5 ms·
What’s the term (may be colloquial) when law enforcement obtains information illegally but figure out how to fake or back fill the reason they know it so it bec
by notjoemama 3y ago
What’s the term (may be colloquial) when law enforcement obtains information illegally but figure out how to fake or back fill the reason they know it so it becomes plausible in court they obtained the information legally?
It would be a more certain bet that they’ve done this with the AT&T surveillance than putting money in any cryptocurrency.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- sjsdaiuasgdia 3y agoThe term you're likely looking for is 'parallel construction'.
- morserer 3y agoThat would be Parallel Construction, or Evidence Laundering. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction
- notjoemama 3y agoAh! Thank you! Internet high five!
- r00fus 3y agoEvidence Laundering is a more fitting term. I'll use that going forward.
- zzzcsgo 3y ago[dead]
- dantheman 3y agoThe term you're looking for is parallel construction. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction
- paunchy 3y agoIt's called Parallel Construction or evidence laundering. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction
- oasisbob 3y agoYeah, I agree. Even knowing that parallel construction exists, it's still pretty shocking to see it used in practice. eg I'm aware of a case here in Seattle where the Seattle PD coordinated with the feds to use a Stingray in the arrest of a fugitive. They thought they knew exactly where he was, and just used the Stingray to confirm his location before using a cooperating informant to lure him out of the building. The police report of the incident has all of the officers creatively neglecting to write the full truth of how the arrest occurred, not a peep about the Stingray at all.
- Obscurity4340 3y agoHow does the public ever "find out" if its not in Court documents, does the Court make it a habit to call out misrepresentation or discipline the prosecution in any meaningful sense? How doesn't any of this come up during cross?
- salawat 3y agoIf it does, prosecution has a few tools at their disposal. They can seal the records, justified as protecting "ways and means", they can also just decide ahead of time not to bring charges until such time as there is a successful route through which to execute a parallel construction. The biggest issue, in a sense, isn't that defense attorneys aren't able to challenge these devices use, but that prosecutors are not slamming law enforcement for unlawful use. They aren't incentivized to in any way except by meing a radical proponent for judicial as systemic integrity. Such a personality characteristiv is not going to endear one sufficiently to law enforcement enough to likely even be informed that a case may have had less-than-legal investigatory methods employed. Literally the only realistic way to catch these types of abuses is to essentially assume they happen, and dedicate adversarial resources with relative-to-Law-Enforcement level privileged access to the means to investigate law enforcers. I.e. Internal Affairs/an Inspector General like construct. In practice, however, any system that implements such a thing still has levers that can be applied to sufficiently frustrate the efforts of said groups to render it of questionable efficacy.