13 ms·

Can Authorities Cut Off Utilities And Pose As Repairmen To Search A Home?

333 points by DickingAround 12y ago

stevengg 12y ago
This sort of thing is standard secret service wave blank paper to gain entry http://www.jrn.com/newschannel5/news/newschannel-5-investigates/Police-Chief-Accuses-Secret-Service-Of-Misconduct-279207151.html http://www.jrn.com/newschannel5/news/newschannel-5-investiga...
- mscman 12y ago
  I hadn't heard about that. That's awesome that the police chief is taking them on about this. It's becoming rare to hear about police chiefs doing the right thing when it comes to abuse of power.
  - bennyg 12y ago
    I think that's selection bias creeping through. It's easy to remember the really negative events and less so the mundane, positive ones. Perceptions is reality and all that.
    - pessimizer 12y ago
      I'd think that the selection bias would make far it easier to remember the positive events in this situation. This event would not have made the news, and no one would have been aware of it except for the victim if the police chief hadn't raised an (apparently huge) stink. If it's difficult for the Nashville chief of police to get traction on an incident that happened within his jurisdiction, what chance do you have?
    - pixl97 12y ago
      Not really. Negative and positive events do not balance each other out. If your local authorities go help kittens out of a tree, feed the homeless, then savagely beat minorities it is not a zero sum game. People in a position of power abusing their authority can jade entire communities against trusting them ever again.
- jobu 12y ago
  Wow, the MNPD should be applauded for doing their job and following the rules, despite pressure from Federal Agents: "In fact, the chief said that, as soon as officers arrived, they realized that the Secret Service agents did not have a legal basis to enter the man's house, and the man -- who had a legal permit to carry a gun -- had never actually threatened anyone."
Someone1234 12y ago
> the FBI provided two blank CDs, claiming the recording devices malfunctioned The levels of day-to-day corruption within the US judicial system are almost comical at times, scary at others... Between the police constantly getting away with committing crimes, prosecutors essentially blackmailing innocent people into pleas, and judges often ignoring the rule of law (with VERY shaky justifications), it seems like the entire system is fubar. The US system is just corrupt through and through. I see nothing redeeming about it. The only people who seem to [sometimes] receive justice are the rich, and while that is the case on other countries, in many of those countries that is a "scandal" in the US it is "working as intended."
- exo762 12y ago
  > the FBI provided two blank CDs, claiming the recording devices malfunctioned I think "contempt of the court" is a tool which should be applied here. No warning, high fines.
  - lazyant 12y ago
    fines? do you get fines as a regular citizen if you lie with premeditation to a judge or do you get jail time? plus government officials should be held to a higher standard -> higher penalties than regular citizens imho
- codescorrectly 12y ago
  My opinion is that the levels of corruption in the American justice system have always been the same or are tending to decline in aggregate, similar to violent crimes (I don't have any statistics for corruption). It just seems that the opposite is happening because of the ubiquity and lack of cost associated with mass communication. To put it another way, when corrupt actions occur in a particular case, hundreds of thousands and possibly millions of people hear about it. This didn't always used to happen, especially when mass communication was centrally controlled by a few broadcasting corporations.
  - unchocked 12y ago
ObviousScience 12y ago
These FBI agents are criminals, pure and simple. Not that I think they'll be held accountable for their crimes, much like they weren't for the other lies that they've brazenly told in court related to parallel construction. However, it's apparent that they don't actually care what the law is, and are perfectly willing to violate it when they feel like they want something that the law forbids them. Disgusting.
Afforess 12y ago
Normally these discussions get framed in terms of "rights" and how the FBI are violating them, but the average person doesn't care a lot about their abstract rights. It doesn't register. The real issue, and what bothers me, and I think the FBI here don't "get", is that when they pull these stunts, they are helping the real criminals. In court, when someone who is actually guilty of a crime can show that the FBI did this sort of stunt, they can often appeal and nullify the entire sentence. Criminals can end up going free because the law enforcement felt it had a right to do whatever they wanted. When law enforcement acts in disregard to the law, they are not only breaking it, but aiding the real criminals escape justice.
- smokeyj 12y ago
  I also don't think we should frame discussions in terms of crimes, criminals and justice. It's more like corporately sponsored regulatory code, code violators, and punishment if you're poor or a minority.
  - ertdfgcb 12y ago
    While I agree, poor minorities may be the most frequently punished, but they are by no means the only ones.
- navait 12y ago
  It's so great to have people like you, who are so much smarter than the average person. Continue to bless our internet with your wisdom! But seriously, go talk to an average person. They'll care a bit more than you think especially if you drop the condescending attitude toward them.
  - Loughla 12y ago
    Not one thing about that was condescending. Have you spoken with someone aged 65+? How about people living in flyover country? Most do not care about their abstract rights, as the OP stated. Life is mostly okay, maybe not as easy as 2000-2008, but pretty easy. Therefore, they don't want to rock the boat.
gleenn 12y ago
If it is true the FBI tried to cover their asses, heads should roll. This kind of stuff is so despicable. If it is inconvenient to get a warrant, then that's where your job ends. My civil liberties should not be crumbling because of overzealous FBI agents going after some silly illegal gambling.
- jobu 12y ago
  When you look at it from the perspective of the officers, this plan was a win-win proposition. Even if it gets thrown out it court, they stopped the allegedly illegal operation. When there is no consequence to the officers themselves for their actions, then the ends will justify the means. (It's unjust, unethical, and possibly illegal, but it's the same reason people are still reading and discussing Machiavelli 500 years later.)
  - john_b 12y ago
    It's only win-win if no heads roll, as the parent proposed.
    - ripb 12y ago
      The odds of heads rolling, going by previous non-attempts at holding these agencies responsible for their actions, seem to be low enough that they're quite happy to engage this behaviour without fear. And as for bringing about a change that would see future incidents causing them to be held accountable? I think the average person, and therefore the population, feels entirely powerless in that regard. I mean the US voted for a supposedly liberal, progressive President who even has it on his campaign website [1] that he would "Protect Whistleblowers", who has then gone on to prosecute more whistleblowers than all other President's combined [2]. So it's no wonder why people feel powerless, and it's no wonder why any change to these situations is certainly not coming in the visible future. 1. http://change.gov/agenda/ethics_agenda/ http://change.gov/agenda/ethics_agenda/ 2. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/sep/05/obama-campaign-brags-about-whistleblower-persecutions http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/sep/05/obama-c...
  - 12y ago
jsaxton86 12y ago
The worst case scenario for the FBI is that the evidence gets thrown out in this one case. No one will lose their job. No one will get seriously punished. As such, I fully expect the FBI and other law enforcement agencies to continue to come up with creative ways to perform unreasonable searches without probable cause.
- kstrauser 12y ago
  No, the worst case is that people start suspecting innocent workmen of being undercover cops and enacting street justice against them. Now a meth dealer who's been awake for three days has a legitimate reason to think that the cable guy might be a cop. This is why Doctors Without Borders gets pissed off when the CIA poses as healthcare workers. This is why the Geneva Convention specifies that medical personnel - and only medical personnel - wear a red cross to identify them as noncombatants. Someone at the FBI probably thought this was a grand idea, while utility workers are now more likely to be victims of violent crime because of it. Great job, guys.
