8 ms·

It would be wonderful if all wiretaps were ruled illegal. It would also be wonderful if all law enforcement officers were required to wear uniforms or identify

It would be wonderful if all wiretaps were ruled illegal. It would also be wonderful if all law enforcement officers were required to wear uniforms or identify themselves when in the course of their duties.

meowface 13y ago
Just for a purely hypothetical scenario: If the FBI identified an organized crime hitman who killed 20+ people and left no evidence other than making incriminating phone calls, is it wrong for them to place a tap on his phone line once they have probable cause that he is a hitman?
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  Your hypothetical makes no sense. If they have "probable cause" before tapping his phone, that means that the "left no evidence other than incriminating phone calls" must be false.
  - gareim 13y ago
    No, probable cause is not the same thing as evidence. His hypothetical is actually how warrants are supposed to work. Law enforcement have probable cause to suspect someone of being guilty. If they can make a strong argument about why the person is probably guilty, they then get a warrant to search for evidence in homes, phone calls, emails, whatever. His hypothetical literally described the standard for getting a warrant.
    - dragonwriter 13y ago
      > No, probable cause is not the same thing as evidence. Probable cause is based on evidence. > His hypothetical is actually how warrants are supposed to work. No, its not. > Law enforcement have probable cause to suspect someone of being guilty. If they can make a strong argument about why the person is probably guilty, they then get a warrant to search for evidence in homes, phone calls, emails, whatever. And that "strong argument" is based on factual evidence that was either received through mechanism other than search and seizure, was the product of prior search and seizure in conditions that do not require a warrant, or was the product of prior warrant-based searches and seizures. If there was no evidence left other than what was sought in the warrant, there would be no basis for probable cause to support the warrant.
      - mercurial 13y ago
        >> No, probable cause is not the same thing as evidence. > Probable cause is based on evidence. From wikipedia, "Probable cause" is a stronger standard of evidence than a reasonable suspicion, but weaker than what is required to secure a criminal conviction. In other word, you can get a warrant when you don't have enough evidence to secure a conviction, which in turn may lead to gather sufficient proof of guilt (or exonerate the suspect, I suppose).
        dragonwriter 13y ago
        Yes, and any standard of evidence -- even reasonable suspicion -- can't be met without the existence of evidence. That's why its called a "standard of evidence". Again, if there is no evidence left by the "hitman" except the calls for which the warrant is sought, as specified in the hypothetical, than there can't be probable cause to support the warrant. There can't even be reasonable suspicion. In fact, without some kind of evidence, the only thing that could support the desire to seek the wiretap is arbitrary prejudice.
        mercurial 13y ago
        Fair enough. However, if we take the original premise and change it to "If the FBI identified an organized crime hitman who killed 20+ people and left no solid, non-circumstancial evidence other than making incriminating phone calls, is it wrong for them to place a tap on his phone line once they have probable cause that he is a hitman?", would you agree that wiretaps (with warrants) can be useful?
        ajays 13y ago
        "would you agree that wiretaps (with warrants) can be useful?" Nobody is arguing against that. What people are complaining about is, among other things, the bulk collection and retention of records; the gathering of records upto 3 degrees of separation from a suspect; etc.
        13y ago
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
    - idProQuo 13y ago
      The issue I have with the hypothetical is: how would they know about the phone calls without a wiretap? If there was no other reason to suspect the guy, they'd have no basis for probable cause, and thus no way to get a wiretap. Now if someone tells the police that they've been getting incriminating phone calls, well then that seems like more reasonable probable cause, and doesn't strike me as morally dubious.
  - snowwrestler 13y ago
