4 ms·

So if I'm a criminal from a super-evil gang or something can I pay someone to come on any meeting call we are having, have him talk a bit on it, and kill him on

So if I'm a criminal from a super-evil gang or something can I pay someone to come on any meeting call we are having, have him talk a bit on it, and kill him once it's over (giving money to his family or whatever) in an attempt to make it so people outside of the wiretap order are in the call thus making it so the cops need to hang up? It's a confusing example, but is it possible?

Avshalom 10y ago
No, as long as at least one person included in the order is on the phone, or could be 'reasonablely' assumed to still be on the phone anything gathered is fair evidence.
serge2k 10y ago
> super-evil gang > giving money to his family or whatever I don't think you understand super evil. Really though, the piles of bodies would probably get you caught at that point. Insulating yourself like that is how leaders protect themselves. Cops go after the lower level people instead and people roll over under the threat of 20-30 years in prison. Plus RICO and related stuff.
mnarayan01 10y ago
From the article: > However, the agents must discontinue monitoring the wiretap once they know or reasonably should know that the phone calls only involved speakers outside the target conspiracy.
SilasX 10y ago
My reading of the article is that they have to stop listening when everyone listed on the warrant leaves the call, not when there exists a non-warrant-listed person on the call. That is, they can listen during OR of isOnWarrrant(), not just the AND.
- maccam912 10y ago
  So everyone gets a text-to-speech victim, listens to the conversation, but at gun point writes down something and makes their victim actually say it. Nobody talking on the phones is part of the conspiracy.
  - tdb7893 10y ago
    I would guess that if someone is saying the exact words they are given it would count as the person writing being on the call. I might be incorrect but law doesn't seem to be a discipline where the specific wording is more important than the intent.
ikeboy 10y ago
Or just use an encrypted line.

Avshalom 10y ago

No, as long as at least one person included in the order is on the phone, or could be 'reasonablely' assumed to still be on the phone anything gathered is fair evidence.

serge2k 10y ago

> super-evil gang > giving money to his family or whatever I don't think you understand super evil. Really though, the piles of bodies would probably get you caught at that point. Insulating yourself like that is how leaders protect themselves. Cops go after the lower level people instead and people roll over under the threat of 20-30 years in prison. Plus RICO and related stuff.

mnarayan01 10y ago

From the article: > However, the agents must discontinue monitoring the wiretap once they know or reasonably should know that the phone calls only involved speakers outside the target conspiracy.

SilasX 10y ago

My reading of the article is that they have to stop listening when everyone listed on the warrant leaves the call, not when there exists a non-warrant-listed person on the call. That is, they can listen during OR of isOnWarrrant(), not just the AND.

maccam912 10y ago
So everyone gets a text-to-speech victim, listens to the conversation, but at gun point writes down something and makes their victim actually say it. Nobody talking on the phones is part of the conspiracy.
- tdb7893 10y ago
  I would guess that if someone is saying the exact words they are given it would count as the person writing being on the call. I might be incorrect but law doesn't seem to be a discipline where the specific wording is more important than the intent.

ikeboy 10y ago

Or just use an encrypted line.