No-tell searches by the Feds -

[shadowsource]

FYI: Here's a Wall Street Journal report for Friday about how the lone dessenting Senator on Ashcroft's bill has a special problem with clauses that would allow the Feds to search your home without bothering to tell you 'til some later time:

"Mr. [Russell of Wisconsin] Feingold wants to strip from the bill the so-called sneak-and-peek provision, which would let investigators search premises without notifying the owner until a "reasonable period" afterward. The Justice Department says it needs to expand this power so as not to tip off suspects that it is investigating them. Mr. Feingold says that if the provision goes through, 'the Fourth Amendment is a dead letter.'"

Within two years, they'll be using this one against potheads and tax evaders. What we have lost....

 

[Nighthunter]

Can never be regained... Sounds like them alright, last thing anyone wants is ppl coming into their homes like that, ever hear of a "Black Bag search?"

 

[Jigs]

If you should happen to be innocent of possession of contraband, or otherwise haven't left something that might convict you of a crime lying around your home or office, The 4th Amendment has always been a dead letter.

The ONLY general enforcement of the ban on 'unreasonable searches and siesures' at the present time a rule of evidence that excludes from use at the trail any material discovered by the police without a proper Warrant (including any other material that would not have been found except thru the original improper search).

That means if you are innocent, or the police don't find anything incriminating anyway, its a case of: OH MY, SO WHAT! The enfocement of the 4th amentdment has thus created the abusurd result that it offers the innocent no protection against police abuse, but alows those guilty beyond a doubt to go free.

Attached is a file is a letter I recently wrote to a fellow lawyer in the UK on the subject in the event anyone cares enough about one of our great legal myths to find out more about it.

 

[Young Knave]

Well, at least there's one democrat with a spine left. Next they'll try bringing back the alien and sadition act. Hopefully Russ will still be around.

FYI: Here's a Wall Street Journal report for Friday about how the lone dessenting Senator on Ashcroft's bill has a special problem with clauses that would allow the Feds to search your home without bothering to tell you 'til some later time:

"Mr. [Russell of Wisconsin] Feingold wants to strip from the bill the so-called sneak-and-peek provision, which would let investigators search premises without notifying the owner until a "reasonable period" afterward. The Justice Department says it needs to expand this power so as not to tip off suspects that it is investigating them. Mr. Feingold says that if the provision goes through, 'the Fourth Amendment is a dead letter.'"

Within two years, they'll be using this one against potheads and tax evaders. What we have lost....

 

[Young Knave]

Fuck that. The reason why we have these limitations on police power is to prevent the government from spying on its citizens. The whole arguement that you have nothing to fear if you're innocent is bullshit. The potential for abuse of these powers is HUGE. Look at some of the things the government's done with limitations in place (FBI under Hoover for instance).

If you should happen to be innocent of possession of contraband, or otherwise haven't left something that might convict you of a crime lying around your home or office, The 4th Amendment has always been a dead letter.

The ONLY general enforcement of the ban on 'unreasonable searches and siesures' at the present time a rule of evidence that excludes from use at the trail any material discovered by the police without a proper Warrant (including any other material that would not have been found except thru the original improper search).

That means if you are innocent, or the police don't find anything incriminating anyway, its a case of: OH MY, SO WHAT! The enfocement of the 4th amentdment has thus created the abusurd result that it offers the innocent no protection against police abuse, but alows those guilty beyond a doubt to go free.

Attached is a file is a letter I recently wrote to a fellow lawyer in the UK on the subject in the event anyone cares enough about one of our great legal myths to find out more about it.

 

[Jigs]

Young Knave-


You missed the point. The problem isn't the 4th amendment. The problem is that the exclusionary rule is its only enforcememnt. That makes the amendment itself worthess, a myth, inso far as an effective protection of the public from bad cops and police abuse.

Worse than that it corrupts the whole system. In a tight spot the cop lies about the circumstances of the search, and the judge pretends he believes it, and makes 'findings of fact' accordingly. What do you exect the judge do, let the guilty sob walk?

And if the judge does exclude the evidence, just what penalty is that to the cop that abused the system. Explain to me how that has protected you as a citizen? Now you have bad cop AND bad ass both loose on the street.

It's a great game for lawyers tho. I know I made my living playing it for 35 years.

 

[shadowsource]

Re Jigs -

Jigs is right to the extent that we need some SERIOUS LEGAL PENALTIES for cops and prosecutors and forensic witnesses who lie in order to keep the game going. Why should a prosecutor or perjurous cop or witness get away with putting innocent people on death row because they fit a profile and had prior convictions? This happens all the time - West Virginia has had a lot of crime lab cases; Oklahoma has a rotten forensics' expert who just resigned in disgrace; Illinois has a long history of proven prosecutorial fraud; NYC is awash in it, but the juries no longer believe them.

We need laws with teeth that can and will punish rogue cops and prosecutors. Why should honest cops and prosecutors be stuck with performance numbers that are inferior to the crooked ones? The way the system works now is horrible.

 

[Young Knave]

I see what you're saying. I disagree that Feingold's decision is meaningless, though. If you take away the limitations we have on police powers, they are going to be that much worse. Police will take it for granted that they have a right to do these things, and won't think twice about it.

Young Knave-


You missed the point. The problem isn't the 4th amendment. The problem is that the exclusionary rule is its only enforcememnt. That makes the amendment itself worthess, a myth, inso far as an effective protection of the public from bad cops and police abuse.

Worse than that it corrupts the whole system. In a tight spot the cop lies about the circumstances of the search, and the judge pretends he believes it, and makes 'findings of fact' accordingly. What do you exect the judge do, let the guilty sob walk?

And if the judge does exclude the evidence, just what penalty is that to the cop that abused the system. Explain to me how that has protected you as a citizen? Now you have bad cop AND bad ass both loose on the street.

It's a great game for lawyers tho. I know I made my living playing it for 35 years.

 

[shadowsource]

We need both -

We have to defend the rights we have and we have to punish law enforcement agents who violate those rights.

 

[miles]

Good idea. Let's start with Bill Clinton. He was the Chief Law Enforcement Officer of the United States.

Almost forgot - that's different.

 

[Thumper]

OK

Then we punish Linda Tripp for the illegal recordings she made. Oh yeah she was granted immunity after doing it.

How does an investigation go from alleged illegal land deals to blowjobs (which as far as I know are legal in DC between consenting adults).

Sounds like they were desperate to get something.

Granted Clinton should have just told the Grand Jury to bite his ass on that question as it had NO relevance to anything that mattered, but he lied about a blow job...so fucking what. Here I'll lie about that too, "I got one last night!" so sue me.

Reagan and Bush lied about Iran Contra (a whole lot more serious in my book than oral sex) to finance death squads in El Salvador...either that or Reagan was senile already and had no idea what was going on in his own house...

Clinton is a dead horse...no matter how hard ya beat it it's going NOWHERE!

A law enforcement official that lies and causes harm or unjustified incarceration of an individual is a thousand times more heinous one who lies about something totally inconsequential.

BTW...in a lot of states perjury that results in the wrongful execution of an individual is a capital offense.

I would assume that the successful conviction of a criminal would be sufficient motivation for an officer or prosecutor to "go by the book". If they don't care about getting the bad guy off the streets why bother in the first place?

 

[WriterDom]

Good idea. Let's start with Bill Clinton. He was the Chief Law Enforcement Officer of the United States.

Almost forgot - that's different.

You're forgetting about Condit. Extramarital sex is now uncool. Much less breaking the law. He should resign. He's no real democrat.

 

[Thumper]

Extramarital sex is now uncool.

Damn!