Proof from the warrant and justice.gov that the NYPD had access to Weiner's laptop (GreatAwakening)

submitted ago by youllrememberme

There was discussion in the comments of the last thread that still claimed it was a federal warrant so NYPD didn't have access to Weiner's laptop. This should prove that the warrant gave NYPD access and they were very involved with the investigation.

On page 1 of the warrant it says "In the Matter of the Search of... See Sttachment A"

Here is a picture of page 3 of the warrant (Attachment A), notice in part 2 (Review of ESI on the Subject Devices) it says "Law Enforcement Personnel (including, in addition to law enforcement officers AND agents...) This proves that it wasn't just federal "agents" who had access to his devices. Once they found child nudity they were forced to turn the case over to the feds to prosecute because it's a federal crime.

There's also more proof of NYPD involvement on justice.gov where Acting Manhattan U.S. Attorney Joon H. Kim praised and thanked the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Special Victims Division of the New York City Police Department for their outstanding work after Weiner's sentencing.

How could the NYPD SVU do a sexting investigation without access to these devices? Why would they get praised if they weren't involved? Why would they be granted access in the warrant if there was no intent to give it to them?

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

HarveyKlinger ago

A couple quick corrections:

  1. Child nudity is not necessarily child pornography.
  2. Child pornography is typically handled at the local, county, and state level.

urbanmoving ago

correct on 2 on 1 uhhh not entirely correct in terms of say a kid being nude or almost because they got hid with white phosphorus and had to shed clothes medical treatment etc but still sick fucks would jack to it. Salacious posing nudist stuff is child porn considering the tone context and use/intent of the marketing, a video showing birth and a naked baby isn't inherently wrong but these sick fucks market that shit to "to condition" people for it

HarveyKlinger ago

I'm 100% correct on #1. In ALL states in the US, you can have pictures of naked kids on your computer provided they aren't in a seductive or sexual pose AND you don't take sexual pleasure in looking at them. In almost all of the states, the second part of that isn't in the law and doesn't matter. A couple states like Pennsylvania could arrest one person and not another for the exact same photo on their computer. The difference is which one takes sexual pleasure in it and who doesn't. But like I said, non-sexual nudes is legal (thus why websites of nudist camps are totally legal).

urbanmoving ago

"with lascivious intent"-many states have this btw not jsut Mass

https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/child-pornography-and-selfies--what-you-need-to-know.html