3 ms·

How is this not a form of perjury? How does this not get every defendant a new trial? How many law suits will come of this for violations of people's constituti

by vaadu 12y ago

How is this not a form of perjury? How does this not get every defendant a new trial? How many law suits will come of this for violations of people's constitutional rights? This crap should result in RICO charges and jail time for all parties that knew of this coverup and didn't try to stop it.

talmand 12y ago
I'm not sure if it would be considered perjury, but I would imagine it easily falls under withholding evidence from the defendant, of which is entitled to such information for their defense. But I doubt there would be any prosecutions on this because the people to prosecute such things are the the people who benefit from the technology.
- tbyehl 12y ago
  Is it evidence? Sounds like they're using it to locate people who are already wanted by law enforcement, not to gather evidence of a crime. What's the recourse there?
  - talmand 12y ago
    To me, although not a lawyer, doesn't matter. This is just my gut instinct of what is right. If a person is a defendant then that person has the right to face all the evidence being used against them. If the defendant feels that a certain part of evidence gathering was done illegally then they have the ability to question that gathering in court, of which the court will decide the legality of the gathering method. If the prosecution has the ability to conceal methods of evidence gathering then that means the defendant has no recourse. If a person is under investigation, the police use a method to locate and/or track the suspect, and that method ultimately leads to an arrest because of where they happen to be while being located and/or tracked then I feel it should be included as evidence. But I'm not familiar with court cases concerning such technology so it's possible that all this has already been decided and I just haven't heard of it.
- nkurz 12y ago
  It's perjury if the term "confidential source" legally implies it was information conveyed by a human informant instead of gathered by electronic surveillance. The definitions I can find online say that "confidential source" is synonymous with "human informant" and must be a person. While this might be a "legal person" which includes a corporation, it would be a stretch to call a Stringray a person. In my mind, they are simply lying about an illegal wiretap, and "this has not been challenged" only because the lie was taken as truth. But I'd guess the exact phrase was well-crafted by a lawyer who thought this alternate "plain English" interpretation would work as a defense. I'm doubtful a judge would view this charitably, but as you say, a prosecution where we find this out seems unlikely.
revelation 12y ago
In "The Wire", when police used a Stingray (they already called it that in 2002!) without a warrant, they were banished to the attic. In reality, the federal government comes in and helps them cover up. Real life beats fiction. Even the power-driven characters in that satire knew the limits, and here is the real government one-upping them.

by vaadu 12y ago

talmand 12y ago

I'm not sure if it would be considered perjury, but I would imagine it easily falls under withholding evidence from the defendant, of which is entitled to such information for their defense. But I doubt there would be any prosecutions on this because the people to prosecute such things are the the people who benefit from the technology.

tbyehl 12y ago
Is it evidence? Sounds like they're using it to locate people who are already wanted by law enforcement, not to gather evidence of a crime. What's the recourse there?
- talmand 12y ago
  To me, although not a lawyer, doesn't matter. This is just my gut instinct of what is right. If a person is a defendant then that person has the right to face all the evidence being used against them. If the defendant feels that a certain part of evidence gathering was done illegally then they have the ability to question that gathering in court, of which the court will decide the legality of the gathering method. If the prosecution has the ability to conceal methods of evidence gathering then that means the defendant has no recourse. If a person is under investigation, the police use a method to locate and/or track the suspect, and that method ultimately leads to an arrest because of where they happen to be while being located and/or tracked then I feel it should be included as evidence. But I'm not familiar with court cases concerning such technology so it's possible that all this has already been decided and I just haven't heard of it.
nkurz 12y ago
It's perjury if the term "confidential source" legally implies it was information conveyed by a human informant instead of gathered by electronic surveillance. The definitions I can find online say that "confidential source" is synonymous with "human informant" and must be a person. While this might be a "legal person" which includes a corporation, it would be a stretch to call a Stringray a person. In my mind, they are simply lying about an illegal wiretap, and "this has not been challenged" only because the lie was taken as truth. But I'd guess the exact phrase was well-crafted by a lawyer who thought this alternate "plain English" interpretation would work as a defense. I'm doubtful a judge would view this charitably, but as you say, a prosecution where we find this out seems unlikely.

revelation 12y ago

In "The Wire", when police used a Stingray (they already called it that in 2002!) without a warrant, they were banished to the attic. In reality, the federal government comes in and helps them cover up. Real life beats fiction. Even the power-driven characters in that satire knew the limits, and here is the real government one-upping them.