Do you have adblock enabled?
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.

(Philly.com)   It makes perfect sense to let the local police use NSA wiretap data. Right?   (philly.com) divider line 45
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

1160 clicks; posted to Politics » on 24 Jul 2014 at 1:11 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2014-07-24 08:56:52 AM  
Oh FFS! This is EXACTLY what everyone was afraid of when the Patriot Act was ram-rodded. It wouldn't be used to fight terrorism so much as being used for pissant "HEY YOU! YES, YOU! STOP FAPPING!" purposes.
 
2014-07-24 09:12:17 AM  
Oh TV!! Look at how much safer we are!
 
2014-07-24 09:45:56 AM  
Not "let", and not "NSA wiretap data".

/so wrong.
 
2014-07-24 12:15:25 PM  
Local police forces are chomping at the bit to get a hold of NSA wiretap data.  Talk about a gold mine.  You could shake down all the local politicians and make a bloody fortune.
 
2014-07-24 12:26:40 PM  
Ctrl+F: "NSA" - not found
Ctrl+F: "wiretap" - not found

So, a police officer was arrested and charged for improperly using an FBI database and we get this headline? Good job, Fark.
 
2014-07-24 12:26:56 PM  
Old school:
1) identify crime
2) investigate
3) identify suspects

New school:
1) identify suspect
2) investigate
3) identify crime

Give me 10 years of data/voice records and I can put any of you Farkers/farkers behind bars including myself.
 
2014-07-24 01:20:39 PM  
Citizen: If you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to worry about... (until we invent something for you to worry about. But, that's none of your concern.)
 
2014-07-24 01:20:52 PM  

mrshowrules: Old school:
1) identify crime
2) investigate
3) identify suspects

New school:
1) identify suspect
2) investigate
3) identify crime

Give me 10 years of data/voice records and I can put any of you Farkers/farkers behind bars including myself.


10 weeks is all it'll take for most farkers...

/10 days for me..
 
2014-07-24 01:26:01 PM  

nmrsnr: Ctrl+F: "NSA" - not found
Ctrl+F: "wiretap" - not found

So, a police officer was arrested and charged for improperly using an FBI database and we get this headline? Good job, Fark.


/welcometofark.jpg
 
2014-07-24 01:30:16 PM  
How else are you gonna find out if the nanny is really telling the truth: that she's an American citizen and deserves to be paid decent wages??
 
2014-07-24 01:54:33 PM  
Manhunt is a pretty good documentary on Netflix right now. It's about the search for OBL but it covers a lot of territory on different types of intelligence, the dangers of recruiting spies (see Camp Chapman attack http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_Chapman_attack ).
 
2014-07-24 01:55:41 PM  
His whole defence was "THIS IS SPARTA!"
 
2014-07-24 02:01:29 PM  

Cheron: His whole defence was "THIS IS SPARTA!"


He was charged with possessing rentboy GOPporn?
 
2014-07-24 02:06:09 PM  
There is so much fail in this headline. Does whoever greenlighted this also fact-check for the Daily News?
 
2014-07-24 02:07:02 PM  
"Let" implies that there exists some way to prevent the cops from using the wiretap data.
 
2014-07-24 02:07:20 PM  
Submitter is a moron.
 
2014-07-24 02:07:45 PM  

neversubmit: nmrsnr: Ctrl+F: "NSA" - not found
Ctrl+F: "wiretap" - not found

So, a police officer was arrested and charged for improperly using an FBI database and we get this headline? Good job, Fark.

/welcometofark.jpg


Yup, subby's probably still raging about Obama and is doing whatever it takes to try and make people who voted for him and support his policies feel guilty.

It's garden variety troll rage, and it's beautiful.
 
2014-07-24 02:12:22 PM  

nmrsnr: Ctrl+F: "NSA" - not found
Ctrl+F: "wiretap" - not found

So, a police officer was arrested and charged for improperly using an FBI database and we get this headline? Good job, Fark.


Read the article? On MY Fark?!??!

NEVER!!!
 
2014-07-24 02:14:07 PM  

King Something: "Let" implies that there exists some way to prevent the cops from using the wiretap data.


There is. It's called a suppression hearing.

NSA is obtaining info without a warrant. Local officer turns that over to any prosecutor, 90% of those prosecutors would throw it straight in the shredder because of how it was obtained. And the 10% who have enough balls to take it to court will lose it to a motion to suppress by any first year public defender.