  - rosser 12y ago
    Externalized costs are, like, totally someone else's problem, man.
at-fates-hands 12y ago
I'm all for rooting out criminals, but someone needs to start telling these people you need to do it within the guidelines of the law. The funny thing is they could've easily written up a warrant and had it signed by a judge in the span of an hour and then properly searched the room. Instead, In their haste, they violated several local laws including the fourth amendment, which most judges don't look kindly on. Not a good day for law enforcement.
- pyre 12y ago
  > The funny thing is they could've easily written up a warrant and had it signed by a judge in the span of an hour I think that may be part of the problem. If you start viewing warrants as rubber stamps, then you start thinking that the warrant is a foregone conclusion (and therefore just "unnecessary paperwork/bureaucratic nonsense" and an impediment to "getting things done").
- conorgil145 12y ago
  I heard the story on the radio this morning and believe I recall hearing that the agents only suspected certain illegal activities were taking place in the room and did not yet have enough information to actually get a warrant. This tactic was employed to enter the room, survey the environment, and gather information that they then used as the basis of a warrant. Also, they did not mention in the warrant request specifically how they obtained the information (by cutting services and entering the room via that approach). I am not making an opinion on the matter either way, just adding context that I heard from the story.
  - morganvachon 12y ago
    Sounds like fruit of the poisoned tree to me. Their probable cause was obtained in an unlawful manner. A police officer (federal or not) cannot enter a premises under bad faith to gather evidence. Any evidence obtained in that manner can't be used against the defendant, nor can it be used to get a warrant. I worked in law enforcement alongside detectives for 14 years, and they were always very careful about probable cause and evidence gathering, because they knew the risks to the case they were building if they didn't do everything on the up and up. Why the FBI wants to risk blowing what is obviously a very important case using illegal evidence gathering techniques is puzzling. The fact that the Justice Department is apparently in on it is even more mind-blowing.
carsongross 12y ago
I suppose that would depend on if I am allowed to invite repairmen into my home under the pretense that I have a broken utility and then shoot them for trespassing.
- anigbrowl 12y ago
  Given that it's not legal to shoot people for trespassing unless you have a reasonable expectation of harm, I suggest you don't test this theory. Trespass is a crime, but your response has to be proportionate to the harm you anticipate; so if someone is forcing their way into your house it's OK to shoot at them, but if they're just making a nuisance of themselves then you could march them off or call the police if you weren't able to do so. Last month, for example, a Michigan man was sentenced to 17 years for shooting a drunk woman who came to his porch and banged on his door after crashing her vehicle. While it was reasonable for him to be nervous, the jury felt that fell far short of a justification for shooting the unwanted visitor: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/04/us/theodore-wafer-sentenced-in-killing-of-renisha-mcbride.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/04/us/theodore-wafer-sentence...
  - owenmarshall 12y ago
    > Given that it's not legal to shoot people for trespassing unless you have a reasonable expectation of harm That's actually quite dependent on state law. Take California's: "Any person using force intended or likely to cause death or great bodily injury within his or her residence shall be presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily injury to self, family, or a member of the household when that force is used against another person, not a member of the family or household, who unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and forcibly entered the residence and the person using the force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred."
    - dllthomas 12y ago
      Though this seems to be a deceptive, not "forcible", entry at the most extreme, even if unlawful.
crazypyro 12y ago
This comes just after the allegations that the FBI used the Seattle Times email format to trick a bomb threat suspect into clicking on a link that installed spyware. If this plus the FBI impersonating respected Press members doesn't cause some kind of shake-up, I think we are doomed at every solving the problem of the law enforcement overreach.
- anigbrowl 12y ago
  That was legit, by contrast. In this case, if the butler had acceded to the initial request (to come inside to 'check the network') that would have been totally legitimate too. There's nothing legally wrong with tricking people, or undercover police work would be impossible.
  - crazypyro 12y ago
    Except it undermines the power of the press and, in my opinion, the freedom of the press, which is a constitutionally granted right. It creates a situation where people are scared of speaking to the press and can create situations where the press cannot get sources because of the fear of impersonation. So yeah, its good police work, except for that small little thing called the United States Constitution. This is all too often the reasoning that is used to take away our liberty.
    - anigbrowl 12y ago
      I don't think it's unconstitutional at all. I gave the example the other day of where you have a suspect's phone number but no location. So you call and say 'I'm from Your_local_newspaper and we're offering 2 weeks of free delivery to new subscribers, would you like to receive the paper for 2 weeks free sir?' If the person say yes and you confirm the address, then deliver copies of the paper there and stake it out to see if your suspect appears to pick it up, there's no problem there. I do not at all agree that this undermines the power of the press; one individual was sent a spoofed link that appeared to go to a newspaper story but didn't. This fact was in the public domain (accessible on the EFF's website) for 3 years before anyone chose to make a fuss about it. I certainly wouldn't feel inhibited about speaking to the press as a result of knowing about this.
ck2 12y ago
This still doesn't top the fact cops all over this country on a regular basis, stop anyone and seize their property and cash without any charge of criminal wrongdoing, just because it would be too expensive for people to sue them to get it back. That little gem should be running on the corner of the front page of every newspaper and television news program every week forever until someone is finally horrified.
- morganvachon 12y ago
  > That little gem should be running on the corner of the front page of every newspaper and television news program every week forever until someone is finally horrified. No, it needs to be the headline or top story, period. Running it in the corner every week relegates it to insignificance in pretty much anyone's eyes. Just as with the Snowden revelations, the constant bombardment of news stories will lead to information fatigue. People just won't care, and while they won't consciously accept it, their subconscious will add it to the ever-growing avalanche of shit they deal with on a daily basis. They will be come numb to it.
thrownaway2424 12y ago
The only legally relevant part of this story isn't discussed in the article: did the occupants of the hotel room consent to have the agents enter the room, or didn't they? This is the only thing that will matter in court. If they did, then it doesn't matter that the cops employed a ruse. The police use ruses and tricks all the time. You could argue that it wasn't within their rights to sever the internet connection in the first place, but you'd have to contend with several arguments there, such as internet being or not being a utility, or the operators of the hotel having the unilateral right to cut it off if they wanted to.
- gambiting 12y ago
  If they conducted a de facto search of the room then they broke the law, no matter what they called it. They could have dressed as plumbers, maids or pizza delivery men - that doesn't change the fact that they conducted a search without a warrant.
