[QUOTE=Bricker]
Consent is a long-recognized exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment. And the article says:
(Bolding mine). Just as a policeman is free to walk up to to you on the street and ask you where you’re going, the Fourth Amendment is not implicated as long as you’re free to disregard his inquiry and go about your business.
[/QUOTE]
My problem here is that the defendant never consented to the search. I have no doubt the banking industry cooperated at least somewhat voluntarily, but the banks are not the targets of the search. If they want to use the evidence against the defendant they should have to get his consent, or a warrant, prior to the search.
[QUOTE=Bricker]
I’m not sure it is. We lack some critical information necessary to reach that conclusion. For example, these non-compulsory letters could be a “formal written request” pursuant to 12 USC § 3408. I don’t know if customers whose records have been handed over were given notice in accordance with § 3408(4)(A); the story doesn’t say. Or these inquiries might be limited to the name, address, account number, and type of account particular customers hold, in accordance with § 3413(g)(1). Again, the story doesn’t give us enough information to judge.
[/QUOTE]
Nope, both of those sections require the request to be relevant to a legitimate law enforcement inquiry. Since the CIA and Army do not have law enforcement powers, they can not have a legitimate law enforcement inquiry, therefore the section does not apply.
[QUOTE=treis]
Nope, both of those sections require the request to be relevant to a legitimate law enforcement inquiry. Since the CIA and Army do not have law enforcement powers, they can not have a legitimate law enforcement inquiry, therefore the section does not apply.
[/QUOTE]
The Army’s Criminal Investigation Division most certainly has law enforcement powers.
[QUOTE=Oakminster]
My problem here is that the defendant never consented to the search. I have no doubt the banking industry cooperated at least somewhat voluntarily, but the banks are not the targets of the search. If they want to use the evidence against the defendant they should have to get his consent, or a warrant, prior to the search.
[/QUOTE]
Doesn’t matter if the bank is the target of the search. They have common authority over the records, and their consent is sufficient to allow the warrantless search. US v. Matlock.
[QUOTE=alphaboi867]
Over civilians?! :dubious:
[/QUOTE]
Sure. Over any activity that involves the Army or its objectives. Their mission includes “…to plan and provide criminal intelligence collection and analysis; and to conduct sensitive or special interest investigations as directed by the Chief of Staff, Army, or higher authority.” I don’t know specifically about the other service equivalents, but I’d bet they have similar charters.
[QUOTE=treis]
And the CIA?
[/QUOTE]
I don’t know offhand. Is your argument now, “But for the CIA’s involvement, I acknowledge that these activities may be legal?”
To answer your question though, no that is not my position. I am not convinced that the ACID is a law enforcement organization, nor is that the only reason I don’t think those sections apply. There’s no point in me making those arguments though until my first one is defeated.
[QUOTE=Bricker]
No. My position is outlined in post #20, and is best summarized: it is impossible to determine the legality on the information given.
[/QUOTE]
Again, the sections you outlined in post #20 require a legitimate law enforcement inquiry. Do you believe that the CIA can conduct a legitimate law enforcement inquiry?