Non issue is a non issue.
 
2014-07-24 02:19:23 PM  
He inappropriately used the FBI database to run a background check on someone in his personal, not work, life. And he got arrested for doing it.
 
2014-07-24 02:21:16 PM  

DeaH: He inappropriately used the FBI database to run a background check on someone in his personal, not work, life. And he got arrested for doing it.


You mean it's not Obama's fault? Unpossible.
 
2014-07-24 02:40:00 PM  
ITT: A lot of folks so paranoid about the NSA they refuse to read articles about the FBI.
 
2014-07-24 02:40:47 PM  

clkeagle: There is. It's called a suppression hearing.

NSA is obtaining info without a warrant. Local officer turns that over to any prosecutor, 90% of those prosecutors would throw it straight in the shredder because of how it was obtained. And the 10% who have enough balls to take it to court will lose it to a motion to suppress by any first year public defender.

Non issue is a non issue.


The problem is that if you collect enough data quietly enough and for long enough, you can create the paper trail to justify the warrant for the data you already have.
 
2014-07-24 02:47:50 PM  
Anyone who honestly believes that the Ubergeeks at the NSA would ever share fark all with Deputy Cletus ever, for any reason, has a screw loose.
 
2014-07-24 02:50:33 PM  
Storm clouds roll in. The old man stands atop a mountain, greying beard, looking like a confused drunkard, but with wise eyes and a clarity of tone in his voice which gave it a commanding ominousness.

"I warn you all now. This will not end well. Kittens are cute, but cats have claws. You toy with this kitten as if this is all it will ever be."

He turns and walks back to the Honey Pot brand porta-potty he's been living in since he lost his job as a host at PF Chang's. The crowd is silent.

The end
 
2014-07-24 03:07:46 PM  

clkeagle: King Something: "Let" implies that there exists some way to prevent the cops from using the wiretap data.

There is. It's called a suppression hearing.

NSA is obtaining info without a warrant. Local officer turns that over to any prosecutor, 90% of those prosecutors would throw it straight in the shredder because of how it was obtained. And the 10% who have enough balls to take it to court will lose it to a motion to suppress by any first year public defender.

Non issue is a non issue.


You're thinking about this all wrong.  This kind of information is extremely useful in areas other than a court of law.  Say Officer Friendly wants some information from Mr. Upstanding Citizen.  All he has to say is, "Gee Mr. Citizen, I can't help but notice you spend an awful lot of time talking to Mrs. Green about your weener.  Does your wife know about that?"

Instant cooperation.
 
2014-07-24 03:08:49 PM  

Girl Sailor: Storm clouds roll in. The old man stands atop a mountain, greying beard, looking like a confused drunkard, but with wise eyes and a clarity of tone in his voice which gave it a commanding ominousness.

"I warn you all now. This will not end well. Kittens are cute, but cats have claws. You toy with this kitten as if this is all it will ever be."

He turns and walks back to the Honey Pot brand porta-potty he's been living in since he lost his job as a host at PF Chang's. The crowd is silent.

The end


+1.  I'm stealing aspects of that - possibly the whole thing.  Credit will not be given.
 
2014-07-24 03:46:28 PM  

BMulligan: Anyone who honestly believes that the Ubergeeks at the NSA would ever share fark all with Deputy Cletus ever, for any reason, has a screw loose.


Loose screw #1:
http://filmingcops.com/local-police-now-using-nsa-data-to-arrest-you -f or-petty-violations-drugs-taxes/

Loose screw #2:
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/08/dea-and-nsa-team-intelligence- la undering
 
2014-07-24 03:48:42 PM  

clkeagle: King Something: "Let" implies that there exists some way to prevent the cops from using the wiretap data.

There is. It's called a suppression hearing.

NSA is obtaining info without a warrant. Local officer turns that over to any prosecutor, 90% of those prosecutors would throw it straight in the shredder because of how it was obtained. And the 10% who have enough balls to take it to court will lose it to a motion to suppress by any first year public defender.

Non issue is a non issue.


You're joking, right?  You have to be joking.  That's a pathetically shallow glance at how it works.

You don't present the illegally obtained evidence in court.  You use evidence A to uncover evidence B.  Then B to find C, C to D, D to E, etc.  Then, at court, you don't even mention A, and present B through Z.  Unless pressed, you say nothing about how you found B, and many/most defense attorneys won't have the time/resources to dig through the layers upon layers of bullshiat to find out that the entire evidence stream is tainted and shouldn't be allowed in.  If they somehow do dig through it, you claim found in the course of regular police work, a confidential informant, an anonymous tip, discovered in a lucky coincidence, etc.
 
