[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Not necessarily crypto but scary anyway...

On Wed, 8 Feb 1995, L. McCarthy wrote:

> Date: Wed, 8 Feb 1995 21:31:42 -0500 (EST)
> From: L. McCarthy <[email protected]>
> To: Cypherpunks Mailing List <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: Not necessarily crypto but scary anyway...
> root writes:
> > A friend advises me that today House Bill 666 passed. This supposedly would
> > allow police officers to use evidence collected illegaly if they 'believed'
> > that it was collected in good faith.
> Ben writes:
> # This sounds like a spoof.  Look at the number.
> No, it's for real. This is the `Exclusionary Rule Reform Act of 1995', HR 666.
> It was introduced Jan. 25 by a Rep. McCollum, referred to the Judiciary Cmte.,
> and on Feb. 2 was "committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State 
> of the Union and ordered to be printed", whatever that means.
> Here's an excerpt of the main idea: 
> "Evidence [...] shall not be excluded [...] on the ground that the search or 
> seizure was in violation of the fourth amendment [...] if the search or 
> seizure was carried out in circumstances justifying an objectively reasonable 
> belief that it was in conformity with the fourth amendment. The fact that 
> evidence was obtained pursuant to and within the scope of a warrant 
> constitutes prima facie evidence of the existence of such circumstances."
> So I suppose this opens the possibility that, if a judge grants a search 
> warrant that allows broader police powers than the 4th Amendment would, then 
> the police have free reign to use those broader powers.

Again, if the judge issues the warrant, the damage is done, exclusion is 
pointless.  The concept that police should be expected to know the law is 
apparently, silly.  I suppose you don't want police "second guessing" 
judges, but personally I wouldn't mind the implications.

The review process allows the warrant to be overturned and the evidence 
excluded if the issuing judge's basis for signing the warrant is "clearly 
erronious"  (from memory.)  Where there is good faith involved by all the 
parties however....

> This is all via http://thomas.loc.gov/home/c104query.html.
> -L. Futplex McCarthy

073BB885A786F666 nemo repente fuit turpissimus - potestas scientiae in usu est
6E6D4506F6EDBC17 quaere verum ad infinitum, loquitur sub rosa    -    wichtig!