If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Baltimore Sun)   Memo to Cops: 1) Don't wiretap without a warrant, 2) especially not a judge and 3) don't create evidence by including your own voice   (baltimoresun.com) divider line 80
    More: Asinine, cops, Carlos M. Vila, wiretaps, search warrants, memoranda  
•       •       •

8626 clicks; posted to Main » on 23 Mar 2013 at 10:01 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



80 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-23 02:35:03 PM
Sounds like two egos collided, and the one with lesser intellectual horsepower lost.
 
2013-03-23 02:42:01 PM
(•looks at headline - reads article - leaves confused as to relation•)
 
2013-03-23 02:54:00 PM
In Maryland you can leave a message on someone's voicemail telling them that you are going to gun them down the next time you see them and it cannot be used in court nor can it be used to arrest you unless there is a wiretap order from a judge.  Also, if you set up a hidden camera in your house and later see your hired baby sitter physically and sexually abusing your 2 year old on the clip, you have to delete the video and even if you do you could still be charged and convicted of illegal wiretapping.  But, if you send an email to the county executive of Montgomery County telling him that you think he's a "penny n^gg&r in need of a good watermelon" the county will have the FBI investigate you for months.  The FBI will assign multiple agents to follow you around who never can obtain any evidence that could be used to convict you of a crime.
 
2013-03-23 03:08:28 PM
Anybody know a site that lists by state whether it's a one party or two party recording state?
 
2013-03-23 03:13:46 PM
It should be perfectly legal to record public officials while they are doing their job.

For instance, a judge or a cop.
 
2013-03-23 04:06:08 PM

BullBearMS: It should be perfectly legal to record public officials while they are doing their job.

For instance, a judge or a cop.


It is, when they're doing their jobs in public.  Phone conversations carry an expectation of privacy.
 
2013-03-23 04:26:49 PM

BarkingUnicorn: BullBearMS: It should be perfectly legal to record public officials while they are doing their job.

For instance, a judge or a cop.

It is, when they're doing their jobs in public.  Phone conversations carry an expectation of privacy.


Phone conversations don't carry that expectation-- some people just assume it-- and for the most part, people having banal conversations with their acquaintances have every reason to assume it.  People conducting business, blackmailers making demands, couples arguing about child support payments, or judges having contentious debates with police involving an ongoing crime investigation probably shouldn't just assume that sort of thing.

I'm still trying to figure out how this specifically violates a wire tapping ordinance.  I though "wire tapping" had a fairly clear connotation.
 
2013-03-23 04:40:39 PM

Earguy: Anybody know a site that lists by state whether it's a one party or two party recording state?


http://www.rcfp.org/reporters-recording-guide/state-state-guide
 
2013-03-23 04:43:38 PM

boinkingbill: In Maryland you can leave a message on someone's voicemail telling them that you are going to gun them down the next time you see them and it cannot be used in court nor can it be used to arrest you unless there is a wiretap order from a judge.  Also, if you set up a hidden camera in your house and later see your hired baby sitter physically and sexually abusing your 2 year old on the clip, you have to delete the video and even if you do you could still be charged and convicted of illegal wiretapping.


Bad.

But, if you send an email to the county executive of Montgomery County telling him that you think he's a "penny n^gg&r in need of a good watermelon" the county will have the FBI investigate you for months.  The FBI will assign multiple agents to follow you around who never can obtain any evidence that could be used to convict you of a crime.

Good and funny. Why did you do this? Health Department tell you to get a septic and stop shiatting in your yard?
 
2013-03-23 04:46:53 PM

Azlefty: Wait, she couldn't be bothered to deal with a warrant in a shooting case when she was on call specifically for the role of processing after-hours warrants? Fark that c00nt. One week per year??? Biatch doesn't know how good she's got it. Christ on a crutch. One of my neighbors deals with after-hours warrants more often that that because it's his farking job and it's important

She was dealing with the Warrants, part of that job is to decide if there is a actual reason for the warrant to be issued after hours or if it can wait until normal hours- will evidence be lost or destroyed? Searching a car that will be locked in the impound lot until it is searched is not a emergency need unless the officer needs overtime!