2014-07-24 04:16:18 PM  
So...did his team win or lose?
 
2014-07-24 04:21:55 PM  
Seeing as the information is being collected without a warrant, it is beyond naive to assume any type of rules will be observed beyond that.

It would be like trusting the guy using the date-rape drug to be gentleman.

/to use an inappropriate analogy.
 
2014-07-24 04:47:00 PM  

Emposter: clkeagle: King Something: "Let" implies that there exists some way to prevent the cops from using the wiretap data.

There is. It's called a suppression hearing.

NSA is obtaining info without a warrant. Local officer turns that over to any prosecutor, 90% of those prosecutors would throw it straight in the shredder because of how it was obtained. And the 10% who have enough balls to take it to court will lose it to a motion to suppress by any first year public defender.

Non issue is a non issue.

You're joking, right?  You have to be joking.  That's a pathetically shallow glance at how it works.

You don't present the illegally obtained evidence in court.  You use evidence A to uncover evidence B.  Then B to find C, C to D, D to E, etc.  Then, at court, you don't even mention A, and present B through Z.  Unless pressed, you say nothing about how you found B, and many/most defense attorneys won't have the time/resources to dig through the layers upon layers of bullshiat to find out that the entire evidence stream is tainted and shouldn't be allowed in.  If they somehow do dig through it, you claim found in the course of regular police work, a confidential informant, an anonymous tip, discovered in a lucky coincidence, etc.


Eh, if you dont need A to create suspicion for warrantless actions they would never know A existed.
 
2014-07-24 04:53:22 PM  

Smackledorfer: Emposter: clkeagle: King Something: "Let" implies that there exists some way to prevent the cops from using the wiretap data.

There is. It's called a suppression hearing.

NSA is obtaining info without a warrant. Local officer turns that over to any prosecutor, 90% of those prosecutors would throw it straight in the shredder because of how it was obtained. And the 10% who have enough balls to take it to court will lose it to a motion to suppress by any first year public defender.

Non issue is a non issue.

You're joking, right?  You have to be joking.  That's a pathetically shallow glance at how it works.

You don't present the illegally obtained evidence in court.  You use evidence A to uncover evidence B.  Then B to find C, C to D, D to E, etc.  Then, at court, you don't even mention A, and present B through Z.  Unless pressed, you say nothing about how you found B, and many/most defense attorneys won't have the time/resources to dig through the layers upon layers of bullshiat to find out that the entire evidence stream is tainted and shouldn't be allowed in.  If they somehow do dig through it, you claim found in the course of regular police work, a confidential informant, an anonymous tip, discovered in a lucky coincidence, etc.

Eh, if you dont need A to create suspicion for warrantless actions they would never know A existed.


Evidence A IS the warrantless action.  That's why you don't present it in court...
 
2014-07-24 05:03:18 PM  

Emposter: Smackledorfer: Emposter: clkeagle: King Something: "Let" implies that there exists some way to prevent the cops from using the wiretap data.

There is. It's called a suppression hearing.

NSA is obtaining info without a warrant. Local officer turns that over to any prosecutor, 90% of those prosecutors would throw it straight in the shredder because of how it was obtained. And the 10% who have enough balls to take it to court will lose it to a motion to suppress by any first year public defender.

Non issue is a non issue.

You're joking, right?  You have to be joking.  That's a pathetically shallow glance at how it works.

You don't present the illegally obtained evidence in court.  You use evidence A to uncover evidence B.  Then B to find C, C to D, D to E, etc.  Then, at court, you don't even mention A, and present B through Z.  Unless pressed, you say nothing about how you found B, and many/most defense attorneys won't have the time/resources to dig through the layers upon layers of bullshiat to find out that the entire evidence stream is tainted and shouldn't be allowed in.  If they somehow do dig through it, you claim found in the course of regular police work, a confidential informant, an anonymous tip, discovered in a lucky coincidence, etc.

Eh, if you dont need A to create suspicion for warrantless actions they would never know A existed.

Evidence A IS the warrantless action.  That's why you don't present it in court...


Maybe I wasn't clear. Here is a scenario. Note I mention suspicion.

