# I can't believe Ashcroft is trying this...(long) **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 25, 2001, 10:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-cant-believe-ashcroft-is-trying-this-long/83807 "2001-09-25T22:41:24Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Stuffy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f17d59/32.png) [@Stuffy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stuffy)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2001, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-cant-believe-ashcroft-is-trying-this-long/83807/21 "2001-09-26T18:51:36Z")
> [@](#): > > I could have sworn that the idea of not notifying people of searches was part of earlier proposed laws, and did not originate with Ashcroft or the Bush administration. Anyone else remember? I believe you are correct. it sounds suspiciusly like something that was attahed to a drug bill, and maybe even to that Backruptcy reform bill. Let me look at my records and I’ll get back to. Oh, I third or fourth the motion that this be moved ot great debates. ---
**Author:** ![Stuffy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f17d59/32.png) [@Stuffy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stuffy)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2001, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-cant-believe-ashcroft-is-trying-this-long/83807/22 "2001-09-26T19:05:57Z")
I was right, though I can’t find some of my earlier stuff. On [About.com](http://About.com)’s Civil Liberty cite there’s [this](http://civilliberty.about.com/library/weekly/aa052300a.htm?terms=warrants) The fact that it’s in this bill leads me to believe that it was removed form the Bankruptcy Bill, but I don’t know for certain. ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2001, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-cant-believe-ashcroft-is-trying-this-long/83807/23 "2001-09-26T19:10:36Z")
I believe you contact one of the Pit mods and put in your request for a transfer. When the orders come down, have your duffel full of arguments ready to ROLL! ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2001, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-cant-believe-ashcroft-is-trying-this-long/83807/24 "2001-09-26T19:40:18Z")
In view of the fact that one of the Pit mods. has read, is reading, or will read this within 24 hours, and in view of the content, I think you can trust that it will in fact be moved to GD in short order. And I concur that this statute is overbroad and, even if Ashcroft honors his commitment to use it solely for anti-terrorist activities, an open invitation for anyone in a position of authority to start snooping. And, lest we take this as “get soft on crime,” contemplate the possibility of a President elected with strong support from General Widgets “suggesting” to his Attorney General that an investigation of the executives of All-American Widgets, their prime competitor, is in order. Especially if what keeps AAW a competitive force is a trade secret that GW would love to get its hands on… There’s some good reason for the Fourth Amendment other than being fair to suspects. This law effectively guts it. BTW, Bricker, if I read the proposed statute accurately, the evidence **could not** be suppressed, because it would have been obtained through the means of a legally issued warrant. Would you review the text and think this through, and comment, please? ---
**Author:** ![Weirddave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/919ad9/32.png) [@Weirddave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Weirddave)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2001, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-cant-believe-ashcroft-is-trying-this-long/83807/25 "2001-09-26T19:51:33Z")
The Gestapo? Oh, they’re lovely lads. Nice uniforms. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![The\_Great\_Gazoo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/67e7ee/32.png) [@The\_Great\_Gazoo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Great_Gazoo)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2001, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-cant-believe-ashcroft-is-trying-this-long/83807/26 "2001-09-26T20:04:53Z")
Does anyone else think that a substantial portion of the $30 Billion (or $75 Billion - I’ve heard that number now) that GW Bush is proposing to spend on this “war”, will go to the defense of law enforcement and other government entities in suits brought by “terrorist” types who were wrongfully arrested or detained. I believe that there is at least one Doctor in San Antonio who has to be thinking of a lawsuit after being detained for several days (???!!!). It seems he was released after the investigators determined that his name was the same as one of the hijackers, but that he had nothing to do with any terrorism. ---
**Author:** ![manhattan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/manhattan/32/7_2.png) [@manhattan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/manhattan)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2001, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-cant-believe-ashcroft-is-trying-this-long/83807/27 "2001-09-26T23:12:47Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Bricker \* > Oh? Why ought you? From a practical standpoint, because the value of the information may be diminished by it coming into possession of the Feds. If they learn of a merger proposal, say, I have to sunlight the thing before they go blab it to another potential defendant and it gets out to the marketplace. And there’s the whole creepiness of the government breaking into homes without telling the owners. Call me funny; I wish to _decrease_ the ability of the State to intrude on my life. > [@](#): > > And what self-incrimination issues? > > The right to be free some self-incrimination is not the same thing as the right to lie if you think you won’t get caught. I actually had really good example of this possibility, which didn’t have to do with lying to the police, when I wrote that. But I forgot it. I’ll concede this point unless I remember it. 🙂 > [@](#): > > Yes, I wholeheartedly agree. Any warrant, or functional equivalent of a warrent, like a subpoena _duces tecum_, should be subject, in my view, to a showing of probable cause before a neutral, detached magistrate. > > But – there’s no such limitation _now_ on a subpoena _duces tecum_. What is the _additional_ power that the “administrative” subpoena will have that a subpoena DC doesn’t?