Re: You bet they have/are: NSA/CIA to snoop INSIDE the U.S.???

[Black Unicorn <unicorn@schloss.li>]

On Mon, 17 Jun 1996, Ernest Hua wrote:

> > anyone who believes the FBI and a host of other U.S. agencies even 
> > less scrupulous does not wiretap without permits, has been standing behind 
> > the door. generally, it does not matter if the information learned is 
> > admissable in court  --they never admit wiretapping in the first place as  
> > the agency themselves, in many cases, *did*not*wiretap*  --but the agency 
> > does buy info from usually unsavory "contractors" who do wiretap.
> 
> Here is where I'm totally amazed (aghast ... maybe I'm just too naive):
> (And, yes, I have asked this question, in different words, to a lawyer
> crowd.)
> 
> It is clear that if the FBI/CIA/NSA/ATF/DoS intercepts a message with
> some very important content, like, say, I (Ernest Hua) was plotting to
> kill Hillary, then they can use that information to start investigating
> my activities, even if the intercept turned out to be illegal.  Those
> who saw the content of this intercept is not required by law to "forget"
> that they ever saw it.

If they intend to prosecute in a U.S. court they are.

Which crowd of lawyers was this?  Must have been after open bar.

Look it up, the doctrine is called "fruit of the poisonous tree."

In your example, the evidence would be refered to the FBI or the Secret
Service, or more likely both provided the intercept clerk's superior
wanted to even expose the existance of the intercept program to begin
with- unlikely in my experience.  From there, it being fairly clear that
the intercept was illegal to the FBI / Secret Service, they may visit and
see if they can dig up a plausible explanation as to how they "really" got
interested in your activities, but refering to the intercept is right out.

See e.g., United States v. United States District Court (Keith), 407 U.S.
297 (1972); Alderman v. United States, 394 U.S. 165 (1969).

Warantless surveillance can only be used in criminal prosecutions where
the "primary purpose" of the surveillance is intelligence.  United States
v. Megahey, 553 F.Supp. 1180, 1189-1190 (E.D.N.Y. 1982).

That evidence will have to survive a hearing on exclusion.  Highly
unlikely if you were accidently overheard.

Judges are protective of their jurisdiction.

> 
> Ern
> 

---
My preferred and soon to be permanent e-mail address:unicorn@schloss.li
"In fact, had Bancroft not existed,       potestas scientiae in usu est
Franklin might have had to invent him."    in nihilum nil posse reverti
00B9289C28DC0E55  E16D5378B81E1C96 - Finger for Current Key Information
Opp. Counsel: For all your expert testimony needs: jimbell@pacifier.com