A. Nsa illegal taps or other stuff uncovers that some guy is selling drugs/whatever.

B. Now that cops know the guy is guilty of x, footwork and other legal surveillance methods which require zero suspicion are used.

No lawyer will ever be able to dig beyond B because B requires no justification beyond mere hunch. No fruit of the poisonous tree can be claimed by them. That assumes the initial A was illegal in the first place and not a legal yet unreported step.

Does that clarify for you? It doesn't really matter if A is warrantless or not, the only way this slips through the court is if B requires no articulable facts to justify police action. If action B requires reasonable or above suspicion even the shiattiest lawyer is going to see through it and get the rest tossed.
 
2014-07-24 05:04:57 PM  
" Evidence A IS the warrantless action.  That's why you don't present it in court..."

That second sentence is completely incorrect. shiatloads of warrantless actions must be presented in court and legally justified.
 
2014-07-24 05:53:43 PM  

Emposter: many/most defense attorneys won't have the time/resources to dig through the layers upon layers of bullshiat to find out that the entire evidence stream is tainted and shouldn't be allowed in.


Bullshiat. You obviously have no idea what the fark a defense attorney does. This shiat is job 1. You examine the chain of custody of all evidence - that which will be presented at trial, and that which was relied upon to get the admissible evidence - and you make sure it isn't subject to suppression. If there's the slightest chance that something ought to be suppressed, you file the motion and make the loudest noises you can at the motion hearing. You subpoena everything that's properly discoverable and most of what isn't - let the judge sort it out. This is why defense lawyers start drinking early in the afternoon - they have to be in the proper state of mind to deal with this crap late into the night.
 
2014-07-24 06:05:54 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: BMulligan: Anyone who honestly believes that the Ubergeeks at the NSA would ever share fark all with Deputy Cletus ever, for any reason, has a screw loose.

Loose screw #1:
http://filmingcops.com/local-police-now-using-nsa-data-to-arrest-you -f or-petty-violations-drugs-taxes/

Loose screw #2:
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/08/dea-and-nsa-team-intelligence- la undering


I did not find your first link at all credible, and the guy being quoted sounds like a nutbar based on his hyperbolic "we are now a police state" rhetoric.

The second link is much more credible and certainly troubling. I'm not surprised that the IRS is entangled with NSA, if only because both of them are involved in tracking financial transactions of various legitimate intelligence subjects, although there is certainly room for abuse. As for the DEA - well, again I'm sure they're relying on the "we're fighting terrorism!" excuse and most people are willing to swallow that, but fark the DEA.

In any event, the IRS and the DEA aren't "local police," which is what TFH refers to and what my comment addresses. I stand by my earlier remark.
 
2014-07-24 07:04:49 PM  

BMulligan: Emposter: many/most defense attorneys won't have the time/resources to dig through the layers upon layers of bullshiat to find out that the entire evidence stream is tainted and shouldn't be allowed in.

Bullshiat. You obviously have no idea what the fark a defense attorney does. This shiat is job 1. You examine the chain of custody of all evidence - that which will be presented at trial, and that which was relied upon to get the admissible evidence - and you make sure it isn't subject to suppression. If there's the slightest chance that something ought to be suppressed, you file the motion and make the loudest noises you can at the motion hearing. You subpoena everything that's properly discoverable and most of what isn't - let the judge sort it out. This is why defense lawyers start drinking early in the afternoon - they have to be in the proper state of mind to deal with this crap late into the night.


Once again, the tap is never presented at all, nor ever mentioned in any way.  An alternative source is developed after the fact to replace the tap should the defense make that motion.
 
2014-07-24 08:16:11 PM  

Emposter: BMulligan: Emposter: many/most defense attorneys won't have the time/resources to dig through the layers upon layers of bullshiat to find out that the entire evidence stream is tainted and shouldn't be allowed in.

Bullshiat. You obviously have no idea what the fark a defense attorney does. This shiat is job 1. You examine the chain of custody of all evidence - that which will be presented at trial, and that which was relied upon to get the admissible evidence - and you make sure it isn't subject to suppression. If there's the slightest chance that something ought to be suppressed, you file the motion and make the loudest noises you can at the motion hearing. You subpoena everything that's properly discoverable and most of what isn't - let the judge sort it out. This is why defense lawyers start drinking early in the afternoon - they have to be in the proper state of mind to deal with this crap late into the night.

Once again, the tap is never presented at all, nor ever mentioned in any way.  An alternative source is developed after the fact to replace the tap should the defense make that motion.