\*\* Que? My understanding that DC’s came in two basic flavors. In the first, the demand is to produce the records directly to the court, and that a judge has in fact passed on the subpoena. The second is where a regulatory agency issues the subpoena to a person/business who has, by participating in the regulated business, agreed to produce on a DC. And in the second case, I believe that it is appealable to a court of competent jurisdiction or to the “quasi-judicial” arm of the regulatory body. Am I missing something? ---
**Author:** ![manhattan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/manhattan/32/7_2.png) [@manhattan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/manhattan)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2001, 11:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-cant-believe-ashcroft-is-trying-this-long/83807/28 "2001-09-26T23:18:33Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Polycarp \* > \*\* BTW, Bricker, if I read the proposed statute accurately, the evidence **could not** be suppressed, because it would have been obtained through the means of a legally issued warrant. Would you review the text and think this through, and comment, please? \*\* I’ll try to save the new Dad some minutes by trying this one. Evidence obtained by a legally-issued warrant can be supressed if a court later determines that the warrant was improperly issued (mis-statement of purpose on the warrant application, for example). Presumably this would be the case whether the warrant was a traditional, judge-issued one or one of the proposed new ones. ---
**Author:** ![Jodi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7feea3/32.png) [@Jodi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jodi)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2001, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-cant-believe-ashcroft-is-trying-this-long/83807/29 "2001-09-26T23:44:56Z")
This bill apparently has been amended, but the links do not provide the amended version. Does anyone have the September 20th version? Because the provisions people are objecting to may not be in the bill anymore. ---
**Author:** ![Reeder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Reeder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Reeder)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2001, 12:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-cant-believe-ashcroft-is-trying-this-long/83807/30 "2001-09-27T00:40:24Z")
After hearing some of congress speak about this…I’d say most of it has about a snowballs chance in hell of passing. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2001, 3:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-cant-believe-ashcroft-is-trying-this-long/83807/31 "2001-09-27T03:02:31Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Polycarp \* > BTW, Bricker, if I read the proposed statute accurately, the evidence **could not** be suppressed, because it would have been obtained through the means of a legally issued warrant. Would you review the text and think this through, and comment, please? As I read the proposed text, the issue is one of notification. Probable cause itself does not change because of this statute - it merely changes the requirement that the police inform you when they serve a search warrant. Under the current rules, the police generally have to tell you when they’ve searched your house, for example. Even if they deliberately choose a time when you’re not home, they must leave notice (i.e., a copy of the warrant) when they leave. Under the proposed new rules, the police could delay notice by up to 90 days, or even longer, with a judge’s permission. This doesn’t change the existence or validity of the warrant - just whether or not the person searched is notified that he was searched. - Rick ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2001, 3:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-cant-believe-ashcroft-is-trying-this-long/83807/32 "2001-09-27T03:24:29Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by manhattan \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > \*Originally posted by Bricker \* > > Oh? Why ought you? > > From a practical standpoint, because the value of the information may be diminished by it coming into possession of the Feds. If they learn of a merger proposal, say, I have to sunlight the thing before they go blab it to another potential defendant and it gets out to the marketplace. And there’s the whole creepiness of the government breaking into homes without telling the owners. Call me funny; I wish to _decrease_ the ability of the State to intrude on my life. \*\* OK - fair enough. That’s a legitimate objection: if a search turns up proprietary information, what happens to you if the feds leak it, accidentally or on purpose? Under the old system, you at least can mitigate the damage; you knew the information was in their hands. Now, you have no way of knowing. I think this is something that the bill ought to address - either make the government liable if the information is disclosed, or convince a judge in every case that there is a reason to avoid notice. And the burden should be a high one - not a showing of probable cause. Perhaps “clear and convincing” evidence. Of course, since that showing will obviously be _ex parte_… hmmm. You raise a good point here. What happens now if the feds gain access to proprietary information in the course of a criminal search warrant, and then disclose it? As to the “general creepiness” objection… well, I hear ya, but that isn’t exactly an argument of constitutional dimension. The more I think about it, the more I’d like to remove the automatic 90-day period and replace it with judicial oversight. - Rick ---
**Author:** ![TubaDiva](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tubadiva/32/507_2.png) [@TubaDiva](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TubaDiva)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2001, 4:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-cant-believe-ashcroft-is-trying-this-long/83807/33 "2001-09-27T04:59:39Z")
One of the few times we move a Pit thread to Great Debates. Here goes. your humble TubaDiva Administrator ---
**Author:** ![Stuffy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f17d59/32.png) [@Stuffy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stuffy)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2001, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-cant-believe-ashcroft-is-trying-this-long/83807/34 "2001-09-27T15:49:48Z")
> [@](#): > > Under the proposed new rules, the police could delay notice by up to 90 days, or even longer, with a judge’s permission. This doesn’t change the existence or validity of the warrant - just whether or not the person searched is notified that he was searched. And in the meantime, the state/fed has time to review what it’s collected and begin building a case agianst the individual/entity in question. During the same period, the person/entity isn’t aware that they may be in need of legal assistance. Thoughts? ---
