3 ms·

Presumably State law still applies to the activities of FBI employees in that state, unless the Federal government has passed a law specifically exempting them.

by caf 10y ago

rdtsc 10y ago
Interesting point. In regards to wiretaps https://www.privacyrights.org/content/wiretapping-and-eavesdropping-telephone-calls https://www.privacyrights.org/content/wiretapping-and-eavesd... seems to imply that no, Federal Agents when investigating are not bound by State law but by federal law: --- Courts have held that the California law does not apply to wiretaps by federal agents authorized by a valid federal warrant. For example, federal agents may go to federal court and obtain a warrant to place a wiretap in California, even though state officials may be barred by state law from obtaining a wiretap under similar circumstances. --- In general I suspect they cannot be prevented by local state laws from doing their jobs.
- caf 10y ago
  That example is not precisely on point though, because it involves a federal warrant - there's no doubting that the US Government can pass laws overriding relevant State laws where it has jurisdiction, and Federal warrants are ultimately authorised by a Federal law.
  - rdtsc 10y ago
    Yeah this is not an exact case, the quote mentions the warrant part as well (that is why I pasted that part in), but thought it was similar because it is still Federal agents, in their line of duty, and court declared they get to disregard state laws. The other interesting aspect is this is looked what Federal agents can do, not "How can we protect the privacy of our citizens? Let's see what we can do for them. Maybe they are entitled to more privacy because they live in California". This mirrors the attitude of the "expert" in the story, they just see the Constitution as an inconveniance you need to bypass in order to get your job done.

Presumably State law still applies to the activities of FBI employees in that state, unless the Federal government has passed a law specifically exempting them.

by caf 10y ago

Presumably State law still applies to the activities of FBI employees in that state, unless the Federal government has passed a law specifically exempting them.

rdtsc 10y ago

Interesting point. In regards to wiretaps https://www.privacyrights.org/content/wiretapping-and-eavesdropping-telephone-calls https://www.privacyrights.org/content/wiretapping-and-eavesd... seems to imply that no, Federal Agents when investigating are not bound by State law but by federal law: --- Courts have held that the California law does not apply to wiretaps by federal agents authorized by a valid federal warrant. For example, federal agents may go to federal court and obtain a warrant to place a wiretap in California, even though state officials may be barred by state law from obtaining a wiretap under similar circumstances. --- In general I suspect they cannot be prevented by local state laws from doing their jobs.

caf 10y ago
That example is not precisely on point though, because it involves a federal warrant - there's no doubting that the US Government can pass laws overriding relevant State laws where it has jurisdiction, and Federal warrants are ultimately authorised by a Federal law.
- rdtsc 10y ago
  Yeah this is not an exact case, the quote mentions the warrant part as well (that is why I pasted that part in), but thought it was similar because it is still Federal agents, in their line of duty, and court declared they get to disregard state laws. The other interesting aspect is this is looked what Federal agents can do, not "How can we protect the privacy of our citizens? Let's see what we can do for them. Maybe they are entitled to more privacy because they live in California". This mirrors the attitude of the "expert" in the story, they just see the Constitution as an inconveniance you need to bypass in order to get your job done.