  - anigbrowl 12y ago
    It's the cutting off of a service to serve as a pretext that's problematic. If they dress up as pizza delivery men and are invited inside, even without a warrant, that's perfectly OK - the law is not meant to protect criminals from their own stupidity.
    - Dylan16807 12y ago
      I wouldn't say that's okay. If they want to actually deliver some pizza, perhaps. But the standards of deception should be very high for law enforcement.
      - JoeAltmaier 12y ago
        Consider any undercover operation - they're always pretending to be a 'pizza man' of some kind. The rules are in place to prevent entrapment, which is the solicitation of an illegal act. Cutting off your power - while mean and objectionable, doesn't seem to be covered under entrapment.
MatthiasP 12y ago
When Law Enforcement Agencies ignore the very law they are supposed to enforce they simply become a'put people into prisons' organization. This is the real reason why you don't want them to have wide reaching powers, there is only a fine line between LEA and criminal activity. We will see if James Comey will shed as many tears about this as he is spending on Apple's encryption.
- coryfklein 12y ago
  > the very law they are supposed to enforce It doesn't seem all that clear cut that they were breaking the law in this case. What is illegal about them shutting off the internet and then posing as repair men? Is there actually a law against that?
  - patmcc 12y ago
    >What is illegal about them shutting off the internet and then posing as repair men? Is there actually a law against that? What do you think would happen if you tried that on the home (or office) of a law enforcement officer? I think you'd end up arrested and charged with something if you got caught; maybe destruction of properly, maybe fraud, maybe home invasion?
    - coryfklein 12y ago
      > maybe destruction of properly, maybe fraud, maybe home invasion In this case, there was no destruction of property, just disconnection of internet service. As for fraud, I'm not aware of any fraud-related laws that apply. And it can't be home invasion if you invite me in.
  - PeterisP 12y ago
    What's illegal about me coming to your home cutting off your internet wires? Same thing.
    - coryfklein 12y ago
      This case is different. The police apparently had the hotel's permission to shut off the internet. Same thing as if you went to my ISP and asked them to shut off my internet and they said "yes". That's not illegal.
kbart 12y ago
Wow, I'm amazed this happens in modern USA. Such methods reminds of KGB in Soviet Russia or Stasi in East Germany, where agents were often "employed" as cleaners, housekeepers, electricians, doormen etc. Looks like the whole warrant system is broken and often used only to cover up the "parallel constructions", in other words, some kind of PR stuff.
austenallred 12y ago
My story is only tangentially related, but pretty absurd. TL;DR - an FBI agent came to our house undercover as a FedEx driver, ready to serve a warrant as soon as we accepted a package. When I was 16 I became an "eBay trade assistant" - basically people who didn't know how to sell stuff on eBay would pay me a 15% commission to sell their stuff for them. The work was really trivial, but a lot of the people I sold stuff for were 70+ years old and had some great antiques. It was easy money for a 16-year-old. One day a guy contacted me and said, "Hey, I have a GPS from my work that I don't need, and I want you to sell it for me." I looked up the GPS; it retailed at about $1500, and was selling for around $1,000 on eBay. I would literally copy/paste the official product description and earn $150 - a no-brainer. I told him to ship me the GPS. A few days later, as my mom was about to take me to pick up my car from the mechanic, a FedEx guy came to our garage door. He asked if there was a "Scott Smith" that lived at our house (I don't remember the exact name). We said there wasn't. He said, "Oh, well I have a GPS here for Scott Smith." I said we were expecting a GPS, but that wasn't my name. My mom got nervous and turned down the package. A few minutes later, as we were driving to the mechanic, my mom got pulled over by an unmarked car. It was a little strange to see an unmarked car in our small town, but oh well, my mom was speeding (as everybody always is in that town). I put my iPod headphones in and didn't think twice about it. The officer asked her to step out of the car (again, I didn't know enough to think twice). After about 10 minutes of them standing there and talking I finally pulled my headphones out and heard "stolen credit card" and "GPS" in the same sentence. I put together what had happened pretty quickly, and explained it to the officer. The officer made a circling motion in the air with his finger, and four of five other unmarked cars that had parked discreetly behind us on the street drove off in various directions. Turns out I was being used as a "fence" for one of the largest credit card thieves in America, as he was testing the waters of using trade assistants to sell on eBay. My next-door-neighbor (and a good friend of the family), who was a police officer, later told me that they had been setting up this sting for weeks. He recognized the address as being close to him, but we lived next door to a trailer park that had been notorious for crime of all varieties, so he didn't realize it was actually our house they were targeting. Turns out the FedEx guy was an undercover FBI agent, and they had a warrant to strip our house down to the studs if we had accepted the package. In the end, we just explained what happened, and I had to turn my beloved Hotmail account over to the FBI. They said they would have me testify in court if they ever caught the guy/girl responsible, and I've never heard anything. So either they never caught him/her or my testimony was unnecessary given the email transcripts. My mom loved to tell that story to girls I brought home for the first time. In retrospect it was probably a good litmus test to know if they'd be able to put up with me.
aburan28 12y ago
The FBI has been breaking the law and been guided by a machiavellian attitude for decades now. They are simply above the law and no oversight has ever been applied to this agency. Has there ever been a FBI agent sent to jail for subverting the legal system and breaking laws? Absolutely not.
- LordKano 12y ago
  The Federal Government has even thrown its weight around to protect agents when they're charged at the state level. When Idaho attempted to indict Lon Horiuchi for shooting Vicki Weaver, the DOJ sent lawyers make sure that their man was shielded.
Shivetya 12y ago
No. I have followed this story for a while and this is just insane what they did without a warrant. So they effectively break the law to gain evidence? They are allowed to sabotage another party's services and pose as their persons to do such? This is really just another in a long line of abuses the judicial system foists onto people, mostly onto those who cannot afford legal representation. Their mistake here was these people could. I am amazed they didn't try forfeiture laws and declare the computing equipment as breaking the law, without rights, and just taking it only "to discover" it was used for nefarious purposes.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
sidcool 12y ago
This is a tricky situation. Can this be done or not depends mainly on the gravity of the crime being investigated. If it's about someone's life in danger, I can get behind such a move by FBI, but to get evidence against gambling I don't think such an extreme move is necessary.
- zevyoura 12y ago
  How certain do you need to be that someone's life is in danger? This is why we have a judicial process to get warrants.
  - dllthomas 12y ago
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exigent_circumstance_in_United_States_law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exigent_circumstance_in_United_...
krambs 12y ago
No, they can't. This is an incendiary set of facts - but most certainly won't be upheld in any reasonable court.
a2tech 12y ago
This is so fucking crooked that only the government could make an argument that its legal.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
anigbrowl 12y ago
I hope this turns out to be compliant with Betteridge's law, and I think it will. In a different thread yesterday I pointed out that deception is a reasonable and legally acceptable aspect of law enforcement, but that stops where the penal code starts. Cutting off communications services to the building as a pretext to gain entry seems like a clear violation of law, and (IMHO/NAL) should render all the evidence gained pusuant to the search warrant inadmissible as 'fruit of the poisonous tree,' because the probable cause offered for issuance of the warrant was defective.
