Re: legality of wiretapping: a "key" distinction

[Dale Thorn <dthorn@gte.net>]

Vladimir Z. Nuri wrote:

[some text deleted]

> I think there may be a legitimate argument here that might have
> legal merit that a reasonable "search and seizure" ought to
> involve the knowledge of the participant, and that unreasonable
> searches and seizures often do not. hence, wiretapping without
> suspect agreement may be illegal? (in all the other ways that
> evidence is obtained through warrants/subpoenas, one needs
> the cooperation of the suspect?)  obviously the government would
> argue that the cooperation of the suspect is irrelevant and
> impossible. what exactly does it mean to "present a warrant"
> or subpoena? is there a right to refuse such a subpoena similar
> to the way one is guaranteed freedom from self-incrimination?

The point is, the govt. already has the info, much as if you had a bunch 
of computers and digiboards or whatever monitoring all your neighbors' 
phone calls.  It's whether they can legally present the info in court to 
put you away or not that matters.  The law tends to move in the 
direction of recent decisions, particularly in saying that the police 
"acted in good faith" in collecting the info, and that they "didn't 
conspire to collect the info deliberately knowing it wasn't legal", etc.

Problem is, the govt. will continue to ease the restrictions on the 
latter argument, since in the former, they *always* act in "good faith".