Profiling: How the FBI Tracks Eco-Terror Suspects

We must simply face the fact that the Constitution, a document created in a different world centuries ago, has been diluted so much, it's effectively been turned into flavored water from red wine.

h34r:

 

...that was deep Squid - but a good point.

 

This has been done since the FBI was created. If you become a suspect in a crime, they start collecting information about you, including what you say in public. And yes, message boards, such as this one, are public speech.

I'm pretty sure that the Constitution doesn't prohibit the government from listening to what you say in public.

 

Let's be careful about what we really MEAN!. Nothing in the constitution prevents the gov't from collecting data that is out in the public domain. Also, with search warrants, they can collect data outside the public domain. Problems occur when they intrude onto privacy issues w/o said warrant.

I suspect this payout was more tied to a false arrest than the actual collecting of info. Having a "file" on you is more titillating and easier for the common citizen to grasp than the nuances involced in Probable Cause, reasonable suspicion, etc.

 

THIS is what I have a problem with, the whole "arrested on suspicion" part... That's very Stalin-esque, for chrissakes, at LEAST have some "reasonable" "proof". You MIGHT be inclined to think they have their act together to avoid this sort of thing, then again, it could have simply been an inexperienced, or group of inexperienced, agents on that particular case. Furthermore, the "rare concession" concept is equally scary. I wonder how many times they've been wrong, and got away with it.

Without getting too much into it, I've always argued the whole judicial system operates on the you have to crack a few eggs to make an omlet philosophy, WHICH, I actually agree with, for the most part, since perfect justice cannot occur until we figure out how to accurately read minds.



h34r:

 

Or when said warrant is based upon an affidavit full of embellishments, misrepresentations, distortions and outright lies.

 

Isr, You have brought this up before. I hope you were able to show this and those that did it were punished. If you weren't able to prove it, I challenge your assertion that it is true. If your "proof" that they (oh, they = the police) did this is the "DEFENDANT" saying they did, then give me a break. Most defendants lie. Come on, it's human nature to lie to get out of trouble.

I read LOTS of criminal case law. The vast majority of claims that the warrant was false are found to be not true. Or are the appellate courts corrupt as well.

If it happened to YOU, Isr. Then I understand completely. Just curious, we are obviously on opposite sides of the fence on this. I'll admit there are bad cops out there if you will admit more harm has been done by defense attorneys putting bad guys back on the street. I know, if we did our job right, defense atty's wouldn't be able to. Well, we (the police) don't get the pay they do, don't have the time available to us, and are trained for a myriad of tasks, not just one. Also, the Defendant is presumed to be not guilty which, by the way, means we are assumed to be wrong from the get go. The scales are a wee bit tipped in the defendants favor.

 

Squid,

How has the Constitution been dilluted? Except for the disasterous 18 ammendment (prohibition was the 18, right?) I'd argue that it's been improved (oh, and the one where the legislature gets to give them selves rasises, that's crap) not dilluted. The government, on the other hand, is a smoldering pile of dung controlled by the extremists who feed on dissention and the air of hostility that they themselves create. No one seems to understand that government is about compromise and teamwork. Special interests own the government now and as a result it's impotent. The Constitution is in danger of being perverted and often people choose to ignore it but I wouldn't say it's dilluted. Not yet anyways. Did I just hijack this thread?


h34r:

 

I don't like hijack...has a criminal connotation. How about..intercepted, that's it, as in sports you intercept a pass then run the other way.

I agree Tripp, the constitution still says what is said in 1787. We, the people, have allowed others to DISTORT what the plain reading was. It was not written by a bunch of attorneys. It is PLAIN LANGUAGE, particularly the 2nd amendment.

Trying to get to what the framers "meant" has been the problem all along.

 

Officer Schmidt,

Yes, I am a criminal defense lawyer. My job is not to pass judgment on my clients, but to be an advocate in court and to make sure that they are not convicted unless the police follows the constitution, laws and the other rules and procedures, which govern the criminal justice system, and that the crime charged is proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

In an average year I have at least a couple of search warrants set aside for the reasons stated above. In addition, I estimate that I win at least half a dozen suppression motions. No, you are not going to find these in the published opinions, because trial court rulings are not published in the official reports. Unless the losing side appeal the rulings and the appellate court certifies its holdings for publication, these opinions do not become precedent setting case law.

