work vs home

[pushnpull]

I ordered some stuff and had everything sent to home, etc. Home is on all my CC info and shipping was to home as well. Is there any reason why they would be able to go to my work, where I have all my ordering info, etc and search throgh my computer at work. I have already cleaned house just in case because of this board, but should I clean house at work as well?

J

 

[ROID WARRIOR]

This is going to depend upon the warrant application. If law enforcement can establish probable cause for a reasonable to believe that the instrumentality for the commission of, or the proceeds of a crime may be found at that location, and a judge signs the order granting the warrant, then a search can be performed.

RW

 

[pushnpull]

Thx, guess I'll just clean house at work also ... and hide the stash at a friends house for a while till shipments come in.

 

[liftshard]

Sorry, Roid Warrior, wrong answer.

Work is dicey.

They don't need a warrant; all they'll likely have to do is ASK and your employer may voluntarily GIVE THEM your machine to examine. You don't own your work computer; your employer does. If you are an executive or higher level employee, the company will probably protect you. If you're just a wage-level guy or lower-level person, they will likely consent to the search offhand and may even fire your ass because "the police are after him." It will depend upon your employer, not you.

As for "cleaning house," unless you destroy your hard drive by mechanical destruction or incineration, data on it is categorically recoverable. I would like to hear what means you are using to "clean house" on your computer.

Additionally, your employer may be monitoring what you are doing and recording your email, web usage, etc.

 

[ROID WARRIOR]

It's not the wrong answer, you're assuming consent and waiver of the Fourth Amendment right. You're also assuming that this guy is employed by someone else, facts which he did not assert in his original message. With those kind of assumptions, you'd get bounced out of law school so fast your head would spin.

Work in and of itself is not "dicey." If you're self-employed in your own place, then you'd better believe that government actors need a warrant to toss the place. The question becomes one of who has the expectation of privacy in that place.

An anology is if you share your apartment with your girlfriend, LEOs also don't need a warrant as long as she consents.

Try some analytical thinking next time and don't rush to judgement.

RW

 

[Rick Collins]

Ouch!! Roid Warrior don't take no shit!

 

[liftshard]

OMG...now the guy is gonna talk about getting bounced out of law school. Jeezus, spare me. I got my JD 7 years ago and am a member of more than one bar.

The assumptions were valid. There is a difference between a law school question and what is real; this right here is reality.

Next time, you try some real-world reasoning about what is as opposed to what could be. The vast majority of people are not self-employed and the police would receive consent unless the company's management thought that the employee's conduct could implicate them, in which case he'd merely be fired and they'd wipe the computer. I think you might stipulate to this being an "adverse consequence" and that the person in question probably has a strong desire to avoid it.

I merely played the odds, which is at the core of analytical thinking. Just as a point for your future reference, don't talk to me about analytical thinking, ok? Your answer was incorrect and ultimately misleading. It is far easier in practice for your illegal conduct to be discovered at work than it is at home, except in rare circumstances.

As for whether or not he is self-employed, you are relying on the improbable to be correct. You made a generic statement of law which was not probative of anything. I will wager that he is not self-employed. If that is true, then I am correct. This is most likely the case and why I said what I said. An attorney, before dispensing advice, should inquire as to the particular facts surrounding the question. I made a statement in their absence based upon the most probable circumstances.

And, you spelled "judgment" wrong...that's one point off your score.

 

[ROID WARRIOR]

Yawn...

 

[Boulder257]

no offense liftshard, but you should be careful before attacking (and yes, you did attack by saying, "your answer is wrong) a respected member of the board. If you want to offer alternative view points, the do so, but not at the expense of a person that has helped MANY people on this board.

 

[liftshard]

listen, dude, an attack would be something like this: "you're an asshole." I didn't attack anyone, I merely said "wrong answer."

Then, *I* was attacked and told this and that about lawschool and shit. So, please spare me the personality advice, ok?

