Rebekah Jones house raid for "security breach"

cosmicaug said:
Sure. A crime like that as well as "hacking" (whatever that falls under) since none of that is going to rely on how hard the "hacking" is to do.

I'm not saying anything about it, neither the execution of the raid, nor the likely political motivation of all of this, is right. We also should be highly skeptical about the notion that this message was endangering public safety (which is the story that has been pushed since November when this came out).

It's also worth pointing out that the IPv6 addresses tracked would likely be traceable to something at the level of the home router. If that's all they have & they get no confession, there's certainly enough reasonable doubt there since someone using their wifi most likely cannot be ruled out in court.
Click to expand...


It was endangering the safety of some politicians' careers, which is very public ... and much more heinous.
 
Craig4 said:
I'm assuming she took the time to set up the video recordings. As for being a diva, it's not a bad strategy for her. It messages a potential jury pool and gets her national attention, pushing the prosecutors on the defensive. Now, to convince hold-out jurors, the prosecutor needs to prove the negative that this was not a political witch hunt.
Click to expand...
Yup, it looks like the time she kept them waiting was likely mostly spent talking to her lawyer (who instructed her, correctly at the time, that she didn't have to open the door) as well as setting up a camera.

It also looks like the story about her keeping them waiting for 20 minutes is technically true (if you look at the two webcam records it adds up to about 20 minutes) but misleading in that it gives the impression that she delayed a warrant for 20 minutes.

It looks like the police came in there without a warrant & halfway through the process obtained one over the phone. Only then do they announce they have a warrant because, before this point, it was just police paying a visit and, presumably, hoping for voluntary cooperation (which you should not provide).

Newer part of the bodycam footage Twitter thread:
https://twitter.com/GeoRebekah/status/1337429980926644226

They called me at minute 6:30. One of the officers told the other they didn't have the warrant yet. He did not tell me on the phone they had a warrant. He said they needed to "make contact." You don't have to answer if they don't have a warrant.

Still, I started getting dressed to come down after the call. I told my husband to keep the kids upstairs, thinking I'd be arrested and didn't want them to see that. I emailed my lawyer, texted my mom, grabbed the camera and went downstairs.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
cosmicaug said:
Yup, it looks like the time she kept them waiting was likely mostly spent talking to her lawyer (who instructed her, correctly at the time, that she didn't have to open the door) as well as setting up a camera.

It also looks like the story about her keeping them waiting for 20 minutes is technically true (if you look at the two webcam records it adds up to about 20 minutes) but misleading in that it gives the impression that she delayed a warrant for 20 minutes.

It looks like the police came in there without a warrant & halfway through the process obtained one over the phone. Only then do they announce they have a warrant because, before this point, it was just police paying a visit and, presumably, hoping for voluntary cooperation (which you should not provide).

Newer part of the bodycam footage Twitter thread:
https://twitter.com/GeoRebekah/status/1337429980926644226
Click to expand...

That part is huge. It means the authorities lied when they said she refused to open her door to Police serving a warrant. NO-ONE has to open their door to Police if they don't have a search warrant in their possession. She was acting entirely within her rights.
 
smartcooky said:
That part is huge. It means the authorities lied when they said she refused to open her door to Police serving a warrant. NO-ONE has to open their door to Police if they don't have a search warrant in their possession. She was acting entirely within her rights.
Click to expand...

Maybe that's why they didn't do the usual: "open the door or we'll bash it in."
 
smartcooky said:
That part is huge. It means the authorities lied when they said she refused to open her door to Police serving a warrant. NO-ONE has to open their door to Police if they don't have a search warrant in their possession. She was acting entirely within her rights.
Click to expand...

Huge in what sense? Police lie all the time. Authorities lie all the time. Of course, this kind of high profile.
 
cosmicaug said:
Huge in what sense? Police lie all the time. Authorities lie all the time. Of course, this kind of high profile.
Click to expand...

Well, its an open, verifiable lie. Its one she can use in court (if this BS ever comes to court).

I doubt it will. DeSantis and his pet judge* and Stormtroopers have made a huge mistake - going into a family home with children inside, weapons drawn, serving a warrant for....... an email.