Only last month, a judge, who happens to be married to a police officer, granted a suppression motion on the grounds that she found the police officer witness not credible. It had nothing to do with the defendant's credibility. He did not testify. The officer's version was so ludicrous, it was inherently incredulous.

Unfortunately, no one in law enforcement seems to give a damn when officers blatantly manufacture probable cause and thus officers are rarely if ever disciplined when search warrants are traversed or evidence is suppressed.

Despite your insinuations to the contrary (I'll admit there are bad cops out there if you will admit more harm has been done by defense attorneys putting bad guys back on the street. I know, if we did our job right, defense atty's wouldn't be able to. Well, we (the police) don't get the pay they do, don't have the time available to us, and are trained for a myriad of tasks, not just one. Also, the Defendant is presumed to be not guilty which, by the way, means we are assumed to be wrong from the get go. The scales are a wee bit tipped in the defendants favor), the ends do not justify the means. Everyone in the criminal justice system knows about the proliferation of Testilying (to quote former San Jose, CA, police chief Joseph D. McNamara: "Not many people took defense attorney Alan M. Dershowitz seriously when he charged that Los Angeles cops are taught to lie at the birth of their careers at the Police Academy. But as someone who spent 35 years wearing a police uniform, I've come to believe that hundreds of thousands of law-enforcement officers commit felony perjury every year testifying about drug arrests").

Care to read about the latest LAPD travesty?

New Light on a Distant Verdict

New Light on a Distant Verdict

Detective Accused of Misconduct to Retire

Before you start questioning my biases, you should know that both the prosecutor and the defense attorney are long term friends of mine.

 

Nope Isr...I agree with you. There are too many bad cops out there. (ONE is too many in my book)I will say that the VAST majority are not. Many of the BIG PD's have cultural problems that MUST be handled.

What I see, though, is that you appear to have become distrustful of ALL cops. Of course, here is the pot calling the kettle black as I start thinking all defense attys are (fill in the blank)

I suspect we could actually get along with each other.

 

I have many friends who are judges and prosecutors. I even socialize with a few police officers and deputy sheriffs.

I am not a true believer. I simply believe that the system should be fair and honest. That should reduce the incidents of wrongful convictions. They still occur; and as you stated above, even one is too many.

Based upon many years in the trenches of the criminal justice system, I have developed a healthy sense of skepticism of all involved, clients, officers, witnesses, co-counsels, prosecutors and judges.

I generally start with a clean slate on everyone, but if something in a report, interview or testimony does not pass the BS test, watch out. You know how it is on the street, it is no different in court.

I am simply on guard. Once someone earned my trust, it makes my life easier. There are many detectives, with whom I regularly deal, whose word is as good as gold. There are others, though, who force me to go to the mat in every single case because they like to play games. The opposite is true too. I have to earn respect from the bench, the opposition and members of law enforcement.

Remember Ronald Reagan's advice: "Trust, but verify."

I have encountered members of large, medium and small police departments over the years. I agree that the bigger that the department is the problems seem to be more prevalent, although there are exceptions.

I agree that the vast majority of officers are honest and that they go by the book and play by the rules. I have written so in another discussion with you in the past. However, the bad apples are very proactive and as a result we tend to see them in court more often.

Let me know if you are ever in Southern California. I'll buy you a drink.

 

"Tilted AGAINST the Cops? Kidding right??? How often has the judge's line "sir, there seems to be a discrepency between your interpertation of the event and the officer's. I am bound to side with the officer in such instances.' or how about this one... really happened...
Judge: Oh Mr. XYZ I heard all about you from my brother-in-law, the arresting cop. Save us all time and just plead guilty.
Me: Judge this was a minor incident, and the officer was in such a bad mood that I took the time to record the names and addresses of on the spot witnesses. May I present them to you?
Judge: You can present them, but I won't read them. MR. XYZ you are guilty. HOw much money do you have on you?
ME: Let me count it. $89 is all I have.
Judge: Your fine is $90! If you can't post it you will spend the weekend in jail. ARE YOU MUTTERING? Make that 4 days in jail, no bail! GAVEL!

 

Ouch!..THAT had to hurt. Can't say it doesn't happen, however, MY experience with this has been...Defendant acts like a total jerk (even if he is right), NO ONE has any sympathy. Hate to see it, but I sure do understand it!