**Author:** ![Stiletto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a4c791/32.png) [@Stiletto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stiletto)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2001, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-cant-believe-ashcroft-is-trying-this-long/83807/35 "2001-09-27T20:35:49Z")
[QUOTE] \*Originally posted by stuffinb \* \*\* > [@](#): > > And in the meantime, the state/fed has time to review what it’s collected and begin building a case agianst the individual/entity in question. During the same period, the person/entity isn’t aware that they may be in need of legal assistance. > > Thoughts? \*\* Well, **stuffinb** , I don’t know that that particular part of the scenario is any different from the way it is now. Currently, while you _do_ have to be notified about a search or search warrant, you don’t necessarily have to be notified that an investigation is ongoing about you, at least unless and until you are arrested and charged with a crime due to the aforementioned investigation. (At least, I believe that is the case now.) -Stil ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2001, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-cant-believe-ashcroft-is-trying-this-long/83807/36 "2001-09-27T21:32:31Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by stuffinb \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > Under the proposed new rules, the police could delay notice by up to 90 days, or even longer, with a judge’s permission. This doesn’t change the existence or validity of the warrant - just whether or not the person searched is notified that he was searched. > > And in the meantime, the state/fed has time to review what it’s collected and begin building a case agianst the individual/entity in question. During the same period, the person/entity isn’t aware that they may be in need of legal assistance. > > Thoughts? \*\* Yes, that’s true. That’s an advantage to the government. But your statement seems to hint at a feeling that the playing field is otherwise equal, and that this change would tip the balance in favor of the government. But there are a long list of rules that give the advantage to the accused. The government must disclose, well in advance of trial, any exculpatory evidence it has. The defendant need not share with the government any inculpatory evidence he has. The government must prove every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. The defendant doesn’t need to prove anything. The defendant can appeal a guily verdict, and if a higher court finds it resulted from error, may be granted a new trial. The government may not appeal an acquittal. On the other hand - the government has virtually unlimited financial resources. The defendant must either finance his own defense or rely upon court-appointed or public defenders, whose skills may vary wildly. The defendant may suffer harm merely from being arrested and accused, and even if aquitted may be perceived by the public as guilty. The picture I’m trying to paint here is that the rules strike a certain balance. The proposed legislation would admittedly change that balance, in favor of the government. But case law for the past 100 years has been changing that balance in favor of the defendant. Forty years ago, state prosecutions were permitted to use evidence against an accused even if it was illegally obtained. Now, they are not. What is the basis for assuming that where we are, right now, in our jurisprudence timeline, is the exact “right” balance? You talk about the proposed legislation taking away civil rights - why do you not assume that the state of the law in 1960 was correct, and that _Mapp, Miranda, Edwards, Batson,_ and _Strickland_ all went too far? I’m not saying that they did. I am saying that it’s wrong to make an automatic assumption that any change in that direction is bad. - Rick ---
**Author:** ![Stuffy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f17d59/32.png) [@Stuffy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stuffy)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2001, 10:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-cant-believe-ashcroft-is-trying-this-long/83807/37 "2001-09-27T22:10:34Z")
**Trying to imagine any scenario in which the police have searched my home, an I did _not_ want to consult a lawyer** > [@](#): > > Amendment IV > > The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. This legislation makes a mockery of the above. In fact it guts it completely. It explicitly permits police in effect to break the law in upholding the law (no notice of search, gee wonder how they got in). The last 100 years of jurisprudence be damned (oh wait no judge needed). Further who’s to say that such power couldn’t be abused. I cna think of at least several. This is an endrun around the Constitution. New 4th Amendment The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall be violated, and warrants shall issue, supported by Oath or affirmation if convenient to the state. ---
**Author:** ![Stuffy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f17d59/32.png) [@Stuffy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stuffy)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2001, 10:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-cant-believe-ashcroft-is-trying-this-long/83807/38 "2001-09-27T22:15:00Z")
Regarding last post: Following “affirmation”, please change _if_ to _when_. ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2001, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-cant-believe-ashcroft-is-trying-this-long/83807/39 "2001-09-27T22:27:36Z")
I’m beginng to think that this might be good fallout from the attack…let me explain. I listened…well, that isn’t entirely accurate, I half-listened to Ashcroft’s press conference this afternoon. Since I was only half-listening, I may have misunderstood him. But the gist of what he was saying is that these things were halfway to becoming law before this ever happened. Well then…thank heaven we’ve had this opportunity to shine a spotlight on what could have been some really bad laws that might have snuck in while no one was looking! stoid ---
**Author:** ![The\_Ryan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7feea3/32.png) [@The\_Ryan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Ryan)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2001, 11:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-cant-believe-ashcroft-is-trying-this-long/83807/40 "2001-09-27T23:21:34Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Bricker \* > The government must disclose, well in advance of trial, any exculpatory evidence it has. Wouldn’t this law interfere with that? If they aren’t discolosing the fact that your place has been searched, they \*certainly[/]i aren’t disclosing what was found during the search. Another issue that hasn’t been brought up yet is the issue of seizure. If the police decide that something is a piece of evidence and decide to seize it, can they just walk off with it and not tell you? Seems to me that they should have to tell you that they took it so that you have an opportunity to try to get it back. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-cant-believe-ashcroft-is-trying-this-long/83807.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-cant-believe-ashcroft-is-trying-this-long/83807.md?page=3)