jeffdavis 12y ago
One thing also disturbing is that it doesn't say what they actually saw inside, and apparently that wasn't recorded. This goes to show that, even if they don't see anything to justify a search warrant, merely letting them in allows them to say they saw something in order to obtain a warrant. Similarly, if you speak with police without a lawyer present, the policeman can say that you confessed to them (or said something that damages your case, at least), regardless of whether it's true.
- grecy 12y ago
  > Similarly, if you speak with police without a lawyer present, the policeman can say that you confessed to them (or said something that damages your case, at least), regardless of whether it's true. I've always found that one really interesting. Let's say they arrest me, put me in a room and try to interrogate me for a few hours before a lawyer shows up. Even if the only words out of my mouth the entire time are "I would like to speak to a lawyer please", what stops the Police from saying I said something else entirely?
  - AnimalMuppet 12y ago
    > Let's say they arrest me, put me in a room and try to interrogate me for a few hours before a lawyer shows up. Even if the only words out of my mouth the entire time are "I would like to speak to a lawyer please", what stops the Police from saying I said something else entirely? Their conscience about committing perjury. Nothing else. But it's a bit more nuanced than that, because even if each one of the people in the room (aside from you) are willing to commit perjury, each one has to be convinced that each of the others is also willing to commit perjury.
    - jeffdavis 12y ago
      Right. An outright fabrication from pure silence is less likely than a creative "misinterpretation".
  - Loughla 12y ago
    I know the answer to this. In 2014, the thing that keeps the police from saying anything else is a recording of the entire situation. Recording is standard practice in most interrogation situations. I say most, not all. Story Time; I was interviewed for a crime I was tangentially related to (my employer at the time was robbed while I was on the clock, they were investigating any possible connections on my side). I kept repeating, "I would like to speak to my lawyer please." Once my lawyer came, he advised me to just be honest and tell them that there was no connection. I was just uncomfortable about talking to a cop behind closed doors and was 17. When asked what we talked about, the cops response was something along the lines of, "nothing, the little asshole just kept saying lawyer. Check the tapes." It was then that I realized the power of video.
SyncTheory13 12y ago
I have a story similar to this, though it didn't involve the police actually searching my home. In March of 2011, my St. Louis hosted an Occupy convention - which was mostly workshops/lectures and some very tame marches due to out-of-town folks. My roommates and I had been involved for a bit and some had given our address out when arrests were made. This was prime-time for police intimidation (including of witnesses) and undercover agents. We were aggressively tailed by unmarked cars, had police writing down license-plates of those at our house, and had a constant police presence circling the block and down the alley. Aside from very close friends being intensely beaten for participating in a march that was staying on the sidewalk (a scene that still haunts most of us) - the most corrupt thing that happened to us was when they worked with the local Electric company (Ameren UE) to have our electricity shut off. We called the electric company to find out why it was shut off when the bill had been up-to-date and were told they were ordered to by the police due to the house being declared Condemned and us being labeled as squatters. We had some pro-bono lawyers who advised me to threaten the electric company with legal action - which made their representatives quickly make up a legal excuse as to why our electric was shut off. I informed the landlord, who checked into it and found that it involved a Sergeant with the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department. The conversation between then went something along the lines of: - Landlord: Why has the house been declared condemned and the electric shut off? - Police: This house has been involved with Occupy and often serves as a meeting place for it. - Landlord: Ok... Is it illegal to hold meetings in a house? - Police: Well... No... - Landlord: Then we shouldn't have a problem. Probably helped that the landlord is a high-ranking official in the nearby Air Force base. Within 24 hours, our electric was reconnected. My take-away from all of this, and the current events, is that the best course of action in dealing with aggressive and usually illegal police activities is to fight back with an even more aggressive legal campaign as well as establishing a very close and open relationship with all surrounding neighbors. Their fraternity acts as an organizational bully that constantly pushes what they can get away with until they sense actual danger to themselves/their jobs in terms of legal ramifications, etc.
- infinite8s 12y ago
  My takeaway from your story is that the high connections your landlord probably had to draw upon was the reason you prevailed with the electricity company.
rdtsc 12y ago
FBI is now an "organized crime" cartel. It is the Mafia. This is not unlike the corruption at high levels in places like Russia, China etc. There, they have a grey zone between law enforcement and criminal organizations. Think of it as "regulatory capture" but in respect to law enforcement. Here there isn't as much of a grey zone (yet?), it is more isolated, but the acting above the law bit is the same. You can look at it as both being a bad thin in an of itself but also a signal (proxy) for deeper and more serious issues coming down the pipeline. The one thing that FBI has is better technology and resources than any of those other criminal organizations. So any corruption no matter how small will be amplified many times over.
dragonwriter 12y ago
Well, they obviously can. Whether or not they should, OTOH...
s_q_b 12y ago
This will be tossed out at the district magistrate prior to trial due to Fourth Amendment violations. The amendment does exist, and still has quite a bit of force of law in traditional criminal prosecutions.
click170 12y ago
I once caught a pair of police officers trying to break into my home through my 2nd story bedroom window (while I was sleeping) in the middle of the day. I was home and caught them in the act, which was evidently unexpected because one of them nearly fell off my roof when I asked them wtf they were doing. They claimed they had received a 911 call from my home, despite the fact that I was asleep and was home alone. After searching the home myself looking for a possibly incapacitated relative (with them in toe, despite the fact that I had not granted them access) and finding no-one, they left. I asked around, and this apparently happens very frequently in my area. If there's a 911 call and it is disconnected, that does sound like grounds to at least attend to the residence. But breaking and entering when there aren't signs anyone is even home? I have a hard time agreeing that this was called for. I now live in an apartment building or I would block my windows from opening wide enough for someone to enter through them.
- grecy 12y ago
  > break into my home through my 2nd story bedroom window It's even more telling they were trying to break in secretly. If they were genuinely concerned someone desperately needed medical attention, where were the paramedics, and why didn't they loudly bash on the front door, announce themselves then smash it down loudly in front of everyone?
- Natsu 12y ago
  How did you confirm that they were actual police officers?
  - click170 12y ago
    Fair question. They had police uniforms, complete with radios which were squawking occasionally, they had a police cruiser complete with Toughbook, and it appeared to me as though the older officer was training the younger one. All in all, I'm not 100% sure, but I'm pretty certain.
    - Natsu 12y ago
      Sounds reasonable. My first thought would've been that these are impostors, but that's a rather complete set of props.
mbrutsch 12y ago
As hard as it is to believe, in all my encounters with the police over the past few years, they have been courteous and professional, and, as far as I can tell, completely honest. Go figure.