    Ok let's say they have some evidence that is sufficient to create reasonable suspicion, but probably insufficient to secure a conviction. Why would it be wrong for the FBI, under the supervision of a court order, to tap this person's phone to see if he is the killer? Keep in mind this is not a broad NSA dragnet here. This would be a targeted wiretap driven by probable cause and governed by the federal rules of evidence. The GP said "It would be wonderful if all wiretaps were ruled illegal," and we're exploring that idea.
    - malandrew 13y ago
      No, it would not be as long as there was a court order and our judges have the time and sense of gravity to give each and every court order sufficient scrutiny to determine whether it has merit or is merely a fishing expedition. Wiretaps should also only begin once a warrant has been approved by a judge, any wiretap in bulk so you can retroactively get phone records and conversations from the date before the warrant was issued is unconstitutional. If the person in question kept their own records, the warrant can apply to those records, but to keep a tab on every American, innocent or otherwise, is disturbing. Personally, I would love to see a two-factor commit with all warrants. All warrants should require two judges to sign off on them, one federal judge and one state judge where the wiretap will be carried out. The other thing I would like to see is some sort of "cost" that the agencies must bear to be able to request warrants. It should cost each agency money to apply for warrants and they should have a limited budget each year to spend on warrant applications. At the end of each year, to apply for increases in this budget, they should present an equal number of both cases which they would have liked to pursue warrants on someone, but it was deemed outside the budget and cases where they pursued a warrant and got one, but the person turned out to be innocent. Such a policy applies market forces to limit rampant wiretapping and phishing expeditions. Instead they will adjust to only use their warrants on those people who actually should be wiretapped. This would also help prevent unilateral action by a single agent or team, without appealing to another independent group with power of the purse over warrant applications. Individual agents and teams would try to get warrants for all their suspects, but the group with power of the purse has the responsibility to dole out warrant applications according to merit so that the agency doesn't run out of them before year's end.
    - 13y ago
  - meowface 13y ago
    Depends on how you interpret "probable cause." What if they hear this guy's name uttered by multiple mafia thugs on the street, as a top hitman? And they find the guy is friends with some mafia members? That doesn't warrant real evidence he killed anyone (random hearsay + just being friends), but it definitely creates some suspicion.
mercurial 13y ago
What's the problem with wiretaps, as long as you have actual independent judicial oversight? I don't have an issue with cops listening to cartel hitmen. Considering everybody as a suspect, that's entirely different. > It would also be wonderful if all law enforcement officers were required to wear uniforms or identify themselves when in the course of their duties. I see that now. "Hello, Don Corleone, I'm an undercover police officer, but please pretend you don't see my uniform".
- angersock 13y ago
  There wouldn't be cartel hitmen if the thing wasn't illegal and hence profitable. I have an issue with letting them listen--especially if I'm on the other end of the phone, for example, taking their order for pizza or arranging a playdate for my kids or something. It's the few-hops-away rule that is very easily justifiable that creates surveillance states.
  - bostonpete 13y ago
    If you unknowingly were setting up a playdate for your kids with a hitman, I think you'd have a vested interest in having the guy exposed and brought to justice.
    - dllthomas 13y ago
      But if I was setting up a playdate for my kids from someone who ordered pizza from the same place as a hitman...
    - angersock 13y ago
      As long as he hasn't hurt me or mine, what's it matter? That same logic puts the friends of drone operators in a strange place, right? They kill civilians too.
      - mercurial 13y ago
        > As long as he hasn't hurt me or mine, what's it matter? You don't see anything wrong with cartel hitmen? The kind who lines up heads on the side of the road and torture people to death for effect? > That same logic puts the friends of drone operators in a strange place, right? They kill civilians too. Not quite. First off, it's much more likely that your cartel acquaintance will catch a bad case of drive-by shooting one of these days, kid or no kid. Secondly, sure, I'd feel weird knowing a drone operator, but AFAIK, they don't torture and kill civilians on purpose, it does make a moral difference.

