New Guidelines Would Give F.B.I. Broader Powers

[BadBoy@TheWheel]

Reading comprehension, it's a wonderful thing.

Just so we are clear, you didn't just cite the case you quoted the opinion of the author who reviewed the case. It's the review that could be a copyright problem not the citation to the case.

Oh clear as a bell thank you so much for your education

 

[BadBoy@TheWheel]

Probable cause

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


PortalsLaw · Criminal justice
In United Statescriminal law, probable cause refers to the standard by which a police officer has the right to make an arrest, conduct a personal or property search, or to obtain a warrant for arrest. It is also used to refer to the standard to which a grand jury believes that a crime has been committed. This term comes from the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution:

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.

There I cited where it came from and it was established by the fourth amend.

Fight it bigshot laywer


​

 

[Strauss]

Oh clear as a bell thank you so much for your education

You're welcome, happy to do it. Let me know if you need to be educated again, excuse me, more.

 

[BadBoy@TheWheel]

And that hold true for wiretaps as well, you simply cannot wiretap without P/C.

That is at least what a feeber told me. HE's is probably not very sharp either..

 

[Strauss]

Probable cause

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


PortalsLaw · Criminal justice
In United Statescriminal law, probable cause refers to the standard by which a police officer has the right to make an arrest, conduct a personal or property search, or to obtain a warrant for arrest. It is also used to refer to the standard to which a grand jury believes that a crime has been committed. This term comes from the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution:

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.

There I cited where it came from and it was established by the fourth amend.

Fight it bigshot laywer


​

You still haven't explain what that has to do with the article. I can't make it any simpler. You might as well quote the 17th Amendment, the 4th Amendment has nothing to do with the matter discussed in the article.

 

[Strauss]

And that hold true for wiretaps as well, you simply cannot wiretap without P/C.

That is at least what a feeber told me. HE's is probably not very sharp either..

Depends, as a blanket statement that would be wrong.

 

[gLing]

Probable cause

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


PortalsLaw · Criminal justice
In United Statescriminal law, probable cause refers to the standard by which a police officer has the right to make an arrest, conduct a personal or property search, or to obtain a warrant for arrest. It is also used to refer to the standard to which a grand jury believes that a crime has been committed. This term comes from the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution:

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.

There I cited where it came from and it was established by the fourth amend.

Fight it bigshot laywer


​

Don't complain, it's all for our own good! It's not like the FBI kicks down our doors and rifle through our underwear so let them do whatever.
It's good to be a sheep.









That was all sarcasm by the way.

 

[BadBoy@TheWheel]

You still haven't explain what that has to do with the article. I can't make it any simpler. You might as well quote the 17th Amendment, the 4th Amendment has nothing to do with the matter discussed in the article.

It absolutely does, in the O/P it was clearly stated that the powers would be broadened to the ability to obtain information without suspicion.

The 4th clearly states that suspicion (reasonable) must exist for there to be a valid search.

Otherwise you cannot establish P/C

 

[Strauss]

It absolutely does, in the O/P it was clearly stated that the powers would be broadened to the ability to obtain information without suspicion.

The 4th clearly states that suspicion (reasonable) must exist for there to be a valid search.

Otherwise you cannot establish P/C

First, the 4th Amendment says "probable cause" not reasonable suspicion.

Second, the 4th Amendment protects your person, your home and those areas of an expectation of privacy. That would not include areas of information available to law enforcement. The 4th Amendment is not implicated.

The article is nothing more than scare tactics for the uninformed.

Under the crap in the article roadside sobriety checkpoints would be illegal as a search and seizure without probable cause but the Supreme Court says otherwise.

 

[BadBoy@TheWheel]

First, the 4th Amendment says "probable cause" not reasonable suspicion.

Second, the 4th Amendment protects your person, your home and those areas of an expectation of privacy. That would not include areas of information available to law enforcement. The 4th Amendment is not implicated.

The article is nothing more than scare tactics for the uninformed.

Under the crap in the article roadside sobriety checkpoints would be illegal as a search and seizure without probable cause but the Supreme Court says otherwise.

So you're telling me, that you or I have or should not has an expectation of privacy when we are on the telephone?

That's what you're saying? How about my computer?