333 points by DickingAround 12y ago

This sort of thing is standard secret service wave blank paper to gain entry http://www.jrn.com/newschannel5/news/newschannel-5-investigates/Police-Chief-Accuses-Secret-Service-Of-Misconduct-279207151.html http://www.jrn.com/newschannel5/news/newschannel-5-investiga...

mscman 12y ago
I hadn't heard about that. That's awesome that the police chief is taking them on about this. It's becoming rare to hear about police chiefs doing the right thing when it comes to abuse of power.
- bennyg 12y ago
  I think that's selection bias creeping through. It's easy to remember the really negative events and less so the mundane, positive ones. Perceptions is reality and all that.
  - pessimizer 12y ago
    I'd think that the selection bias would make far it easier to remember the positive events in this situation. This event would not have made the news, and no one would have been aware of it except for the victim if the police chief hadn't raised an (apparently huge) stink. If it's difficult for the Nashville chief of police to get traction on an incident that happened within his jurisdiction, what chance do you have?
  - pixl97 12y ago
    Not really. Negative and positive events do not balance each other out. If your local authorities go help kittens out of a tree, feed the homeless, then savagely beat minorities it is not a zero sum game. People in a position of power abusing their authority can jade entire communities against trusting them ever again.
jobu 12y ago
Wow, the MNPD should be applauded for doing their job and following the rules, despite pressure from Federal Agents: "In fact, the chief said that, as soon as officers arrived, they realized that the Secret Service agents did not have a legal basis to enter the man's house, and the man -- who had a legal permit to carry a gun -- had never actually threatened anyone."

Someone1234 12y ago

> the FBI provided two blank CDs, claiming the recording devices malfunctioned The levels of day-to-day corruption within the US judicial system are almost comical at times, scary at others... Between the police constantly getting away with committing crimes, prosecutors essentially blackmailing innocent people into pleas, and judges often ignoring the rule of law (with VERY shaky justifications), it seems like the entire system is fubar. The US system is just corrupt through and through. I see nothing redeeming about it. The only people who seem to [sometimes] receive justice are the rich, and while that is the case on other countries, in many of those countries that is a "scandal" in the US it is "working as intended."

exo762 12y ago
> the FBI provided two blank CDs, claiming the recording devices malfunctioned I think "contempt of the court" is a tool which should be applied here. No warning, high fines.
- lazyant 12y ago
  fines? do you get fines as a regular citizen if you lie with premeditation to a judge or do you get jail time? plus government officials should be held to a higher standard -> higher penalties than regular citizens imho
codescorrectly 12y ago
My opinion is that the levels of corruption in the American justice system have always been the same or are tending to decline in aggregate, similar to violent crimes (I don't have any statistics for corruption). It just seems that the opposite is happening because of the ubiquity and lack of cost associated with mass communication. To put it another way, when corrupt actions occur in a particular case, hundreds of thousands and possibly millions of people hear about it. This didn't always used to happen, especially when mass communication was centrally controlled by a few broadcasting corporations.
- unchocked 12y ago

ObviousScience 12y ago

These FBI agents are criminals, pure and simple. Not that I think they'll be held accountable for their crimes, much like they weren't for the other lies that they've brazenly told in court related to parallel construction. However, it's apparent that they don't actually care what the law is, and are perfectly willing to violate it when they feel like they want something that the law forbids them. Disgusting.