This is a warped country where disagreeing with someone is tantamount to "attacking them." I fully appreciate that RW has helped lots of people on this board, but tenure is not to be confused with veracity and tenure never buys squat in my book. A guy who's been on here since the first day the board went live is no more or less right because of it than someone who got on here yesterday. All that matters is fact.

And, I can help a lot of people on this board; however, in every case where I disagree with the opinion of another member, I will say so. If you want to conduct a cult of personality with respect to long-time members, that's your business.

If RW wants to respond with "yawn" instead of contesting substantive points, that's HIS business. Judge it for what it is.

 

[ROID WARRIOR]

You're not arguing substantive points when you point out what is an obvious typographical error.

In any event, it's a unique attribute about the legal profession, that there is no camaraderie, brotherhood or professional courtesy. Doctors certainly have it, and back each other. Police officers have it and often take an "us against them" mentality.

However, the legal profession is mired in constant antagonism, disrespect toward others, a lack of civility and a general combativeness. It seems to come mostly from the less proficient practitioners who are compelled to create this bluster to obfuscate the deficiencies in their case and/or their abilities.

Tenure certainly doesn't give one entitlement to deference, but an entirely irreverent approach is equally unwarranted. I once had an adversarial position with Jeremiah Guttman, while I didn't agree with his posture on the case or his liberal politics, nonetheless, I treated him with the greatest degree of respect for his accomplishments. Because he is a gentlemen, he treated this practitioner with equal respect.

It's refereshing and rare to meet someone like Rick. With all his success, he's still just like a regular bro who likes train, and to talk about bodybuilding and AAS. He fights hard and is an excellent adversary, but he's also one of the most gracious people I've met. That's rare.

RW

 

[Rick Collins]

RW, I very much appreciate your comments, particularly about the lack of respect and civility in our profession. It bothers me, too. As litigators, we fight for a living. But skills and passion in courtroom combat are different from walking around the lawyer's lounge with a chip on one's shoulder. The Jeremiah Guttman example is perfect as a standard of what ought to be.

Of course "tenure is not to be confused with veracity" but that misses the point. Surely, tenure doesn't make a person right or wrong on a given issue, or immune from challenge. In MY book, however, a long-standing commitment and dedication to the hardcore bodybuilding community and an established history of good works and willingness to help others DOES mean a lot. Much more than "squat." In my humble opinion, and the opinions of most folks, frankly, that type of guy has earned a measure of respect beyond that of "someone who got on here yesterday." We always welcome and embrace fresh voices and views here, particularly from our brethren in the legal community. Newcomers should never feel that they have to snipe at others to be recognized or appreciated. I just posted a welcome to a newcomer on another thread, but I'm copying it below because I think it bears repeating. I hope the post is accepted as a positive one, because that's how it's intended.

"Anyway, welcome to this board, Liftshard. I'm enjoying your insights and comments expressed in other posts and sincerely appreciate many of your contributions very much. The lawyers on this board, and all the others too, don't have to agree on everything or unjustly pat each other on the backs. We all have our individual styles, some softer and some more abrasive, and the diversity is not necessarily a bad thing. There may be great value to debating "Juris Doctor" versus "Juris Doctorate" if it educates and enlightens the members. But if I may offer my own observation after many years of practice, it's not an overabundance of mutual civility and respect that compromises our profession, but a paucity. I do try to keep that in mind, when I'm tempted to be sarcastic or condescending in the manner in which I take issue with my colleagues. Particularly on boards like this, where the shared, unpopular views that estrange us from the professional mainstream are INFINITELY more significant than our differences. We should appreciate our common ground more. That's my two cents. Period. Welcome aboard, and I look forward to your future posts."

 

[Boulder257]

listen, dude, an attack would be something like this: "you're an asshole." I didn't attack anyone, I merely said "wrong answer."

Wow...you're the reason people don't like attorneys.

My point was not about disagreeing. My point was you were personally disrepectful to RW in your post. If you can't see that, it just shows even more you're mentality.

