[fiatmoney]

Ding ding.

There's really only 4 possibilities, and they're all significant.

1) PD is responsible, and intentionally infecting defense attorneys with malware. Major obstruction of justice.

2) PD is responsible, and has been hacked. At a minimum, all their computer evidence is tainted; who knows if someone has been using their access for ill as well. Access to police DBs is useful for all sorts of nefarious purposes.

3) Defense attorney has faked the whole thing. Noteworthy in its own right; defense attorneys are pretty used to losing as a matter of necessity so for one to go on some kind of intentional crusade against the local PD, especially in such a public and falsifiable way... No judge will sign off on criminal sanctions here without a thorough investigation, so this is extremely unlikely barring a psychotic break (which does happen now again, it's a high-stress job).

4) Defense attorney has been hacked. Who hacked him? Have any of his clients been affected? Is someone, perhaps a technically sophisticated someone, targeting defense attorneys?

[stavrianos]

That fourth one is the killer. Regardless of its truth or falsehood, it gives everyone an out because none of the interesting consequences of the first three have to happen.

Perhaps the proper move would have been to surveil the malware without revealing that you know of it. Could prove/falsify #4, or implicate PD conclusively if #1.