Afforess 12y ago

Normally these discussions get framed in terms of "rights" and how the FBI are violating them, but the average person doesn't care a lot about their abstract rights. It doesn't register. The real issue, and what bothers me, and I think the FBI here don't "get", is that when they pull these stunts, they are helping the real criminals. In court, when someone who is actually guilty of a crime can show that the FBI did this sort of stunt, they can often appeal and nullify the entire sentence. Criminals can end up going free because the law enforcement felt it had a right to do whatever they wanted. When law enforcement acts in disregard to the law, they are not only breaking it, but aiding the real criminals escape justice.

smokeyj 12y ago
I also don't think we should frame discussions in terms of crimes, criminals and justice. It's more like corporately sponsored regulatory code, code violators, and punishment if you're poor or a minority.
- ertdfgcb 12y ago
  While I agree, poor minorities may be the most frequently punished, but they are by no means the only ones.
navait 12y ago
It's so great to have people like you, who are so much smarter than the average person. Continue to bless our internet with your wisdom! But seriously, go talk to an average person. They'll care a bit more than you think especially if you drop the condescending attitude toward them.
- Loughla 12y ago
  Not one thing about that was condescending. Have you spoken with someone aged 65+? How about people living in flyover country? Most do not care about their abstract rights, as the OP stated. Life is mostly okay, maybe not as easy as 2000-2008, but pretty easy. Therefore, they don't want to rock the boat.

gleenn 12y ago

If it is true the FBI tried to cover their asses, heads should roll. This kind of stuff is so despicable. If it is inconvenient to get a warrant, then that's where your job ends. My civil liberties should not be crumbling because of overzealous FBI agents going after some silly illegal gambling.

jobu 12y ago
When you look at it from the perspective of the officers, this plan was a win-win proposition. Even if it gets thrown out it court, they stopped the allegedly illegal operation. When there is no consequence to the officers themselves for their actions, then the ends will justify the means. (It's unjust, unethical, and possibly illegal, but it's the same reason people are still reading and discussing Machiavelli 500 years later.)
- john_b 12y ago
  It's only win-win if no heads roll, as the parent proposed.
  - ripb 12y ago
    The odds of heads rolling, going by previous non-attempts at holding these agencies responsible for their actions, seem to be low enough that they're quite happy to engage this behaviour without fear. And as for bringing about a change that would see future incidents causing them to be held accountable? I think the average person, and therefore the population, feels entirely powerless in that regard. I mean the US voted for a supposedly liberal, progressive President who even has it on his campaign website [1] that he would "Protect Whistleblowers", who has then gone on to prosecute more whistleblowers than all other President's combined [2]. So it's no wonder why people feel powerless, and it's no wonder why any change to these situations is certainly not coming in the visible future. 1. http://change.gov/agenda/ethics_agenda/ http://change.gov/agenda/ethics_agenda/ 2. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/sep/05/obama-campaign-brags-about-whistleblower-persecutions http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/sep/05/obama-c...
- 12y ago

jsaxton86 12y ago

The worst case scenario for the FBI is that the evidence gets thrown out in this one case. No one will lose their job. No one will get seriously punished. As such, I fully expect the FBI and other law enforcement agencies to continue to come up with creative ways to perform unreasonable searches without probable cause.

kstrauser 12y ago
No, the worst case is that people start suspecting innocent workmen of being undercover cops and enacting street justice against them. Now a meth dealer who's been awake for three days has a legitimate reason to think that the cable guy might be a cop. This is why Doctors Without Borders gets pissed off when the CIA poses as healthcare workers. This is why the Geneva Convention specifies that medical personnel - and only medical personnel - wear a red cross to identify them as noncombatants. Someone at the FBI probably thought this was a grand idea, while utility workers are now more likely to be victims of violent crime because of it. Great job, guys.
- rosser 12y ago
  Externalized costs are, like, totally someone else's problem, man.

at-fates-hands 12y ago

I'm all for rooting out criminals, but someone needs to start telling these people you need to do it within the guidelines of the law. The funny thing is they could've easily written up a warrant and had it signed by a judge in the span of an hour and then properly searched the room. Instead, In their haste, they violated several local laws including the fourth amendment, which most judges don't look kindly on. Not a good day for law enforcement.

pyre 12y ago
> The funny thing is they could've easily written up a warrant and had it signed by a judge in the span of an hour I think that may be part of the problem. If you start viewing warrants as rubber stamps, then you start thinking that the warrant is a foregone conclusion (and therefore just "unnecessary paperwork/bureaucratic nonsense" and an impediment to "getting things done").
conorgil145 12y ago
I heard the story on the radio this morning and believe I recall hearing that the agents only suspected certain illegal activities were taking place in the room and did not yet have enough information to actually get a warrant. This tactic was employed to enter the room, survey the environment, and gather information that they then used as the basis of a warrant. Also, they did not mention in the warrant request specifically how they obtained the information (by cutting services and entering the room via that approach). I am not making an opinion on the matter either way, just adding context that I heard from the story.
- morganvachon 12y ago
  Sounds like fruit of the poisoned tree to me. Their probable cause was obtained in an unlawful manner. A police officer (federal or not) cannot enter a premises under bad faith to gather evidence. Any evidence obtained in that manner can't be used against the defendant, nor can it be used to get a warrant. I worked in law enforcement alongside detectives for 14 years, and they were always very careful about probable cause and evidence gathering, because they knew the risks to the case they were building if they didn't do everything on the up and up. Why the FBI wants to risk blowing what is obviously a very important case using illegal evidence gathering techniques is puzzling. The fact that the Justice Department is apparently in on it is even more mind-blowing.

carsongross 12y ago

I suppose that would depend on if I am allowed to invite repairmen into my home under the pretense that I have a broken utility and then shoot them for trespassing.

anigbrowl 12y ago
Given that it's not legal to shoot people for trespassing unless you have a reasonable expectation of harm, I suggest you don't test this theory. Trespass is a crime, but your response has to be proportionate to the harm you anticipate; so if someone is forcing their way into your house it's OK to shoot at them, but if they're just making a nuisance of themselves then you could march them off or call the police if you weren't able to do so. Last month, for example, a Michigan man was sentenced to 17 years for shooting a drunk woman who came to his porch and banged on his door after crashing her vehicle. While it was reasonable for him to be nervous, the jury felt that fell far short of a justification for shooting the unwanted visitor: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/04/us/theodore-wafer-sentenced-in-killing-of-renisha-mcbride.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/04/us/theodore-wafer-sentence...
- owenmarshall 12y ago
  > Given that it's not legal to shoot people for trespassing unless you have a reasonable expectation of harm That's actually quite dependent on state law. Take California's: "Any person using force intended or likely to cause death or great bodily injury within his or her residence shall be presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily injury to self, family, or a member of the household when that force is used against another person, not a member of the family or household, who unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and forcibly entered the residence and the person using the force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred."
  - dllthomas 12y ago
    Though this seems to be a deceptive, not "forcible", entry at the most extreme, even if unlawful.

