doctorow at February 4th, 2014 12:01 — #1
brainspore at February 4th, 2014 12:05 — #2
The "Taint" team: Dicks, Assholes, or somewhere in between the two?
jjsaul at February 4th, 2014 12:25 — #3
So "probable cause" is no longer an standard in American criminal evidence and "pretext" is just another word for unquestionable.
fuzzyfungus at February 4th, 2014 12:30 — #4
Bringing the 'new professionalism' to the subtle art of testilying...
imjon at February 4th, 2014 12:32 — #5
I've wondered to myself if they have done this before. I wonder if any specific examples of this happening will ever become known. In particular I am interested if the SilkRoad bust relied on finding evidence in the dragnet and then linking them together or if DPR was really careless enough to leave the trail himself.
mijojojo at February 4th, 2014 12:49 — #6
Surprisingly similar to the plot of Neal Stephenson's seminal work "Cryptonomicon" in which commandos plant evidence to obfuscate that we had cracked the Nazi Enigma codes...
jdaniel30 at February 4th, 2014 12:54 — #7
It would be appropriate to review any DEA cases that have used this dishonest method of evidence collection and use and either retry or dismiss them.
joe_b at February 4th, 2014 13:24 — #8
Unfortunately, judges tend to forget all about rights when large quantities of drugs are involved, so I am afraid that the courts would respond by gutting Miranda and any other barrier to locking up "drug lords".
kstop at February 4th, 2014 13:29 — #9
Except in this case, the enemy is actually the public. That's messed up.
anthonyc at February 4th, 2014 15:28 — #10
If you can identify the cases. I'd guess that will require access to classified documents, access to the unedited (probably unrecorded) evidence chain, and so on.
drpfenderson at February 4th, 2014 16:09 — #11
It really is a shame. It seems to be the big 3 - terrorism, pedophilia, and drug dealing - that make everyone's brains shut down.
danegeld at February 4th, 2014 19:27 — #12
Okay. someone who understands the American constitution can tell me: Does the 4th amendment protect against groundless searches and seizures of property in general or does it just restrict the court from considering evidence that is obtained in an unlawful manner?
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized
It seems that the DEA approach is to say that searches in violation of the 4th amendment are OK, provided there is a route to reaching the same information which was consistent with the 4th amendment which is then followed by the book. Is that accurate?
pjcamp at February 4th, 2014 21:48 — #13
The taint team? I don't even want to know what they've got their noses all up in.
marjae at February 4th, 2014 22:23 — #14
The fourth amendment is supposed to prevent these things. The exclusionary rule was something the courts added to protect the fourth, or to limit the damage from violating the fourth. The exclusionary rule was later weakened, because drugs, then terrorism, so there is nothing remaining to protect the fourth.
doctorow at February 9th, 2014 12:01 — #15
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.