Or various public defenders on account of extremely limited time and resources? I get the impression that public defence resources run a wide range of adequacy.
You would want to check the warrants and supporting affidavits carefully.
1 Like
"Speaking in a public place does not mean that the individual has no reasonable expectation of privacy,"[quote="TooGoodToCheck_, post:15, topic:77983, full:true"] Is that actually true in the US? 'cause I'm not a lawyer, but I thought it wasn't. [/quote]
An upskirt-camera perv’s defense in WA. took the position that because the women were in public, they had no expectation of privacy under their skirts.
It worked. The man was not convicted (to the sound a statewide collective “WTF?!”)
Of course the moment that loophole hit the headlines, local politicians were falling over each other to be the first to be seen to be amending the relevant law.
So… yes and no 
2 Likes
5 Likes
Wonder who the FBI was protecting with their antics. Because that’s what this sort of willful malfeasance looks like to me. Now the gov’t will likely have to settle without any admission of guilt by someone of means.
OOPSIE! ACCIDENT!
yeah, suuuuuuure.
4 Likes
It would be a real shame if somebody left a tape recorder looping phrases hinting at illegal behavior for the microphones to pick up.
1 Like
If the US government wanted citizens to have any faith at all in the integrity of its institutions, it could do a lot worse than to start prosecuting some of the grosser violations of law by “civil servants” like these FBI goons.
They surely believe they protect Justice itself.
It’s reasonable to assume that on the steps of the court there are attorney-client talks which would fall under the eponymous privilege. How many totally unrelated cases could be overturned because of the illegal tapping.
Also that’s why the FBI (hopefully right) thought they’d never get a warrant in the first place.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
