Talk:Mere evidence rule

Seizure vs Search

I have read articles that state wiretapped evidence could be admissible in court as it did not physically seize anything and later it was viewed as a "search" but not a "seizure" in the constitutional context. So from what I have read the mere evidence rule was only applied to seizing physical evidence and the probability of the three types of property being at the place to be searched limited police activity. Also warrants existed at that time to read peoples mail while in transit (they could copy the communication, much like recording phone or email conversations) since no possessory interest is violated. The copy or recordings are not being seized from the parties being "searched", they are being made by the police themselves. I think that the mere evidence rule applied to property rights more than privacy rights. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stamos1981 (talk • contribs) 19:15, 19 September 2011 (UTC)