5 ms·

Yes, it's irrelevant. Again, there is nothing in this article nor in the e-mail included in the article that suggests they aren't being sent for the purposes of

Yes, it's irrelevant. Again, there is nothing in this article nor in the e-mail included in the article that suggests they aren't being sent for the purposes of being present upon a search warrant being issued or consent being given to search the individual's property. This journalist just decided to take the worst possible interpretation of the e-mail and state it as fact. You may not like the FBI, but to assume that they are malevolent actors or are intent on trampling on people's rights disingenuous and unhelpful. I'm all for bringing government misconduct to light, but this article is trying to make legal conduct seem illegal by distorting facts and selectively quoting information to fit a preconceived narrative.

trhway 6y ago
>nothing in this article nor in the e-mail included in the article that suggests they aren't being sent for the purposes of being present upon a search warrant being issued or consent being given to search the individual's property. sorry, man, the "initial exploitation" language is pretty clear: "CTD is sending Fly Team Agents to cover interviews of individuals arrested during the night and early-morning hours this weekend. They will also conduct initial exploitation of phones, or other communication devices they are carrying." It is pretty clear that there is no specific probable cause, no search warrant, no consent, just a fishing net. That is exactly the process you'd want and expect the tax dollar funded FBI to perform in case of exigent circumstances. It is just these days the protests seems to fall into exigent circumstances category. Or as one of these emails says "I can help, though their definition of exigency will be different than ours..."
- bladegash 6y ago
  I think I explained the reasoning as to why it is not clear and the journalist (and you) are reading into something that isn't there. Would you have preferred if the e-mail stated, "Conduct initial exploitation once you have a search warrant or receive consent"? That qualification is unnecessary for a supervisor directing their subordinates that are well aware of their authorities and the policies/procedures that need to be followed to do their job. This isn't staff legal counsel offering legal advice to a federal agent, this is a routine communication between a boss and their employees.
  - trhway 6y ago
    it is you who is reading what isn't there - like "search warrant" and "consent". I refer to the words what is explicitly there - like "exigency" (which allows to bypass search warrants and consent) and clearly sets the context, especially when we are talking about FBI Fly Team.
    - bladegash 6y ago
      I am not reading into it, I said from the beginning the statement in the email is ambiguous. The word “exigency” isn’t explicitly there in the email. It is referenced by the author as being present in a separate email (which for some reason they didn’t include...?) and then qualified via a source as being facetious. Even if it was there and taken literally, I fail to see anywhere in law, case law, the email, and/or the article that suggests “exigency” is sufficient justification for violating an individual’s 4th Amendment rights. To the best of my knowledge, that does not exist.

trhway 6y ago

>nothing in this article nor in the e-mail included in the article that suggests they aren't being sent for the purposes of being present upon a search warrant being issued or consent being given to search the individual's property. sorry, man, the "initial exploitation" language is pretty clear: "CTD is sending Fly Team Agents to cover interviews of individuals arrested during the night and early-morning hours this weekend. They will also conduct initial exploitation of phones, or other communication devices they are carrying." It is pretty clear that there is no specific probable cause, no search warrant, no consent, just a fishing net. That is exactly the process you'd want and expect the tax dollar funded FBI to perform in case of exigent circumstances. It is just these days the protests seems to fall into exigent circumstances category. Or as one of these emails says "I can help, though their definition of exigency will be different than ours..."

bladegash 6y ago
I think I explained the reasoning as to why it is not clear and the journalist (and you) are reading into something that isn't there. Would you have preferred if the e-mail stated, "Conduct initial exploitation once you have a search warrant or receive consent"? That qualification is unnecessary for a supervisor directing their subordinates that are well aware of their authorities and the policies/procedures that need to be followed to do their job. This isn't staff legal counsel offering legal advice to a federal agent, this is a routine communication between a boss and their employees.
- trhway 6y ago
  it is you who is reading what isn't there - like "search warrant" and "consent". I refer to the words what is explicitly there - like "exigency" (which allows to bypass search warrants and consent) and clearly sets the context, especially when we are talking about FBI Fly Team.
  - bladegash 6y ago
    I am not reading into it, I said from the beginning the statement in the email is ambiguous. The word “exigency” isn’t explicitly there in the email. It is referenced by the author as being present in a separate email (which for some reason they didn’t include...?) and then qualified via a source as being facetious. Even if it was there and taken literally, I fail to see anywhere in law, case law, the email, and/or the article that suggests “exigency” is sufficient justification for violating an individual’s 4th Amendment rights. To the best of my knowledge, that does not exist.