3 ms·

> If the government gets your information, and decides not to bring charges, you should have the right to know about that at some point. Disagree. There are nu

> If the government gets your information, and decides not to bring charges, you should have the right to know about that at some point. Disagree. There are numerous cases where it takes multiple investigations to "get" a career criminal (think organized crime). If each batch of subpoenas or sealed warrants were exposed even when there is no charge this time, that gives said suspect a very nice opportunity to clean up loose ends. TLDR: If people know they are being actively looked at they will attempt to destroy/suppress/hide evidence.

hobs 7y ago
And then the obvious next conclusion is you can argue with a judge on whether or not that's reasonable. We already have laws on the books to deal with organized crime - why would we give up our rights so that something we have no evidence for might happen?
kerkeslager 7y ago
> Disagree. There are numerous cases where it takes multiple investigations to "get" a career criminal (think organized crime). If each batch of subpoenas or sealed warrants were exposed even when there is no charge this time, that gives said suspect a very nice opportunity to clean up loose ends. Subpoenas are only supposed to be issued if there's a reasonable belief that the subpoena will find evidence of criminal activity. In theory, subpoenas should find evidence most of the time--if subpoenas frequently don't turn up evidence, then subpoenas are being issued without the proper burden of proof being met. For this reason I strongly disagree that we should build any policy around the idea that subpoenas won't turn up evidence of wrongdoing on a regular basis. This just encourages law enforcement to go on fishing expeditions, instead of doing proper, evidence-based police work. If law enforcement know the person will be notified of the subpoena after some time, then they'll be incentivized to only apply for subpoenas that are sensible and strategic, rather than applying for frivolous subpoenas that don't turn up anything.
- GhettoMaestro 7y ago
  I see your point. It opens a door for a lot of bullshit. Really, I suppose I am advocating less for secret subpoenas and more for secret warrants. If someone really has a reason to keep something concealed in the interest in justice, then they should have no problem with a Judge signing off on it, under seal of course. And if the secret warrant is a part of a series against a suspect, again I think a reasonable Judge could be convinced of the necessity of keeping the ongoing investigative activities concealed for the time being.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

hobs 7y ago

And then the obvious next conclusion is you can argue with a judge on whether or not that's reasonable. We already have laws on the books to deal with organized crime - why would we give up our rights so that something we have no evidence for might happen?

kerkeslager 7y ago

> Disagree. There are numerous cases where it takes multiple investigations to "get" a career criminal (think organized crime). If each batch of subpoenas or sealed warrants were exposed even when there is no charge this time, that gives said suspect a very nice opportunity to clean up loose ends. Subpoenas are only supposed to be issued if there's a reasonable belief that the subpoena will find evidence of criminal activity. In theory, subpoenas should find evidence most of the time--if subpoenas frequently don't turn up evidence, then subpoenas are being issued without the proper burden of proof being met. For this reason I strongly disagree that we should build any policy around the idea that subpoenas won't turn up evidence of wrongdoing on a regular basis. This just encourages law enforcement to go on fishing expeditions, instead of doing proper, evidence-based police work. If law enforcement know the person will be notified of the subpoena after some time, then they'll be incentivized to only apply for subpoenas that are sensible and strategic, rather than applying for frivolous subpoenas that don't turn up anything.

GhettoMaestro 7y ago
I see your point. It opens a door for a lot of bullshit. Really, I suppose I am advocating less for secret subpoenas and more for secret warrants. If someone really has a reason to keep something concealed in the interest in justice, then they should have no problem with a Judge signing off on it, under seal of course. And if the secret warrant is a part of a series against a suspect, again I think a reasonable Judge could be convinced of the necessity of keeping the ongoing investigative activities concealed for the time being.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]