If you want to disagree then do it. RW was offering a legal opinion. That's like saying a hypothetical situation is wrong! How can it be wrong? It's a hypothetical. So, instead of saying, "wong answer" you could say, "another way to look at it is..." Get it...it's called common courtesy.

Also, I'm not saying because RW has helped alot of people does make him right, but it does mean he deserves a certain level of respect.

 

[liftshard]

RW - "However, the legal profession is mired in constant antagonism, disrespect toward others, a lack of civility and a general combativeness. It seems to come mostly from the less proficient practitioners who are compelled to create this bluster to obfuscate the deficiencies in their case and/or their abilities"

Yes, I noted this in your first reply to me.

If you cannot stand your statements being scrutinized, then you need to do some self-introspection. This is the SECOND time you have made either direct or indirect attempt to publicly call into question my competence and THAT is unprofessional at its CORE. You do not know me. You have no clue what my background is, competencies, or even the US News ranking of my law school. Yet, you feel compelled to offhandedly or directly patronize me or make snide comments about the legal proficiency of people who "supposedly act like me." I will not tolerate that. It is a dick-swinging contest. If you see something I say that you believe is incorrect, feel free to comment, but leave the chip on your shoulder over my legal "proficiency" at the door. In fact, RW, I have not at any time questioned ANY of your personal abilities. I have restricted myself solely to questions of material fact. I will make no comment about whether your use of ad hominem reflects a weakness in your perceived self-ability or your substantive position because I am not here to conduct a psychoanalysis, I am here to discuss questions of law.

Rick - if "wrong answer" is "incivility" these days, then we have some THIN skin around here. I am what I am, and right is right. Sometimes, I may rub people the wrong way, but I am not here to pick fights or get into petty squabbles. I am surprised at your experiences regarding attitudes in the legal profession; most lawyers I have encountered, either in professional or personal venues, have been polite and respectful to the point of fault. In fact, it has been my distinct experience that the most accomplished members of the legal profession tend to be the LEAST civil. Whether this is due to arrogance or sychophanty around them, I have no clue, but the disrepect with which I've seen some senior partners treat their staff and associates is contemptible.

At any rate, thank you for your welcome. When you get to know me, you will find that I sometimes post in a certain manner to see what type of a response it will engender because that tells me a lot more about the person that I'm dealing with than any biographical narratives.

Boulder - you need to learn what an "attack" is and then get back to me. I attacked no one. I made no comment about any person. When you are critical of a statement, idea, or opinion, it is simply not the same as attacking someone.

You say "if I want to disagree, then do it." That is EXACTLY what I did. As it is you are critical of my bedside manner or the particular verbiage I used to do so. I'm sure RW is a big boy and he didn't suffer too much undue psychological trauma from my scathing "attack."

As for me being the reason people don't like attorneys, hyperbole of this nature isn't worth a reply comment.

 

[Boulder257]

looks like someone got a thesaurus...

 

[liftshard]

No...I was a National Merit Scholar. I write like this all the time. what, are you gonna play high school and start bagging on me for being smart?

 

[Rick Collins]

"Wrong answer" is not incivility. But I don't think that's the remark in question. I think Boulder257 said it well. You see it differently than the rest of us. Whatever. There's not much point in going further with a "You-seem-to-have-a-chip-on-your-shoulder!" versus "No I don't!" dialogue. There are better things to talk about in the limited available time.

 

[Boulder257]

agreed Rick and a good point. I'm done and I just want to say that I appreciate the insight that everyone like you and RW bring to this site.

 

[Rick Collins]

Thanks, Boulder. Also, guys like Citruscide, Manny, Kronk and Mike DiMaggio have all established their reputations over time as legal eagles who care about personal liberties in the context of physical self-improvement. Their contributions also deserve our respect and praise!

 

[Boulder257]

Absolutely agreed. I didn't mean to leave anyone out. Respect to each of you!