"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
...
"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
Then please explain why the pilot's attorney would be "counting
on" the feds not examining the computer, when examining the
computer *cannot* give the feds useful evidence but *might* give
the pilot useful evidence.

Because in this trivial case, he figures they will just accept his claim.

I think we're talking at cross purposes here. I understand why the attorney
would *not expect* the feds to examine the computer (and in fact I explained
why they wouldn't have incentive to do so even if the matter were *not*
trivial). What I disputed is that the attorney would have reason to "count
on" that non-examination (that is, to *depend on* that non-examination),
since the examination, if it had any effect at all, would be to the pilot's
*benefit*.

--Gary