5 ms·

After an arrest was made, agents then pretended that their investigation began with the traffic stop, not with the SOD tip, the former agent said. The training

by beedogs 13y ago

After an arrest was made, agents then pretended that their investigation began with the traffic stop, not with the SOD tip, the former agent said. The training document reviewed by Reuters refers to this process as "parallel construction." Jesus fucking Christ. They were lying to prosecutors to get charges pressed against people.

perlpimp 13y ago
Isn't it perjury, a free pass to the jail?
- fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
  Not if you're on Team State.
- Spooky23 13y ago
  According to articles that I've read in the past, when the Feds get caught in trial doing something like this, they'll say "Whoops, we screwed up, but we were acting in good faith". Generally, that makes it ok.
- betterunix 13y ago
  Nobody goes to jail when the DEA's soldiers invade the homes of innocent people and kill them. Why would they go to jail for perjury?
deveac 13y ago
They weren't necessarily lying, -just omitting the cause prior to the traffic violation. If the traffic violation as primary cause was never challenged, they wouldn't technically be taking a position on the origin often. They'd simply state the facts: "Vehicle X was driving southbound on I-94 and failed to utilize a turn signal while switching lanes. I pulled car over and noticed x,y,z..." As a police officer friend of mine told me many years ago "If I want to pull you over, there is nothing you can do to stop me. All I have to do is follow you for one mile and you're going to violate some portion of the traffic code." I'm not defending this at all, as I think it is outrageous and that the link to harvested NSA data is beyond the pale . I'm just pointing out that this is, as the article mentioned, de rigueur, and when a technically legal starting point is provided, the defense likely almost never challenges that, thus eliminating the need for the prosecution to take a formal stance on the origin. Hopefully this begins to change.
- 300bps 13y ago
  They weren't necessarily lying, -just omitting the cause prior to the traffic violation. You seriously need to read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruit_of_the_poisonous_tree http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruit_of_the_poisonous_tree Fruit of the poisonous tree is a legal metaphor in the United States used to describe evidence that is obtained illegally.[1] The logic of the terminology is that if the source of the evidence or evidence itself (the "tree") is tainted, then anything gained from it (the "fruit") is tainted as well...Such evidence is not generally admissible in court. You cannot conceal the source of evidence that leads you to other evidence.
  - deveac 13y ago
    Thank you for the link 300bps. Edit: So this seems to speak to a bit of what the main link was talking about. This extension of the exclusionary rule doesn't speak to whether or not omission of first cause is lying (under the legal definition), but rather about how if the first cause evidence was obtained illegally, then it cannot be used. The crux of this issue seems to be that the prosecution is not volunteering information that might trigger the defense to look for Fruit of the Poisonous Tree in the first place (and does that cross the line into illegality, thus preventing evaluation). I would hope it does...
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - tptacek 13y ago
    I think (and hope) you're right that this is a straightforward application of the poisonous tree doctrine, but you should be aware that the doctrine is not quite a clean-cut as you make it out to be. One big exception to it is "inevitable disclosure". If a traffic stop is otherwise lawful, and a normal police officer acting in the lawful confines of their authority would have otherwise discovered e.g. the drug stash in the car (for instance, because it was in plain site in the back seat), the Poisonous Tree doctrine probably doesn't exclude the evidence. That's the tricky thing about the Reuters DEA revelation. Some drug offenders probably are cavalier about displaying evidence in the cars because the likelihood of their being stopped is low. Here, domestic surveillance is allowing the police to drastically increase the odds that they'll make a fortuitous traffic stop. What would not work, in my understanding of the story, is for an intelligence intercept to establish the legal basis for stopping and searching a car.
jijji 13y ago
Sounds like Viktor Bout and all the other cases that they were able to get convictions on will surely be overturned shortly.
wissler 13y ago
At some point people need to wake up enough such that they recognize the equivalence of being surprised and being naive, which is an important reason they've trusted government to its own devices for far too long.

by beedogs 13y ago

perlpimp 13y ago

Isn't it perjury, a free pass to the jail?

fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
Not if you're on Team State.
Spooky23 13y ago
According to articles that I've read in the past, when the Feds get caught in trial doing something like this, they'll say "Whoops, we screwed up, but we were acting in good faith". Generally, that makes it ok.
betterunix 13y ago
Nobody goes to jail when the DEA's soldiers invade the homes of innocent people and kill them. Why would they go to jail for perjury?

deveac 13y ago

They weren't necessarily lying, -just omitting the cause prior to the traffic violation. If the traffic violation as primary cause was never challenged, they wouldn't technically be taking a position on the origin often. They'd simply state the facts: "Vehicle X was driving southbound on I-94 and failed to utilize a turn signal while switching lanes. I pulled car over and noticed x,y,z..." As a police officer friend of mine told me many years ago "If I want to pull you over, there is nothing you can do to stop me. All I have to do is follow you for one mile and you're going to violate some portion of the traffic code." I'm not defending this at all, as I think it is outrageous and that the link to harvested NSA data is beyond the pale . I'm just pointing out that this is, as the article mentioned, de rigueur, and when a technically legal starting point is provided, the defense likely almost never challenges that, thus eliminating the need for the prosecution to take a formal stance on the origin. Hopefully this begins to change.

300bps 13y ago
They weren't necessarily lying, -just omitting the cause prior to the traffic violation. You seriously need to read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruit_of_the_poisonous_tree http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruit_of_the_poisonous_tree Fruit of the poisonous tree is a legal metaphor in the United States used to describe evidence that is obtained illegally.[1] The logic of the terminology is that if the source of the evidence or evidence itself (the "tree") is tainted, then anything gained from it (the "fruit") is tainted as well...Such evidence is not generally admissible in court. You cannot conceal the source of evidence that leads you to other evidence.
- deveac 13y ago
  Thank you for the link 300bps. Edit: So this seems to speak to a bit of what the main link was talking about. This extension of the exclusionary rule doesn't speak to whether or not omission of first cause is lying (under the legal definition), but rather about how if the first cause evidence was obtained illegally, then it cannot be used. The crux of this issue seems to be that the prosecution is not volunteering information that might trigger the defense to look for Fruit of the Poisonous Tree in the first place (and does that cross the line into illegality, thus preventing evaluation). I would hope it does...
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- tptacek 13y ago
  I think (and hope) you're right that this is a straightforward application of the poisonous tree doctrine, but you should be aware that the doctrine is not quite a clean-cut as you make it out to be. One big exception to it is "inevitable disclosure". If a traffic stop is otherwise lawful, and a normal police officer acting in the lawful confines of their authority would have otherwise discovered e.g. the drug stash in the car (for instance, because it was in plain site in the back seat), the Poisonous Tree doctrine probably doesn't exclude the evidence. That's the tricky thing about the Reuters DEA revelation. Some drug offenders probably are cavalier about displaying evidence in the cars because the likelihood of their being stopped is low. Here, domestic surveillance is allowing the police to drastically increase the odds that they'll make a fortuitous traffic stop. What would not work, in my understanding of the story, is for an intelligence intercept to establish the legal basis for stopping and searching a car.

jijji 13y ago

Sounds like Viktor Bout and all the other cases that they were able to get convictions on will surely be overturned shortly.

wissler 13y ago

At some point people need to wake up enough such that they recognize the equivalence of being surprised and being naive, which is an important reason they've trusted government to its own devices for far too long.