Which has nothing to do with the paragraph of yours he quoted and responded to.
 
2014-07-24 08:24:18 PM  

IrateShadow: clkeagle: There is. It's called a suppression hearing.

NSA is obtaining info without a warrant. Local officer turns that over to any prosecutor, 90% of those prosecutors would throw it straight in the shredder because of how it was obtained. And the 10% who have enough balls to take it to court will lose it to a motion to suppress by any first year public defender.

Non issue is a non issue.

The problem is that if you collect enough data quietly enough and for long enough, you can create the paper trail to justify the warrant for the data you already have.


And if you take Risperdal for six months, these fears of yours will vanish.
 
2014-07-24 08:47:27 PM  

Smackledorfer: Emposter: BMulligan: Emposter: many/most defense attorneys won't have the time/resources to dig through the layers upon layers of bullshiat to find out that the entire evidence stream is tainted and shouldn't be allowed in.

Bullshiat. You obviously have no idea what the fark a defense attorney does. This shiat is job 1. You examine the chain of custody of all evidence - that which will be presented at trial, and that which was relied upon to get the admissible evidence - and you make sure it isn't subject to suppression. If there's the slightest chance that something ought to be suppressed, you file the motion and make the loudest noises you can at the motion hearing. You subpoena everything that's properly discoverable and most of what isn't - let the judge sort it out. This is why defense lawyers start drinking early in the afternoon - they have to be in the proper state of mind to deal with this crap late into the night.

Once again, the tap is never presented at all, nor ever mentioned in any way.  An alternative source is developed after the fact to replace the tap should the defense make that motion.

Which has nothing to do with the paragraph of yours he quoted and responded to.


They're the same paragraph.  The sentences are right next to each other.  WTF are you babbling about now?
 
2014-07-24 09:23:49 PM  

Emposter: Smackledorfer: Emposter: BMulligan: Emposter: many/most defense attorneys won't have the time/resources to dig through the layers upon layers of bullshiat to find out that the entire evidence stream is tainted and shouldn't be allowed in.

Bullshiat. You obviously have no idea what the fark a defense attorney does. This shiat is job 1. You examine the chain of custody of all evidence - that which will be presented at trial, and that which was relied upon to get the admissible evidence - and you make sure it isn't subject to suppression. If there's the slightest chance that something ought to be suppressed, you file the motion and make the loudest noises you can at the motion hearing. You subpoena everything that's properly discoverable and most of what isn't - let the judge sort it out. This is why defense lawyers start drinking early in the afternoon - they have to be in the proper state of mind to deal with this crap late into the night.

Once again, the tap is never presented at all, nor ever mentioned in any way.  An alternative source is developed after the fact to replace the tap should the defense make that motion.

Which has nothing to do with the paragraph of yours he quoted and responded to.

They're the same paragraph.  The sentences are right next to each other.  WTF are you babbling about now?


You are being very obtuse in this thread.

One of three cases will happen.

1. the step B requires mentioning A in order for B to be legal and all defense attorneys will know of it because... Wait for it.. They mention it.

2. the step B requires mentioning A in order for B to be legal and all defense attorneys will obviously catch that B is a warrant-covered or warrant-excepted law enforcement act and demand the justification.

3. Step B (the step immediately after A in case you are slow) does not require any legal justification and then ZERO defense attorneys no matter how good will find it.

Defense attorneys understand levels of suspicion and articulable facts, even mediocre ones.
 
2014-07-24 09:35:57 PM  

Smackledorfer: Emposter: Smackledorfer: Emposter: BMulligan: Emposter: many/most defense attorneys won't have the time/resources to dig through the layers upon layers of bullshiat to find out that the entire evidence stream is tainted and shouldn't be allowed in.

Bullshiat. You obviously have no idea what the fark a defense attorney does. This shiat is job 1. You examine the chain of custody of all evidence - that which will be presented at trial, and that which was relied upon to get the admissible evidence - and you make sure it isn't subject to suppression. If there's the slightest chance that something ought to be suppressed, you file the motion and make the loudest noises you can at the motion hearing. You subpoena everything that's properly discoverable and most of what isn't - let the judge sort it out. This is why defense lawyers start drinking early in the afternoon - they have to be in the proper state of mind to deal with this crap late into the night.

Once again, the tap is never presented at all, nor ever mentioned in any way.  An alternative source is developed after the fact to replace the tap should the defense make that motion.