meowface 13y ago

Just for a purely hypothetical scenario: If the FBI identified an organized crime hitman who killed 20+ people and left no evidence other than making incriminating phone calls, is it wrong for them to place a tap on his phone line once they have probable cause that he is a hitman?

dragonwriter 13y ago
Your hypothetical makes no sense. If they have "probable cause" before tapping his phone, that means that the "left no evidence other than incriminating phone calls" must be false.
- gareim 13y ago
  No, probable cause is not the same thing as evidence. His hypothetical is actually how warrants are supposed to work. Law enforcement have probable cause to suspect someone of being guilty. If they can make a strong argument about why the person is probably guilty, they then get a warrant to search for evidence in homes, phone calls, emails, whatever. His hypothetical literally described the standard for getting a warrant.
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    > No, probable cause is not the same thing as evidence. Probable cause is based on evidence. > His hypothetical is actually how warrants are supposed to work. No, its not. > Law enforcement have probable cause to suspect someone of being guilty. If they can make a strong argument about why the person is probably guilty, they then get a warrant to search for evidence in homes, phone calls, emails, whatever. And that "strong argument" is based on factual evidence that was either received through mechanism other than search and seizure, was the product of prior search and seizure in conditions that do not require a warrant, or was the product of prior warrant-based searches and seizures. If there was no evidence left other than what was sought in the warrant, there would be no basis for probable cause to support the warrant.
    - mercurial 13y ago
      >> No, probable cause is not the same thing as evidence. > Probable cause is based on evidence. From wikipedia, "Probable cause" is a stronger standard of evidence than a reasonable suspicion, but weaker than what is required to secure a criminal conviction. In other word, you can get a warrant when you don't have enough evidence to secure a conviction, which in turn may lead to gather sufficient proof of guilt (or exonerate the suspect, I suppose).
      - dragonwriter 13y ago
        Yes, and any standard of evidence -- even reasonable suspicion -- can't be met without the existence of evidence. That's why its called a "standard of evidence". Again, if there is no evidence left by the "hitman" except the calls for which the warrant is sought, as specified in the hypothetical, than there can't be probable cause to support the warrant. There can't even be reasonable suspicion. In fact, without some kind of evidence, the only thing that could support the desire to seek the wiretap is arbitrary prejudice.
        mercurial 13y ago
        Fair enough. However, if we take the original premise and change it to "If the FBI identified an organized crime hitman who killed 20+ people and left no solid, non-circumstancial evidence other than making incriminating phone calls, is it wrong for them to place a tap on his phone line once they have probable cause that he is a hitman?", would you agree that wiretaps (with warrants) can be useful?
        ajays 13y ago
        "would you agree that wiretaps (with warrants) can be useful?" Nobody is arguing against that. What people are complaining about is, among other things, the bulk collection and retention of records; the gathering of records upto 3 degrees of separation from a suspect; etc.
        13y ago
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - idProQuo 13y ago
    The issue I have with the hypothetical is: how would they know about the phone calls without a wiretap? If there was no other reason to suspect the guy, they'd have no basis for probable cause, and thus no way to get a wiretap. Now if someone tells the police that they've been getting incriminating phone calls, well then that seems like more reasonable probable cause, and doesn't strike me as morally dubious.
- snowwrestler 13y ago
  Ok let's say they have some evidence that is sufficient to create reasonable suspicion, but probably insufficient to secure a conviction. Why would it be wrong for the FBI, under the supervision of a court order, to tap this person's phone to see if he is the killer? Keep in mind this is not a broad NSA dragnet here. This would be a targeted wiretap driven by probable cause and governed by the federal rules of evidence. The GP said "It would be wonderful if all wiretaps were ruled illegal," and we're exploring that idea.
  - malandrew 13y ago
    No, it would not be as long as there was a court order and our judges have the time and sense of gravity to give each and every court order sufficient scrutiny to determine whether it has merit or is merely a fishing expedition. Wiretaps should also only begin once a warrant has been approved by a judge, any wiretap in bulk so you can retroactively get phone records and conversations from the date before the warrant was issued is unconstitutional. If the person in question kept their own records, the warrant can apply to those records, but to keep a tab on every American, innocent or otherwise, is disturbing. Personally, I would love to see a two-factor commit with all warrants. All warrants should require two judges to sign off on them, one federal judge and one state judge where the wiretap will be carried out. The other thing I would like to see is some sort of "cost" that the agencies must bear to be able to request warrants. It should cost each agency money to apply for warrants and they should have a limited budget each year to spend on warrant applications. At the end of each year, to apply for increases in this budget, they should present an equal number of both cases which they would have liked to pursue warrants on someone, but it was deemed outside the budget and cases where they pursued a warrant and got one, but the person turned out to be innocent. Such a policy applies market forces to limit rampant wiretapping and phishing expeditions. Instead they will adjust to only use their warrants on those people who actually should be wiretapped. This would also help prevent unilateral action by a single agent or team, without appealing to another independent group with power of the purse over warrant applications. Individual agents and teams would try to get warrants for all their suspects, but the group with power of the purse has the responsibility to dole out warrant applications according to merit so that the agency doesn't run out of them before year's end.
  - 13y ago
- meowface 13y ago
  Depends on how you interpret "probable cause." What if they hear this guy's name uttered by multiple mafia thugs on the street, as a top hitman? And they find the guy is friends with some mafia members? That doesn't warrant real evidence he killed anyone (random hearsay + just being friends), but it definitely creates some suspicion.

mercurial 13y ago

What's the problem with wiretaps, as long as you have actual independent judicial oversight? I don't have an issue with cops listening to cartel hitmen. Considering everybody as a suspect, that's entirely different. > It would also be wonderful if all law enforcement officers were required to wear uniforms or identify themselves when in the course of their duties. I see that now. "Hello, Don Corleone, I'm an undercover police officer, but please pretend you don't see my uniform".

angersock 13y ago
There wouldn't be cartel hitmen if the thing wasn't illegal and hence profitable. I have an issue with letting them listen--especially if I'm on the other end of the phone, for example, taking their order for pizza or arranging a playdate for my kids or something. It's the few-hops-away rule that is very easily justifiable that creates surveillance states.
- bostonpete 13y ago
  If you unknowingly were setting up a playdate for your kids with a hitman, I think you'd have a vested interest in having the guy exposed and brought to justice.
  - dllthomas 13y ago
    But if I was setting up a playdate for my kids from someone who ordered pizza from the same place as a hitman...
  - angersock 13y ago
    As long as he hasn't hurt me or mine, what's it matter? That same logic puts the friends of drone operators in a strange place, right? They kill civilians too.
    - mercurial 13y ago
      > As long as he hasn't hurt me or mine, what's it matter? You don't see anything wrong with cartel hitmen? The kind who lines up heads on the side of the road and torture people to death for effect? > That same logic puts the friends of drone operators in a strange place, right? They kill civilians too. Not quite. First off, it's much more likely that your cartel acquaintance will catch a bad case of drive-by shooting one of these days, kid or no kid. Secondly, sure, I'd feel weird knowing a drone operator, but AFAIK, they don't torture and kill civilians on purpose, it does make a moral difference.