A DeSantis aide claims that DeSantis himself knew nothing about this. If there is anyone out there who believes that, I've got a bridge I can sell them.

They will want to go away as quickly as possible

* the judge I speak of there is the De Santis appointed judge who signed the warrant after only three months on the bench.
 
smartcooky said:
Well, its an open, verifiable lie. Its one she can use in court (if this BS ever comes to court).
Click to expand...
  1. What law enforcement did a couple days ago has no bearing upon her guilt or innocence in regards to an event that happened on November.
  2. It's not even legally problematic for the police after the fact. Police are not considered to be obligated to tell anyone the truth.
  3. Yes, the previous point is part of the reason why you should be careful about cooperating with police and letting them into your home if you don't have to.

smartcooky said:
I doubt it will. DeSantis and his pet judge* and Stormtroopers have made a huge mistake - going into a family home with children inside, weapons drawn, serving a warrant for....... an email.

A DeSantis aide claims that DeSantis himself knew nothing about this. If there is anyone out there who believes that, I've got a bridge I can sell them.

They will want to go away as quickly as possible

* the judge I speak of there is the De Santis appointed judge who signed the warrant after only three months on the bench.
Click to expand...

DeSantis has claimed to have no knowledge of anything. His current position, however, is that of course he knew but didn't know what it was about.

https://twitter.com/alexnazaryan/status/1337436370223116291
 
smartcooky said:
Well, its an open, verifiable lie. Its one she can use in court (if this BS ever comes to court).

I doubt it will. DeSantis and his pet judge* and Stormtroopers have made a huge mistake - going into a family home with children inside, weapons drawn, serving a warrant for....... an email.

A DeSantis aide claims that DeSantis himself knew nothing about this. If there is anyone out there who believes that, I've got a bridge I can sell them.

They will want to go away as quickly as possible

* the judge I speak of there is the De Santis appointed judge who signed the warrant after only three months on the bench.
Click to expand...
It seems on its face that court is not the goal here. At most she'd get a misdemeanor wrist slap.

Exposing her contacts might be more important.
 
cosmicaug said:
  1. What law enforcement did a couple days ago has no bearing upon her guilt or innocence in regards to an event that happened on November.
  2. It's not even legally problematic for the police after the fact. Police are not considered to be obligated to tell anyone the truth.
  3. Yes, the previous point is part of the reason why you should be careful about cooperating with police and letting them into your home if you don't have to.
Click to expand...
The evidence would be thrown out in court if not initially then certainly on appeal.


cosmicaug said:
DeSantis has claimed to have no knowledge of anything. His current position, however, is that of course he knew but didn't know what it was about.

https://twitter.com/alexnazaryan/status/1337436370223116291
Click to expand...
Trump tactics 101.
Deny
Deny you knew what it was about
Say you knew what it was about but you didn't think it was illegal
Admit you knew it was illegal but it didn't matter


Or something like that.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
cosmicaug said:
  1. What law enforcement did a couple days ago has no bearing upon her guilt or innocence in regards to an event that happened on November.
  2. It's not even legally problematic for the police after the fact. Police are not considered to be obligated to tell anyone the truth.
  3. Yes, the previous point is part of the reason why you should be careful about cooperating with police and letting them into your home if you don't have to.
Click to expand...
The evidence would be thrown out in court if not initially then certainly on appeal.
Click to expand...

I do not understand why you think that this would be so. I see no evidence, whatsoever, of "tainted fruit" here.

State police paid a visit to Jones. No rights or due process violations here.

They insisted. Jones did not let them in. No rights or due process violations here.

The phoned in a request for a warrant. Pretty standard procedure and no rights violation here. I am not sure why it was left to after the visit had been initiated (maybe opting for cooperation first avoids the issue of whether a warrant is even granted in the event that the grounds may be considered weak by some judges?) but I still can't see how it would amount to sort of any errors in the legal process (so no problem). No rights or due process violations here.
They now get shouty & note that they have a warrant. They should announce that they have a warrant. No rights or due process violations here.

She lets them in & they come in with handguns drawn pointing it at people. Surely this is an excessive and unnecessary display of force but no one would be able to sustain a claim that it's a rights or due process violation here (not in the barbarian USA, anyway).

