3 ms·

There is nothing inherently wrong with parallel construction, it just means concealing a source. It seems like you have probably leant the term in the context o

There is nothing inherently wrong with parallel construction, it just means concealing a source. It seems like you have probably leant the term in the context of illegally obtained information, but that is orthogonal to concealing a source. Parallel construction is a completely normal and legitimate process. People who use it like a spooky term akin to "enhanced interrogation" or "extraordinary rendition" are just loudly signalling they have little firsthand knowledge of law enforcement.

frandroid 6y ago
So you're fine with money laundering as well? Because parallel construction is inadmissible evidence laundering.
- JoeSmithson 6y ago
  > "So you're fine with money laundering as well?" Is this your best effort attempt at assuming good faith? > "parallel construction is inadmissible evidence laundering." Well, it's concealing a source, which is what I said. If you have an informant who's life would be in danger if they were revealed, then anything they tell you would have to be paralleled. There's nothing illegal about their evidence, they would just never testify to it.
  - frandroid 6y ago
    It's perjury. Read the other replies. There's nothing good faith about perjury. If you're trying to protect a source, get the source protected by a court order.
    - JoeSmithson 6y ago
      I have read the other replies, that don't appear to have been made by anyone with any experience of parallel construction.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      - dllthomas 6y ago
        I don't have experience of extortion, either, but I'm plenty qualified to object. Your position seems to be that there are legitimate reasons it was introduced. I don't disagree with that. That doesn't mean that the process doesn't involve lying in court to deprive people of their rights. You say "conceal a source" but that is precisely depriving the accused of their explicit constitutional right to be "confronted with the witnesses against them". (I will note that I've definitely been speaking with a US focus - not all of my comments will generalize.)
    - kls 6y ago
      Exactly there are established legal proceedings to protect sensitive information be it a source that could be endangered, classified information or a method employed, the judge can seal that information, but it has historically been the judges call and that should not be taken out of the courts hands by law enforcement.
dllthomas 6y ago
If I am accused of a crime, I have the right to face my accusers and contest all of the evidence against me. Parallel construction is deliberately depriving me of that right, by lying in court. The fact that it's common shouldn't make us lose track of that.
- JoeSmithson 6y ago
  No, you don't have an absolute right to know all the details of how an investigation was conducted. You don't necessarily get to see the intelligence that supported a search warrant, for example.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - monocasa 6y ago
    You do in the US.
    - laughinghan 6y ago
      Even in the US there are exceptions, like the state secrets privilege: https://www.eff.org/nsa-spying/state-secrets-privilege https://www.eff.org/nsa-spying/state-secrets-privilege
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
- laughinghan 6y ago
  This isn't a very good argument against parallel construction, because you are able to contest all of the evidence being used in court against you. I don't think arguing against the legitimacy of the investigative means used to acquire evidence is ever an admissible argument by which to contest that evidence before a jury. If those investigative means were a poisonous tree, that's an argument you make to the judge to preclude admission of that evidence in the first place, before either side gets to contest any evidence. I think lawyering over whether parallel construction is lying or not is tactically silly. You'll be on much firmer ground arguing that parallel constructions completely undercuts the point of the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine, which is to disincentivize illegal means of investigation.

frandroid 6y ago

So you're fine with money laundering as well? Because parallel construction is inadmissible evidence laundering.

JoeSmithson 6y ago
> "So you're fine with money laundering as well?" Is this your best effort attempt at assuming good faith? > "parallel construction is inadmissible evidence laundering." Well, it's concealing a source, which is what I said. If you have an informant who's life would be in danger if they were revealed, then anything they tell you would have to be paralleled. There's nothing illegal about their evidence, they would just never testify to it.
- frandroid 6y ago
  It's perjury. Read the other replies. There's nothing good faith about perjury. If you're trying to protect a source, get the source protected by a court order.
  - JoeSmithson 6y ago
    I have read the other replies, that don't appear to have been made by anyone with any experience of parallel construction.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - dllthomas 6y ago
      I don't have experience of extortion, either, but I'm plenty qualified to object. Your position seems to be that there are legitimate reasons it was introduced. I don't disagree with that. That doesn't mean that the process doesn't involve lying in court to deprive people of their rights. You say "conceal a source" but that is precisely depriving the accused of their explicit constitutional right to be "confronted with the witnesses against them". (I will note that I've definitely been speaking with a US focus - not all of my comments will generalize.)
  - kls 6y ago
    Exactly there are established legal proceedings to protect sensitive information be it a source that could be endangered, classified information or a method employed, the judge can seal that information, but it has historically been the judges call and that should not be taken out of the courts hands by law enforcement.

dllthomas 6y ago

If I am accused of a crime, I have the right to face my accusers and contest all of the evidence against me. Parallel construction is deliberately depriving me of that right, by lying in court. The fact that it's common shouldn't make us lose track of that.

JoeSmithson 6y ago
No, you don't have an absolute right to know all the details of how an investigation was conducted. You don't necessarily get to see the intelligence that supported a search warrant, for example.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- monocasa 6y ago
  You do in the US.
  - laughinghan 6y ago
    Even in the US there are exceptions, like the state secrets privilege: https://www.eff.org/nsa-spying/state-secrets-privilege https://www.eff.org/nsa-spying/state-secrets-privilege
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
laughinghan 6y ago
This isn't a very good argument against parallel construction, because you are able to contest all of the evidence being used in court against you. I don't think arguing against the legitimacy of the investigative means used to acquire evidence is ever an admissible argument by which to contest that evidence before a jury. If those investigative means were a poisonous tree, that's an argument you make to the judge to preclude admission of that evidence in the first place, before either side gets to contest any evidence. I think lawyering over whether parallel construction is lying or not is tactically silly. You'll be on much firmer ground arguing that parallel constructions completely undercuts the point of the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine, which is to disincentivize illegal means of investigation.