get it 35 lawyers of 100,000 in dade voted. Deal with it-maybe its the candidate?
Sorry but Hanzman invented the needle and haystack analysis and used it in two famous cases. State v. Newman setting precedent for scofflaw cases in Florida and now widely quoted across the US and then in the incredibly complex Pensky File case in the complex litigation section.
3:10 pm. Genius
I can only assume those criticizing Judge Hirsch for writing an excellent memorandum to support the denial of these objectively unconstitutional warrants are lazy police detectives, junior persecutors, or hack defense attorneys who've never been out of branch court and are without a notion about how case law gets made.
Because I cannot imagine any REAL criminal defense lawyer objecting to one of the few judges with actual knowledge of and respect for the civil liberties taking the time to write in defense of them.
5:00 A.M. He probably love full justification on the IBM Executives, which actually produced full justification a opposed to current software that just spaces words, which is very annoying.
6:27 Yes! Glad it's over. But now my emailbox is going to start filling up wth judicial election fundraiser mail. AAAarghh!
I think Dr. Ruth still is a diminutive older woman who speaks with a thick German accent.
Hirsch also hates when family or friends of an in custody defendant stand up and attempt to speak on their loved one’s behalf. Always shuts them down with extreme arrogance.
941, all judges should do that. Speak through the lawyer.
1:22 P.M. You can’t imagine any REAL criminal defense lawyer objecting to a judge helping the Government correct deficiencies in a search warrant?? Seriously? He could have written that eight page “look at me” memo internally to duty judges to alert them to issues. There is ZERO reason to EVER tell the Government what they did wrong in the warrant application. Let them and their lawyers go back ti the drafting board. Police Legal Advisor should not be the side job of a circuit court judge.
Dr. Ruth was adiminutive Haganah sniper with a thick German accent.
Stop trying to post something dumb and wrong. The person in question has a child. Email me if you wish to discuss
"To split or not to Split"
Is anyone not concerned that a sitting judge or clerk is publicly releasing memoranda in denial of a Search Warrant to a blog (no offense to the blog). Hopefully the State is smart enough to look into whether this could in any way interfere with any of these investigations and take appropriate action. As for the substance, this should all be litigated in a courtroom where both sides can present case law and argument and an appellate court can ultimately decide.
3.10 and and 6.06 and 12.54 are spot-on.
The widespread adoration of the always-prolix and often-wrong Hon. Hirsch has no basis in reality. Smart judges (and lawyers preparing proposed orders) all know that Less is More.
When it is considered that Hon. Hirsch shows a pattern for anti-prosecution behavior, I am surprised that the State (for the victim, perhaps) does not move for his disqualification.
What no one seems to have noted is that the Hon. Hirsch's uncalled-for Order and Amended Order lack any case number, and will certainly not be appealed: By whom? No parties named, no case number. This is just mental masturbation; I am amazed that Rumpole has given so much (or any)room for these silly papers.
Reading through all of these and just realized I should have read these prior to going infront of judge hirsch. I saw a comment where someone said when the family of a loved one tries to speak he shuts them down. I can 1110% agree to this. Loved one passed away and at plea deal hearing, he was annoyed I wanted to read my victim impact statement and constantly used his hand to motion me to hurry up.
Post a Comment