If legal differences are substantial on their own, the law could never be discussed or called into question, as counterfactuals would automatically be meaningless nonsense. I suspect this is not your intention.
“Hey, I think sneak and peek warrants are wrong.”
“Nope, you can’t, because they’re legal.”
derp
What is a sneak and peek warrant?
Thanks. So what I think I hear you saying is, a judge, for example, agrees that he will not prosecute in a certain situation and other authorities go along as a matter of custom. I assume there is a mechanism for dealing with situations where other authorities don’t want to go along but I won’t hijack any longer.
The Judge does not prosecute, the Prosecutor does.
If you have to ask, you failed to understand the example.
Again.
And I believe it’s not.
The reason I then point to the law is that this is a nation where the government is “of the people, by the people, and for the people.” We are, jointly, the sovereign rulers of this nation.
So when it comes to law, and your efforts to suggest that the government is imposing its unwanted, unjust will on the people… that’s simply not the case. The law reflects the collective will of the people. Your idea that this is unjust is not one that’s shared by too many people, and I don’t know how to objectively evaluate “unjust.” Can we weigh it? Measure it? Is there a justice index, and anything over 53.4 justons as automatically unjust?
No, of course not. Whether a particular procedure or outcome is “just” is seldom an objective fact. It’s a matter of subjective judgment, and in this instance your subjective judgment doesn’t track with the law. And it’s the law which enjoys the presumption of support from the majority, since the majority elects the legislators who make it.
I’m not seeing the equivalence here. If the police arrest you, you’re in custody. There are obvious reasons to limit the length of time you can be held in custody without being charged with a crime.
But in an undercover operation, the “suspect” is living his normal life and presumably isn’t even aware he’s the subject of an investigation. So why put an artificial time limit on the investigation?
Asking what is was has nothing to do with understanding the rationale of the question.
I looked it up, another name for a covert warrant.
I could have used the same rationale for a protective sweep, so what?
Of course, I said legal and procedural, meaning there are differences in how the law treats these two things and differences in how they take place.
If you hadn’t already lost this argument, I think this would’ve clinched it.
It was a response to a specific quote by another poster. I should have just used “jabberwock” which I believe has no specific legal meaning, but if it does I am sure I will get five people telling me about it.
It depends on the con in question. Some stings are direct instances of cons but I’m not overly concerned with those, as those are not, in my view, in violation of the fourth amendment. There are longer-term cons, especially of the pyramid scheme variety, but neither the exact procedures nor the legal definition are what make a con a con. Were this so, of course there could be no new cons.
We can agree that the police should not, in general, be barred from using deception in their favor. An officer can pretend to have evidence he does not, pretend to not have evidence he does, pretend to be a prostitute when he isn’t, or pretend to be interested in buying drugs when he is interested in making an arrest. The nature of some crimes indeed lend themselves to investigation in just this way. But the context in which these deceptions come into play are different than the long-term operations we’re discussing.
Long-term engagement with an individual under the pretenses of establishing a normal relationship but which will be used against them is of a different character than driving up to a drug dealer and asking for some rock, or planting a hooker on the street. But we would not suggest that an undercover officer could pose as a paramedic and gain entry to a home, then use that entry under those pretenses to claim he doesn’t need a warrant to poke around for evidence. And acting as a friend or lover for these purposes for an extended period of time is just of that nature. I believe it violated fourth amendment rights.
Would you be ok with the paramedic deception?
I agree that creating a long-term relationship is different from a simple undercover sting, but I don’t think that’s an inherent problem with extended stings. We’re talking about crimes that involve conspiracies here. If it were possible to break up mob families or drug rings or contract killings quickly, then I think the police would do that - dealing with these people regularly has be exceptionally dangerous.
No, I wouldn’t, although you’re not making it clear if you are talking about suspected criminals or other people.
How were cases like this decided before the 4th AM and exclusionary rule was made applicable to the states?
Of course by State courts, who can decide 4th issues, so we could have had one court saying no, once court saying yes, as the Supremacy Clause was not in effect then.
A federal appeals court can rule it violates the constitution, but if a state court took up the same issue later, same appeals circuit, the state court is NOT bound to follow the federal court on thier 4th AM opinion.
Do you mean, “I think there is a problem with extended stings, but not that,” or do you mean, “I don’t think it is actually a problem”?
Totally. I admit in my OP that my feelings are identical. We issue police officers guns under the expectation that they will be forced to shoot people; but this is not a license to kill. We allow long-term stings under the expectation that some kinds of crimes are impossible to prosecute otherwise; can there be no abuse of this, though?
I think coaxing high schoolers and stringing some idiot along for a year call the blank check into question.
Presumably the police are investigating people they suspect of a crime in some capacity. If they literally fishing around then I am definitely sure they have overstepped their moral authority, even if the courts disagree.
I don’t think it’s a problem.
There can be abuses, yes. I said earlier that I’m a little uneasy with the extent of the anti-terrorist stings. I haven’t read much abotu the case with the high schooler, but I was not impressed with the sting operation there. For most of the thread you’ve been arguing against the entire concept as a violation of the rights of the suspect, and I don’t think it’s inherently a violation of the suspect’s rights.
I don’t know, and since it has nothing to do with anything I am putting forward, I didn’t look it up. I forget the exact details, but here is the gist of the example I was thinking of. Police were trying to locate people—I think parole violators. They ran a fake prize distribution outfit to lure them in. Once they were there, each was individually led to the back, where they were arrested.
If they are allowed to search without a warrant, make fake relationships over extended periods of time, and break the law in other ways (such as smoking pot or whatever in drug cases), what exactly would they have to do in order to violate the suspect’s rights? What is too far for you?
I saw that episode of COPS or whatever it was. They ALL had outstanding warrants. If the police can’t come to the crooks, let the crooks come to the police.
There is not enough manpower to track down every person who has a warrant.
At this point, I have to ask. Have you actually read any of my posts, or just skimmed, looking for details on which you suppose I have failed to understand the law?
All I did was comment on your prize lure post. Aside from that, yes, I read the whole thread.
I am not saying you misunderstand the law. You simply disagree with certain 4th AM strategies, courts differ too, some would side with you, others no.
I don’t think smoking pot with someone violates their rights, and neither does pretending to be a friend, coworker, or potential client. If you think that’s a violation of someone’s rights, please go ahead and explain how. I think if they push someone to commit a crime he doesn’t want to or go fishing for evidence without establishing a reason to do so, that’s a violation of the suspect’s Constitutional rights.