CACrown ArchivesThe cinema collection
EN/FR
Search
Menu
Research dossier · General Reference

Rule 41

rule in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure

Cross-disciplinary reference desk with index cards, atlas, dictionary and catalogue
General referenceInterpretive dossier study · Crown Archives visual atlas
Record originEnglish Wikipedia
Text licenseCC BY-SA 4.0
Source revisionDec 26, 2022
Entity authorityQ28136366 ↗
Source-derived summary

Rule 41, titled Search and Seizure, is a rule in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.

Overview

In 2016 an amendment allowed judges to issue warrants allowing the FBI and other federal law enforcement agencies to use remote access tools to access (hack) computers outside the jurisdiction in which the warrant was granted.

Editorial summary

The public source identifies “Rule 41” as rule in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. This brief keeps that definition visible, then builds a research path around Rule, rule and Federal.

Editorial reviewA concise reference frame for defining the subject, testing terminology and identifying the institution closest to the evidence. The current lead gives the account dated anchors—2016—that can be checked directly. The selected authority fields contribute no independent date. Its value is orientation rather than verdict, with Rule, rule and Federal providing the first useful test.
Editorial analysis

Why this record matters

A short description can identify a subject without explaining its stakes. For “Rule 41”, the useful work is to connect “rule in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure” to the records capable of establishing context and consequence.

Evidence profile

Vocabulary and entity names are the principal evidence signals here, because they determine the precision of every later search. The source revision retrieved here is dated Dec 26, 2022. The linked authority identifier is Q28136366. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 2016.

Critical limits

The absence of detail may reflect summary conventions rather than a lack of surviving documentation. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.

How to read it

Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.

Best used for
  • Subject orientation
  • Search vocabulary
  • Locating named sources
Verify next

The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.

Three-step research path

  1. Establish the record: confirm the title “Rule 41”, its source revision and the description used here.
  2. Expand the search: follow Rule 41 primary sources, Rule 41 archive and Rule research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
  3. Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.

Questions for further research

  1. Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Rule 41”?
  2. Which cited source is closest to the event, object or claim?
  3. Which institution is responsible for the underlying evidence?
Subject index

Search terms from this dossier

Source & attribution

This entry incorporates text from “Rule 41” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.