Technically it can only be searched if there is reason to believe a crime has been committed with it...Or no...Johnny law can kick in my door, take my personal effects, scan my hard drive, and tap my phone cause they have nothing else better to do?

I sure hope you make enough money to retire before a client sees what you think and fires you ass.

I have no idea what bridge you crawled out from under, but comparing a checkpoint for drunk driving, and tapping my phone with the intent of accusing me of plotting against the government to John Taliban are a fucking giant leap, even by your radical standards.

Slippery slope is all I'm saying.

If the government did the job they were supposed to do they wouldn't have to "losen up" on rights of citizens to accomplish the mission, it's one more case where they can't get it right, so let's keep removing rights until we find something...Even if it isn't real.

You and I both know, in a P/C/Evidentiary hearing...."Well...Judge.....He sure looked like a terast"

"And bubba here thought so too" so we killed his dog, cavity searched his wife and arrested him for murder.

Isn't goingt to stand up, and you know it. 90% of even the bottom 5% of the legal society would jump all over that.

 

[gLing]

First, the 4th Amendment says "probable cause" not reasonable suspicion.

Second, the 4th Amendment protects your person, your home and those areas of an expectation of privacy. That would not include areas of information available to law enforcement. The 4th Amendment is not implicated.

The article is nothing more than scare tactics for the uninformed.

Under the crap in the article roadside sobriety checkpoints would be illegal as a search and seizure without probable cause but the Supreme Court says otherwise.

That is skirting the issue and using the letter of the law to violate the spirit of the law.

 

[BadBoy@TheWheel]

Definitions
The most widely held, common definition is "a reasonable belief that a person has committed a crime."[1]
Another definition is that is "a reasonable amount of suspicion, supported by circumstances sufficiently strong to justify a prudent and cautious person's belief that certain facts are probably true."[2]
In the context of warrants, the Oxford Companion to American Law defines probable cause as "information sufficient to warrant a prudent person's belief that the wanted individual had committed a crime (for an arrest warrant) or that evidence of a crime or contraband would be found in a search (for a search warrant)." "Probable cause" is a stronger standard of evidence than a reasonable suspicion, but weaker than what is required to secure a criminal conviction. Even hearsay can supply probable cause if it is from a reliable source or is supported by other evidence, according to the Aguilar-Spinelli test.


Once again, for the reading impaired, this cleary ties the terms "reasonable suspicion" and "probable cause together"

It does however mention that both are too weak to uphold a conviction, so of course evidence would have to be there, but I still can't see how you can justify just searching/tapping/taking with nothing...

Your clients must hate you, not to mention that te legal system is to blame for the legal systm being so fucked up..

 

[Strauss]

"Probable cause" is a stronger standard of evidence than a reasonable suspicion,

Think about what you quoted. The 4th Amendment requires "probable cause" to obtain a warrant. "Reasonable suspicion" would not sustain a request for a search warrant. There is no "tying" together of anything. Two differing standards for two differing matters. That's like saying "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" is tied to "more likely than not". Two different standards for two different things.

still can't see how you can justify just searching/tapping/taking with nothing..

Where in the article did it say that? The article (which is void of any real facts, just supposition) claims that the FBI doesn't have to have a a reason to open an investigation......Duh, no shit, they never did.

 

[BadBoy@TheWheel]

Think about what you quoted. The 4th Amendment requires "probable cause" to obtain a warrant. "Reasonable suspicion" would not sustain a request for a search warrant. There is no "tying" together of anything. Two differing standards for two differing matters. That's like saying "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" is tied to "more likely than not". Two different standards for two different things.



Where in the article did it say that? The article (which is void of any real facts, just supposition) claims that the FBI doesn't have to have a a reason to open an investigation......Duh, no shit, they never did.

Ehh it's all word play to me

I do see your point though...I will concede to that

 

[Strauss]

Ehh it's all word play to me

I do see your point though...I will concede to that

I say lets make fun of Mulder.

 

[Minor Axis]

"For a safe and secure society." Isn't that what the emperor said in Star Wars? lol

You've got total freedom on one side and total security on the other. In the U.S. my preference is to keep it where it's been (prior to the start of the Iraq war). Allowing the FBI to check library records to see what you've been reading is total shit, you pick the animal.

I say lets make fun of Mulder.

Seconded! I won't though because I find his lawyerly rebuttals too intimidating...