crazypyro 12y ago

This comes just after the allegations that the FBI used the Seattle Times email format to trick a bomb threat suspect into clicking on a link that installed spyware. If this plus the FBI impersonating respected Press members doesn't cause some kind of shake-up, I think we are doomed at every solving the problem of the law enforcement overreach.

anigbrowl 12y ago
That was legit, by contrast. In this case, if the butler had acceded to the initial request (to come inside to 'check the network') that would have been totally legitimate too. There's nothing legally wrong with tricking people, or undercover police work would be impossible.
- crazypyro 12y ago
  Except it undermines the power of the press and, in my opinion, the freedom of the press, which is a constitutionally granted right. It creates a situation where people are scared of speaking to the press and can create situations where the press cannot get sources because of the fear of impersonation. So yeah, its good police work, except for that small little thing called the United States Constitution. This is all too often the reasoning that is used to take away our liberty.
  - anigbrowl 12y ago
    I don't think it's unconstitutional at all. I gave the example the other day of where you have a suspect's phone number but no location. So you call and say 'I'm from Your_local_newspaper and we're offering 2 weeks of free delivery to new subscribers, would you like to receive the paper for 2 weeks free sir?' If the person say yes and you confirm the address, then deliver copies of the paper there and stake it out to see if your suspect appears to pick it up, there's no problem there. I do not at all agree that this undermines the power of the press; one individual was sent a spoofed link that appeared to go to a newspaper story but didn't. This fact was in the public domain (accessible on the EFF's website) for 3 years before anyone chose to make a fuss about it. I certainly wouldn't feel inhibited about speaking to the press as a result of knowing about this.

ck2 12y ago

This still doesn't top the fact cops all over this country on a regular basis, stop anyone and seize their property and cash without any charge of criminal wrongdoing, just because it would be too expensive for people to sue them to get it back. That little gem should be running on the corner of the front page of every newspaper and television news program every week forever until someone is finally horrified.

morganvachon 12y ago
> That little gem should be running on the corner of the front page of every newspaper and television news program every week forever until someone is finally horrified. No, it needs to be the headline or top story, period. Running it in the corner every week relegates it to insignificance in pretty much anyone's eyes. Just as with the Snowden revelations, the constant bombardment of news stories will lead to information fatigue. People just won't care, and while they won't consciously accept it, their subconscious will add it to the ever-growing avalanche of shit they deal with on a daily basis. They will be come numb to it.

thrownaway2424 12y ago

The only legally relevant part of this story isn't discussed in the article: did the occupants of the hotel room consent to have the agents enter the room, or didn't they? This is the only thing that will matter in court. If they did, then it doesn't matter that the cops employed a ruse. The police use ruses and tricks all the time. You could argue that it wasn't within their rights to sever the internet connection in the first place, but you'd have to contend with several arguments there, such as internet being or not being a utility, or the operators of the hotel having the unilateral right to cut it off if they wanted to.

gambiting 12y ago
If they conducted a de facto search of the room then they broke the law, no matter what they called it. They could have dressed as plumbers, maids or pizza delivery men - that doesn't change the fact that they conducted a search without a warrant.
- anigbrowl 12y ago
  It's the cutting off of a service to serve as a pretext that's problematic. If they dress up as pizza delivery men and are invited inside, even without a warrant, that's perfectly OK - the law is not meant to protect criminals from their own stupidity.
  - Dylan16807 12y ago
    I wouldn't say that's okay. If they want to actually deliver some pizza, perhaps. But the standards of deception should be very high for law enforcement.
    - JoeAltmaier 12y ago
      Consider any undercover operation - they're always pretending to be a 'pizza man' of some kind. The rules are in place to prevent entrapment, which is the solicitation of an illegal act. Cutting off your power - while mean and objectionable, doesn't seem to be covered under entrapment.

MatthiasP 12y ago

When Law Enforcement Agencies ignore the very law they are supposed to enforce they simply become a'put people into prisons' organization. This is the real reason why you don't want them to have wide reaching powers, there is only a fine line between LEA and criminal activity. We will see if James Comey will shed as many tears about this as he is spending on Apple's encryption.

coryfklein 12y ago
> the very law they are supposed to enforce It doesn't seem all that clear cut that they were breaking the law in this case. What is illegal about them shutting off the internet and then posing as repair men? Is there actually a law against that?
- patmcc 12y ago
  >What is illegal about them shutting off the internet and then posing as repair men? Is there actually a law against that? What do you think would happen if you tried that on the home (or office) of a law enforcement officer? I think you'd end up arrested and charged with something if you got caught; maybe destruction of properly, maybe fraud, maybe home invasion?
  - coryfklein 12y ago
    > maybe destruction of properly, maybe fraud, maybe home invasion In this case, there was no destruction of property, just disconnection of internet service. As for fraud, I'm not aware of any fraud-related laws that apply. And it can't be home invasion if you invite me in.
- PeterisP 12y ago
  What's illegal about me coming to your home cutting off your internet wires? Same thing.
  - coryfklein 12y ago
    This case is different. The police apparently had the hotel's permission to shut off the internet. Same thing as if you went to my ISP and asked them to shut off my internet and they said "yes". That's not illegal.

kbart 12y ago

Wow, I'm amazed this happens in modern USA. Such methods reminds of KGB in Soviet Russia or Stasi in East Germany, where agents were often "employed" as cleaners, housekeepers, electricians, doormen etc. Looks like the whole warrant system is broken and often used only to cover up the "parallel constructions", in other words, some kind of PR stuff.