Which has nothing to do with the paragraph of yours he quoted and responded to.

They're the same paragraph.  The sentences are right next to each other.  WTF are you babbling about now?

You are being very obtuse in this thread.

One of three cases will happen.

1. the step B requires mentioning A in order for B to be legal and all defense attorneys will know of it because... Wait for it.. They mention it.

2. the step B requires mentioning A in order for B to be legal and all defense attorneys will obviously catch that B is a warrant-covered or warrant-excepted law enforcement act and demand the justification.

3. Step B (the step immediately after A in case you are slow) does not require any legal justification and then ZERO defense attorneys no matter how good will find it.

Defense attorneys understand levels of suspicion and articu ...


There's no point in talking with you, is there?  The words just go right past you while you respond to imaginary things you believe have been said.  I hope you're at least having fun.
 
2014-07-24 10:01:03 PM  

Emposter: Smackledorfer: Emposter: Smackledorfer: Emposter: BMulligan: Emposter: many/most defense attorneys won't have the time/resources to dig through the layers upon layers of bullshiat to find out that the entire evidence stream is tainted and shouldn't be allowed in.

Bullshiat. You obviously have no idea what the fark a defense attorney does. This shiat is job 1. You examine the chain of custody of all evidence - that which will be presented at trial, and that which was relied upon to get the admissible evidence - and you make sure it isn't subject to suppression. If there's the slightest chance that something ought to be suppressed, you file the motion and make the loudest noises you can at the motion hearing. You subpoena everything that's properly discoverable and most of what isn't - let the judge sort it out. This is why defense lawyers start drinking early in the afternoon - they have to be in the proper state of mind to deal with this crap late into the night.

Once again, the tap is never presented at all, nor ever mentioned in any way.  An alternative source is developed after the fact to replace the tap should the defense make that motion.

Which has nothing to do with the paragraph of yours he quoted and responded to.

They're the same paragraph.  The sentences are right next to each other.  WTF are you babbling about now?

You are being very obtuse in this thread.

One of three cases will happen.

1. the step B requires mentioning A in order for B to be legal and all defense attorneys will know of it because... Wait for it.. They mention it.

2. the step B requires mentioning A in order for B to be legal and all defense attorneys will obviously catch that B is a warrant-covered or warrant-excepted law enforcement act and demand the justification.

3. Step B (the step immediately after A in case you are slow) does not require any legal justification and then ZERO defense attorneys no matter how good will find it.

Defense attorneys understand levels of suspicion and articu ...

There's no point in talking with you, is there?  The words just go right past you while you respond to imaginary things you believe have been said.  I hope you're at least having fun.


Lolwut
 
2014-07-24 10:25:21 PM  

Emposter: Smackledorfer: Emposter: Smackledorfer: Emposter: BMulligan: Emposter: many/most defense attorneys won't have the time/resources to dig through the layers upon layers of bullshiat to find out that the entire evidence stream is tainted and shouldn't be allowed in.

Bullshiat. You obviously have no idea what the fark a defense attorney does. This shiat is job 1. You examine the chain of custody of all evidence - that which will be presented at trial, and that which was relied upon to get the admissible evidence - and you make sure it isn't subject to suppression. If there's the slightest chance that something ought to be suppressed, you file the motion and make the loudest noises you can at the motion hearing. You subpoena everything that's properly discoverable and most of what isn't - let the judge sort it out. This is why defense lawyers start drinking early in the afternoon - they have to be in the proper state of mind to deal with this crap late into the night.

Once again, the tap is never presented at all, nor ever mentioned in any way.  An alternative source is developed after the fact to replace the tap should the defense make that motion.

Which has nothing to do with the paragraph of yours he quoted and responded to.

They're the same paragraph.  The sentences are right next to each other.  WTF are you babbling about now?

You are being very obtuse in this thread.

One of three cases will happen.

1. the step B requires mentioning A in order for B to be legal and all defense attorneys will know of it because... Wait for it.. They mention it.

2. the step B requires mentioning A in order for B to be legal and all defense attorneys will obviously catch that B is a warrant-covered or warrant-excepted law enforcement act and demand the justification.

3. Step B (the step immediately after A in case you are slow) does not require any legal justification and then ZERO defense attorneys no matter how good will find it.

Defense attorneys understand levels of suspi ...


Are you high? I'm guessing you're high.
 
Displayed 45 of 45 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report