Perhaps your neighbor deals with officers who understand the difference between a emergency need and one that can be handled during normal hours.


Did you think that maybe time was of the essence? The quicker they search the car, the quicker they catch the shooter?  We do not know all of the particulars of the case that precipitated the warrant in question!
 
2013-03-23 05:19:33 PM

boinkingbill: Also, if you set up a hidden camera in your house and later see your hired baby sitter physically and sexually abusing your 2 year old on the clip, you have to delete the video and even if you do you could still be charged and convicted of illegal wiretapping.


I'll gladly take the 30 day suspended sentence (first time offender) in order to expose the criminal pedo. Who wouldn't??
 
2013-03-23 05:38:28 PM
biatch judge vs asshole cop. Wow. Hard to choose a side here.
 
2013-03-23 06:14:15 PM

bratface: Did you think that maybe time was of the essence? The quicker they search the car, the quicker they catch the shooter? We do not know all of the particulars of the case that precipitated the warrant in question!


Yes but the Judge Did, or do you think Judges are to stupid to ascertain that? FYI: all that evidence will sit for few days or weeks until they process it so time is moot unless the shooter is in the trunk. It does not work like it does on CSI.
 
2013-03-23 06:37:55 PM

thamike: BarkingUnicorn: BullBearMS: It should be perfectly legal to record public officials while they are doing their job.

For instance, a judge or a cop.

It is, when they're doing their jobs in public.  Phone conversations carry an expectation of privacy.

Phone conversations don't carry that expectation-- some people just assume it

I'm still trying to figure out how this specifically violates a wire tapping ordinance.  I though "wire tapping" had a fairly clear connotation.


"Wire tapping" has a very clear legal definition; your connotation is irrelevant.

Phone conversations in a private place carry the reasonable expectation that only the participants will hear it.
 
2013-03-23 06:41:55 PM

bratface: Azlefty: Wait, she couldn't be bothered to deal with a warrant in a shooting case when she was on call specifically for the role of processing after-hours warrants? Fark that c00nt. One week per year??? Biatch doesn't know how good she's got it. Christ on a crutch. One of my neighbors deals with after-hours warrants more often that that because it's his farking job and it's important

She was dealing with the Warrants, part of that job is to decide if there is a actual reason for the warrant to be issued after hours or if it can wait until normal hours- will evidence be lost or destroyed? Searching a car that will be locked in the impound lot until it is searched is not a emergency need unless the officer needs overtime!

Perhaps your neighbor deals with officers who understand the difference between a emergency need and one that can be handled during normal hours.

Did you think that maybe time was of the essence? The quicker they search the car, the quicker they catch the shooter?  We do not know all of the particulars of the case that precipitated the warrant in question!


Cop:  "I don't wanna explain any more; just sign it."
Judge:  "Let me speak to your supervisor."
Cop:  "I don't wanna disturb him on his night off."
Judge:  "Fine, then wait until Monday."

You don't get uppity with a judge.
 
2013-03-23 07:24:37 PM
Unless your name is Linda Tripp then it's totally cool.
 
2013-03-23 09:18:55 PM
www.mememaker.net
 
2013-03-23 09:39:19 PM
CruiserTwelve: They're both public employees so their conversations should be open to public scrutiny. Also, if the shooting case they're investigating goes to trial, the defense should have access to this information.

Let me get this straight: when an Officer records a judge, it's a public service and it's okay.  But, when a civilian videotapes an Officer he gets a hefty prison sentence. And that makes sense to you?
 
2013-03-23 10:07:48 PM

fnordfocus: Let me get this straight: when an Officer records a judge, it's a public service and it's okay.  But, when a civilian videotapes an Officer he gets a hefty prison sentence. And that makes sense to you?


No. I don't remember ever agreeing with people getting arrested for recording an officer. Maybe you can refresh my recollection.
 
2013-03-23 11:04:12 PM

BarkingUnicorn: BullBearMS: It should be perfectly legal to record public officials while they are doing their job.

