Handoff by Hernandez keeps evidence away from grand jury

Where are you getting the idea that this ruling will preclude a murder charge?

This only refers to evidence that is "documentary" like papers, tapes, etc. and only if you gave it to your lawyers to "obtain legal advice" and only if the lawyer isn't going to do anything illegal themselves with it and only if they aren't likely to destroy/mutiliate/alter the documentary evidence in any ways, AND this is only for subpoenas not search warrants (although you can't file a search warrant for documentary evidence in the hands of a lawyer either).

If the state alleged that the phone was used as a blunt weapon to bash someone's head in, they'd be allowed to file a search warrant for it and search the lawyer's offices to find it. Instead, they want to make the lawyer and/or defendant produce the phone which violates self-incrimination and lawyer-client privilege.

Documentary evidence is all that's allowed to follow the "Fisher rule" which says you can ask your lawyer to look over your documents (like those in the phone) for legal advice and that protects the state from being allowed to make you give them over due to a subpoena AND doesn't allow the state to search for them via a search warrant.

If you shot someone and gave your lawyer the gun, they'd be able to use a search warrant to get it from him.

The lawyer isn't secreting or destroying the evidence, otherwise these protections wouldn't apply and the state would be able to grab the evidence before anything happened to it. But the lawyer is allowed to review the documentary evidence stored on the phone and advise their client without the state being allowed to rip it out of their hands (or the defendant's) due to privilege and right against self-incrimination.

Our constitution specifically says you can't be compelled to turn over self-incriminatory *evidence*. The 5th says you have a right against self-incrimination but that is less solid about evidence versus testimony.

It's a subpoena.

If there were no grand jury, the BPD detectives would have to go in front of a judge and make the case as to why they want to see the phone. According to what I have read, the BPD can still do that. And the defense attorneys cannot hold onto the phone forever.

On a completely different note, there has been some ruminating on the internets that the infamous grand jury out in St. Louis County, MO spent too much time of their case compared to typical grand jury deliberations. Why does it feel that this case has been at the grand jury for a year now? (Of course, this could just be an academic decision.)

but will keep trying to get him off anyway, playing the Game of Justishness. Cool! These games are fun, like road runner and Wile E. Coyote. Who will win? Who's cleverer? Just remember that the game is the point, not some imaginary thing called "justice" that only exists in the movies.

Our system is based on the premise that justice is best served by marshaling the strongest possible arguments on both sides; what you refer to as "only a game" is in fact the process that leads, over the longer term, over thousands of cases, to the most just outcome.

To me it seems that the Constitutional prohibition against unreasonable searches never actually prevents unreasonable searches, which was what I always imagined to be its intent.

Of course it protects the innocent. By excluding illegally seized evidence, we take away much of the incentive to perform illegal searches and seizures, thereby reducing their occurrence. The alternative is a world in which police could make illegal searches and seizures and then merely say to the judge, "oops, sorry, but at least we caught the guy."

but let me ask one thing: what is the consequence for a law enforcement officer of conducting an illegal search where nothing is found? The "case" never goes to trial, obviously, so there's really no downside. No apology necessary, right? No opportunity for a judge to preachily suppress said evidence, because there is no evidence. Just a humiliating ordeal for an innocent person.