3 ms·

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/08/dea-and-nsa-team-intelligence-laundering https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/08/dea-and-nsa-team-intel... We already know

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/08/dea-and-nsa-team-intelligence-laundering https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/08/dea-and-nsa-team-intel... We already know they are using intelligence data to tip off police to invent reasons to stop cars (i.e. 2mph speeding ticket) and find drugs. This would be trickier for warrant affidavits because (I believe) those become available to defense counsel during discovery. They could hide the identity of a confidential informant from defense counsel, but I believe the judge is entitled to verify the legitimacy of CIs and might do so if the defense claimed that the probable cause came from the NSA. Local LEOs have already been caught phoning in "anonymous tips" to themselves/their teams to create probable cause for surveillance already conducted. This was before and unrelated to the NSA revelations.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
jlgreco 13y ago
"I believe the judge is entitled to verify the legitimacy of CIs and might do so if the defense claimed that the probable cause came from the NSA." In the past at least, how likely is it that a judge would dig much deeper once they got to "and we were tipped off to this by sources from within a foreign intelligence agency"?
- superuser2 13y ago
  Fruit of the poisonous tree. The legal standards for what can be presented in court are higher than for what can be performed and use for counter-terrorism, missing persons investigations, hostage rescue, and all sorts of police/military/intelligence actions that aren't going to end up in a courtroom. Does anyone know the legal status of foreign intelligence agencies as far as probable cause? I don't think it'd be considered valid probable cause.