For instance, a judge or a cop.

It is, when they're doing their jobs in public.  Phone conversations carry an expectation of privacy.


They should not when the call consists of conducting business on behalf of the public who elected you.
 
2013-03-24 12:58:39 AM
Heh, silly judge, I guess he forgot that's legal now.
farm4.staticflickr.com
 
2013-03-24 06:53:52 AM
How many times have I hear the argument, the law is the law, and it is simply the job of officers to make arrests and the criminal justice system will deal with it.

Let his fellow officers arrest him after the judge makes the complaint, just as anyone else would be arrested.

Then a jury can decide from there.
 
2013-03-24 08:38:14 AM

BarkingUnicorn: "Wire tapping" has a very clear legal definition; your connotation is irrelevant.

Phone conversations in a private place carry the reasonable expectation that only the participants will hear it.


Uh, yes. My "connotation" is irrelevant.  Which is why I...mentioned that wire tapping has...

You know what, I'll just skip past trying to figure out your response and post a link to the legal definition of wire tapping (according to Maryland)


The cop has a way out of this.  Or maybe he had one until he chose to blubber on the stand.  At any rate, you get free beer for getting BullbearMS to defend wire tapping.
 
2013-03-24 08:44:02 AM

dbrunker: Heh, silly judge, I guess he forgot that's legal now.
[farm4.staticflickr.com image 500x381]


"Warrantless Wiretapping" was put into effect under Bush and was reviewed and amended in 2008.
 
2013-03-24 11:01:19 AM
There is a slight difference between recording public officials while they are using the extraordinary powers granted to them by the public, and recording everyone all the time. A public official should have no expectation of privacy while executing their office.

When not using powers granted by the public, they should have the same privacy rights as anyone else.

Here's the sort of current action I definitely do not support.

The Obama administration told a federal court Tuesday that the public has no "reasonable expectation of privacy" in cellphone location data, and hence the authorities may obtain documents detailing a person's movements from wireless carriers without a probable-cause warrant.

and

The Obama administration is urging the Supreme Court to allow the government, without a court warrant, to affix GPS devices on suspects' vehicles to track their every move.

and

The Obama administration is urging Congress not to adopt legislation that would impose constitutional safeguards on Americans' e-mail stored in the cloud.

and

The Obama administration is urging the Supreme Court to halt a legal challenge weighing the constitutionality of a once-secret warrantless surveillance program targeting Americans' communications

and

The Obama administration is seeking to make it easier for the FBI to compel companies to turn over records of an individual's Internet activity without a court order

and

The Obama administration is drawing up plans to give all U.S. spy agencies full access to a massive database that contains financial data on American citizens and others who bank in the country

and

Certain sections of the Patriot Act, which originally passed Congress a month after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks with near-unanimous support, have long been criticized by civil libertarians in both political parties.

But the Obama administration and its allies on Capitol Hill have been eager to renew about-to-expire provisions that expanded domestic intelligence collection and wiretapping powers. As the AP put it, "The idea [of the deal] is to pass the extension with as little debate as possible to avoid a protracted and familiar argument over the expanded power the law gives to the government."


and

For more than two years, a handful of Democrats on the Senate intelligence committee have warned that the government is secretly interpreting its surveillance powers under the Patriot Act in a way that would be alarming if the public - or even others in Congress - knew about it.
 
2013-03-24 11:04:06 AM
Good for you.
 
2013-03-24 12:16:08 PM

BullBearMS: There is a slight difference between recording public officials while they are using the extraordinary powers granted to them by the public, and recording everyone all the time. A public official should have no expectation of privacy while executing their office.

When not using powers granted by the public, they should have the same privacy rights as anyone else.

Here's the sort of current action I definitely do not support.

