Quote Originally Posted by Pelion
You are missing the entire point of the argument. It isnt about powers to search it is about whether or not it is legal to own these things in the first place. In this case there was no search. The crime was uncovered accidently by a member of the public. The question of whether or not the first ammendment has been violated does not relate to any search so im not really sure what point you are making. The question is, is the guy allowed to be prosecuted after this stuff was found BY ACCIDENT.
I already said yes to that question. You were proposing somehow modifying the constitution or establishing precedence so I figured we werent talking about possessing something, but instead the search that would bring the possession to court. Otherwise what you are asking isnt something that applies to the constitution so Im not sure how your previous posts about fixing it or whatever apply here if now you are talking about something completely different. I never in any of my posts said it was legal to own this, and all of my posts made clear I was talking about the constitutionality of searches in cases regarding child porn and you responded to those posts about changing the constitution to allow that.