That's not contradictory; you're conflating past and future. Suppose you're a cop and you find a box with a label on the outside saying 'drug ca$h LOL.' You open it and to your surprise find $1 million dollars, some cocaine, and a passport in the name of K Ingpin. Later you establish K. Ingpin's whereabouts and arrest him. It turns out his fingerprints are all over the box and contents.
You had probable cause to investigate what appeared to be a cache of proceeds from the sale of contraband, despite not knowing who it belonged to. On discovering the identity documents in such close proximity to actual contraband, you had probable cause to locate and arrest that person on suspicion of drug dealing.
It's actually Ulbricht who wants to have it both ways. Asserting 4th amendment rights effectively amounts to saying 'hey, that's mine and you snoops had no right to access it.' Ulbricht refuses to admit or assert that the servers were his in any meaningful way, even though the prosecution could not put such an admission before the court as evidence. The only way the prosecutors could bring it up is if he took the stand and said 'no way, that's not my server,' in which case they'd say 'but you told the court that it is.' So as a defendant you can say that evidence is the result of an illegal search, or you can disclaim ownership of it, but not both at the same time.
I don't know whether the original warrant was deficient or not, and haven't looked it up. but bear in mind that the job of the trial court is not to establish whether it was valid (unless there is glaring evidence to the contrary), but whether it is admissible as evidence to be considered by the finder-of-fact (typically a jury). It's up to the defense counsel to raise those arguments, not for the court to preempt. In this case, the court is pointing out that it told the defense exactly what it needed to do to to make a procedurally valid 4th amendment challenge, and the defense failed to do so.
It's not the court's job to step in and assist the defendant if the the defendant's lawyer is no good, although bad lawyering is sometimes the basis for an appeal (on the grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel, in which case the appeal court could order a new trial if it agreed with the claim). In the American legal tradition (and the English one from which it derives), courts are not investigative bodies, they are determinative ones, which can only rule on matters brought up by one of the parties. This is completely different from how courts operate in jurisdictions based on Napoleonic law, in which the functions of prosecutor and judge and virtually combined. Obviously this is a highly simplistic summary, please take it with a grain of salt as I can't compress centuries of different legal traditions into a few sentences.
> even though the prosecution could not put such an admission before the court
Can anyone explain "though it could be used to impeach him should he take the witness stand" from the article? Sounds like this pre-trial statement could effectively constrain his options during the trial, so it's not like it's perfectly safe or inconsequential for him to have said this pre-trial.
Yes, your pre-trial statements definitely constrain your options during the trial. Your pre-trial statements guide how your opponent prepares and presents the case against you. You don't get to suddenly shift your ground halfway through the trial because you don't like the way that your first approach panned out.
Oh it definitely constrains his options. But remember you have a constitutional protection from self-incrimination, so as defendant you don't have to take the stand at all and the jury (well, the trier-of-fact which is usually a jury) is not allowed to infer anything from your unwillingness to testify. Not being able to to protest your ignorance is the price you pay for the court witholding inadmissible evidence from the scrutiny of the jury.
Your analogy doesn't make sense to me. A box like that doesn't violate anyone's privacy rights to open. That completely ruins any applicability to this case.
You had probable cause to investigate what appeared to be a cache of proceeds from the sale of contraband, despite not knowing who it belonged to. On discovering the identity documents in such close proximity to actual contraband, you had probable cause to locate and arrest that person on suspicion of drug dealing.
It's actually Ulbricht who wants to have it both ways. Asserting 4th amendment rights effectively amounts to saying 'hey, that's mine and you snoops had no right to access it.' Ulbricht refuses to admit or assert that the servers were his in any meaningful way, even though the prosecution could not put such an admission before the court as evidence. The only way the prosecutors could bring it up is if he took the stand and said 'no way, that's not my server,' in which case they'd say 'but you told the court that it is.' So as a defendant you can say that evidence is the result of an illegal search, or you can disclaim ownership of it, but not both at the same time.
I don't know whether the original warrant was deficient or not, and haven't looked it up. but bear in mind that the job of the trial court is not to establish whether it was valid (unless there is glaring evidence to the contrary), but whether it is admissible as evidence to be considered by the finder-of-fact (typically a jury). It's up to the defense counsel to raise those arguments, not for the court to preempt. In this case, the court is pointing out that it told the defense exactly what it needed to do to to make a procedurally valid 4th amendment challenge, and the defense failed to do so.
It's not the court's job to step in and assist the defendant if the the defendant's lawyer is no good, although bad lawyering is sometimes the basis for an appeal (on the grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel, in which case the appeal court could order a new trial if it agreed with the claim). In the American legal tradition (and the English one from which it derives), courts are not investigative bodies, they are determinative ones, which can only rule on matters brought up by one of the parties. This is completely different from how courts operate in jurisdictions based on Napoleonic law, in which the functions of prosecutor and judge and virtually combined. Obviously this is a highly simplistic summary, please take it with a grain of salt as I can't compress centuries of different legal traditions into a few sentences.