The Obama administration told a federal court Tuesday that the public has no "reasonable expectation of privacy" in cellphone location data, and hence the authorities may obtain documents detailing a person's movements from wireless carriers without a probable-cause warrant.

and

The Obama administration is urging the Supreme Court to allow the government, without a court warrant, to affix GPS devices on suspects' vehicles to track their every move.

and

The Obama administration is urging Congress not to adopt legislation that would impose constitutional safeguards on Americans' e-mail stored in the cloud.

and

The Obama administration is urging the Supreme Court to halt a legal challenge weighing the constitutionality of a once-secret warrantless surveillance program targeting Americans' communications

and

The Obama administration is seeking to make it easier for the FBI to compel companies to turn over records of an individual's Internet activity without a court order

and

The Obama administration is drawing up plans to give all U.S. spy agencies full access to a massive database that contains financial data on American citizens and others who bank in the country

and

Certain sections of the Patriot Act, which originally passed Congress a month after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks with near-unanimous support, have long been criticized by civil libertarians in both political parties.

But the Obama administration and its allies on Capitol Hill have been eager to renew about-to-expire provisions that expanded domestic intelligence collection and wiretapping powers. As the AP put it, "The idea [of the deal] is to pass the extension with as little debate as possible to avoid a protracted and familiar argument over the expanded power the law gives to the government."

and

For more than two years, a handful of Democrats on the Senate intelligence committee have warned that the government is secretly interpreting its surveillance powers under the Patriot Act in a way that would be alarming if the public - or even others in Congress - knew about it.


Christ on a cracker, dude, you no longer have an axe to grind. I'm pretty sure at this point it's worn down to just a single splinter.

/waaaah! Obama is trying to make it legal to fark me in the ass without the lobster dinner my ass demands! Waaaah!
//Shut. The. Fark. Up.
///No one died 8 years ago when Bush was doing all this same bullshi---oh, never mind...now I get it
//you're not really a crybaby-douche, you just don't want anyone else to make the same mistake you did! Such a great American!
 
2013-03-24 12:45:12 PM

mooseyfate: Obama is trying to make it legal to fark me in the ass without the lobster dinner my ass demands!


No, Obama is trying to expand Bush's warrantless spying in every way possible.

If you didn't support Bush starting it, then you would be a total asshat to suddenly make excuses for Obama expanding it.

/Yes, I'm well aware that Fark is full of just such asshats
//See: Politics Tab
 
2013-03-24 05:12:38 PM

thamike: dbrunker: Heh, silly judge, I guess he forgot that's legal now.
[farm4.staticflickr.com image 500x381]

"Warrantless Wiretapping" was put into effect under Bush and was reviewed and amended in 2008.


And also in 2011, although Barak Obama signed it at the very last second and as secretly as possible (and since "warrantless" sounded so... illegal, the news changed the name to "roving wiretaps")
Patriot Act Extension Signed By Obama -Huffington Post
 
2013-03-24 06:54:20 PM
We also recently snuck through a five year extension to the FISA amendments that were called a dangerous attack on the Fourth Amendment. I believe the often repeated phrase was that Bush was wiping his ass with the Constitution.

It was so bad that Senator Obama promised to filibuster the FISA extensions before he had managed to win the nomination over Hillary.

However, Obama did clinch the nomination before it came to the Senate floor, whereupon Obama voted for it instead of keeping his word to filibuster.

At the end of last year, they set out to pull another patriot act extension deal where they reauthorized FISA with as little publicity as possible without debate.

The Senate is about to vote on an extension of the controversial FISA Amendments Act-the unconstitutional law that allows the NSA to warrantlessly spy on Americans speaking to people abroad. Yet you wouldn't know it by watching CSPAN because the Senate isn't debating it.

When Congress passed the FISA Amendments Act in 2008, despite deep privacy concerns by Americans across the political spectrum, they included an expiration date of December 31, 2012 to ensure that the law would get a thorough review. Yet Senate leaders have so far refused to schedule any time on the Senate floor for debate or consideration of vital privacy-protecting amendments. Worse, they won't even tell the American public when they're going to vote on it. It's possible they may vote on this bill-with no privacy protective changes-without any debate at all, and we won't know until it is happening.


You'd almost never know the oath of office was to "defend and protect the Constitution".
 
Displayed 30 of 80 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report