In some later account of this warrant being served (maybe by mistake, maybe because they think it makes her look bad), they give the impression that she delayed a properly served warrant for 20 minutes. This is already a different branch of the tree and there's still not rights or due process violation here.

Where do you see a step that will get evidence thrown out?
 
Last edited:
Skeptic Ginger said:
It seems on its face that court is not the goal here. At most she'd get a misdemeanor wrist slap.
Click to expand...

While it certainly does not mean that it would be prosecuted this way, De Santis has already made it a point to note that it is a felony offense that she could be charged with.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
This may be the claim:

Miami Herald: Did COVID data whistleblower hack Florida’s emergency alert system? Police raid home

And earlier: TampaBay: Florida’s emergency communications channel hacked, according to state official


:popcorn1
Click to expand...

So hacking means using an emergency communication network intended to communicate with medical and public health staff about an emergency, to in fact communicate with them about an emergency in the middle of a medical and public health emergency. With a public health message encouraging people to take action to help reduce the impact of that emergency.

As said this will be more about getting access to the phones and computers to identify supporters. Any attempt to go to trial will be a PR disaster big funding donors will ensure high level defence and a defence can easily be be turned into the fact that she had to act to save lives whilst the politicians tried to conceal the outbreak. They will never take this to trial. There's also the risk that her defence will request lots of documents relating to Florida policy decisions as part of her defence.
 
cosmicaug said:
I do not understand why you think that this would be so. I see no evidence, whatsoever, of "tainted fruit" here.

State police paid a visit to Jones. No rights or due process violations here.

They insisted. Jones did not let them in. No rights or due process violations here.

The phoned in a request for a warrant. Pretty standard procedure and no rights violation here. I am not sure why it was left to after the visit had been initiated (maybe opting for cooperation first avoids the issue of whether a warrant is even granted in the event that the grounds may be considered weak by some judges?) but I still can't see how it would amount to sort of any errors in the legal process (so no problem). No rights or due process violations here.
They now get shouty & note that they have a warrant. They should announce that they have a warrant. No rights or due process violations here.

She lets them in & they come in with handguns drawn pointing it at people. Surely this is an excessive and unnecessary display of force but no one would be able to sustain a claim that it's a rights or due process violation here (not in the barbarian USA, anyway).

In some later account of this warrant being served (maybe by mistake, maybe because they think it makes her look bad), they give the impression that she delayed a properly served warrant for 20 minutes. This is already a different branch of the tree and there's still not rights or due process violation here.

Where do you see a step that will get evidence thrown out?
Click to expand...

I believe the discussion was about had the police started the search before the warrant or had the warrant been obtained under false pretenses.
 
cosmicaug said:
While it certainly does not mean that it would be prosecuted this way, De Santis has already made it a point to note that it is a felony offense that she could be charged with.
Click to expand...

And right away there would be a plea deal down to a misdemeanor as is very common in court. I don't think the governor has a direct say in a plea deal.
 
If any ordinary business reported an identical "hacking" incident, would it even be investigated? I think not.
 
Modified said:
If any ordinary business reported an identical "hacking" incident, would it even be investigated? I think not.
Click to expand...

It probably depends on what you mean by 'ordinary", on how big they are, on what they feel they have at stake and on how much money they are willing to spend on legal actions (which probably depends on how big they are).

We can certainly find examples of businesses that maliciously prosecute folk who find vulnerabilities (at all levels of stupid: from subtle exploits no one should have been expected to know about to just leaving sensitive things out there on FTP servers so that they are accessible with anonymous logins) and are open about it and communicate them to the company so that they may be addressed.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
I believe the discussion was about had the police started the search before the warrant or had the warrant been obtained under false pretenses.
Click to expand...

The message I was replying to was responding to a comment I had made regarding how the impression given about her denying a warrant for 20 minutes was false in that it was clearly not supported by the bodycam video. That was the context in which I was seeing my response.

I don't believe that the police paying someone a visit is considered a violation of due process. If they had set foot in her house at that point, then it would have been but that did not happen. As for this being considered a search, it is also my understanding that currently it is considered that whatever can be seen from the outside is not considered a 4th Amendment violation.

And again, phoning in a request for a search warrant while ready to come on site is not unheard of either.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom