[dmix]

So if any charges are brought against anyone as a result they could most likely get any evidence from it thrown out because the initial warrant was too broad and violated their right preventing unlawful search?

The real test for the legality of these warrants is typically in the courts for the defendant's trial, which is unfortunate. It's not often thoroughly challenged by the initial judge from what I've heard.

Which is interesting when you think of the implications of NSA FISA warrants not having any public scrutiny at all, just a judge's opinion in total secret.

I know in Canada it's not even full judges who sign off on police warrants but people called "Justice of the Peace" who are less trained than a judge and spend all day working with police signing off warrants.

Various defense attorneys I've spoken to have said they sign almost everything the police give them and tend to give the police the benefit of the doubt. Which is why the first thing every defense attorney does is look to challenge any warrants because they are usually the lowest hanging fruit in terms of how well thought out the police investigation was.

[dragonwriter]

> So if any charges are brought against anyone as a result they could most likely get any evidence from it thrown out because the initial warrant was too broad and violated their right preventing unlawful search?

No, IIRC, because you can only get evidence excluded if our were the target of the unlawful search; an unlawful search of Art's papers that turns up evidence used against Beth doesn't qualify for the exclusionary rule.