austenallred 12y ago

My story is only tangentially related, but pretty absurd. TL;DR - an FBI agent came to our house undercover as a FedEx driver, ready to serve a warrant as soon as we accepted a package. When I was 16 I became an "eBay trade assistant" - basically people who didn't know how to sell stuff on eBay would pay me a 15% commission to sell their stuff for them. The work was really trivial, but a lot of the people I sold stuff for were 70+ years old and had some great antiques. It was easy money for a 16-year-old. One day a guy contacted me and said, "Hey, I have a GPS from my work that I don't need, and I want you to sell it for me." I looked up the GPS; it retailed at about $1500, and was selling for around $1,000 on eBay. I would literally copy/paste the official product description and earn $150 - a no-brainer. I told him to ship me the GPS. A few days later, as my mom was about to take me to pick up my car from the mechanic, a FedEx guy came to our garage door. He asked if there was a "Scott Smith" that lived at our house (I don't remember the exact name). We said there wasn't. He said, "Oh, well I have a GPS here for Scott Smith." I said we were expecting a GPS, but that wasn't my name. My mom got nervous and turned down the package. A few minutes later, as we were driving to the mechanic, my mom got pulled over by an unmarked car. It was a little strange to see an unmarked car in our small town, but oh well, my mom was speeding (as everybody always is in that town). I put my iPod headphones in and didn't think twice about it. The officer asked her to step out of the car (again, I didn't know enough to think twice). After about 10 minutes of them standing there and talking I finally pulled my headphones out and heard "stolen credit card" and "GPS" in the same sentence. I put together what had happened pretty quickly, and explained it to the officer. The officer made a circling motion in the air with his finger, and four of five other unmarked cars that had parked discreetly behind us on the street drove off in various directions. Turns out I was being used as a "fence" for one of the largest credit card thieves in America, as he was testing the waters of using trade assistants to sell on eBay. My next-door-neighbor (and a good friend of the family), who was a police officer, later told me that they had been setting up this sting for weeks. He recognized the address as being close to him, but we lived next door to a trailer park that had been notorious for crime of all varieties, so he didn't realize it was actually our house they were targeting. Turns out the FedEx guy was an undercover FBI agent, and they had a warrant to strip our house down to the studs if we had accepted the package. In the end, we just explained what happened, and I had to turn my beloved Hotmail account over to the FBI. They said they would have me testify in court if they ever caught the guy/girl responsible, and I've never heard anything. So either they never caught him/her or my testimony was unnecessary given the email transcripts. My mom loved to tell that story to girls I brought home for the first time. In retrospect it was probably a good litmus test to know if they'd be able to put up with me.

aburan28 12y ago

The FBI has been breaking the law and been guided by a machiavellian attitude for decades now. They are simply above the law and no oversight has ever been applied to this agency. Has there ever been a FBI agent sent to jail for subverting the legal system and breaking laws? Absolutely not.

LordKano 12y ago
The Federal Government has even thrown its weight around to protect agents when they're charged at the state level. When Idaho attempted to indict Lon Horiuchi for shooting Vicki Weaver, the DOJ sent lawyers make sure that their man was shielded.

Shivetya 12y ago

No. I have followed this story for a while and this is just insane what they did without a warrant. So they effectively break the law to gain evidence? They are allowed to sabotage another party's services and pose as their persons to do such? This is really just another in a long line of abuses the judicial system foists onto people, mostly onto those who cannot afford legal representation. Their mistake here was these people could. I am amazed they didn't try forfeiture laws and declare the computing equipment as breaking the law, without rights, and just taking it only "to discover" it was used for nefarious purposes.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

sidcool 12y ago

This is a tricky situation. Can this be done or not depends mainly on the gravity of the crime being investigated. If it's about someone's life in danger, I can get behind such a move by FBI, but to get evidence against gambling I don't think such an extreme move is necessary.

zevyoura 12y ago
How certain do you need to be that someone's life is in danger? This is why we have a judicial process to get warrants.
- dllthomas 12y ago
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exigent_circumstance_in_United_States_law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exigent_circumstance_in_United_...

krambs 12y ago

No, they can't. This is an incendiary set of facts - but most certainly won't be upheld in any reasonable court.

a2tech 12y ago

This is so fucking crooked that only the government could make an argument that its legal.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

anigbrowl 12y ago

I hope this turns out to be compliant with Betteridge's law, and I think it will. In a different thread yesterday I pointed out that deception is a reasonable and legally acceptable aspect of law enforcement, but that stops where the penal code starts. Cutting off communications services to the building as a pretext to gain entry seems like a clear violation of law, and (IMHO/NAL) should render all the evidence gained pusuant to the search warrant inadmissible as 'fruit of the poisonous tree,' because the probable cause offered for issuance of the warrant was defective.

jeffdavis 12y ago

One thing also disturbing is that it doesn't say what they actually saw inside, and apparently that wasn't recorded. This goes to show that, even if they don't see anything to justify a search warrant, merely letting them in allows them to say they saw something in order to obtain a warrant. Similarly, if you speak with police without a lawyer present, the policeman can say that you confessed to them (or said something that damages your case, at least), regardless of whether it's true.

grecy 12y ago
> Similarly, if you speak with police without a lawyer present, the policeman can say that you confessed to them (or said something that damages your case, at least), regardless of whether it's true. I've always found that one really interesting. Let's say they arrest me, put me in a room and try to interrogate me for a few hours before a lawyer shows up. Even if the only words out of my mouth the entire time are "I would like to speak to a lawyer please", what stops the Police from saying I said something else entirely?
- AnimalMuppet 12y ago
  > Let's say they arrest me, put me in a room and try to interrogate me for a few hours before a lawyer shows up. Even if the only words out of my mouth the entire time are "I would like to speak to a lawyer please", what stops the Police from saying I said something else entirely? Their conscience about committing perjury. Nothing else. But it's a bit more nuanced than that, because even if each one of the people in the room (aside from you) are willing to commit perjury, each one has to be convinced that each of the others is also willing to commit perjury.
  - jeffdavis 12y ago
    Right. An outright fabrication from pure silence is less likely than a creative "misinterpretation".
- Loughla 12y ago
  I know the answer to this. In 2014, the thing that keeps the police from saying anything else is a recording of the entire situation. Recording is standard practice in most interrogation situations. I say most, not all. Story Time; I was interviewed for a crime I was tangentially related to (my employer at the time was robbed while I was on the clock, they were investigating any possible connections on my side). I kept repeating, "I would like to speak to my lawyer please." Once my lawyer came, he advised me to just be honest and tell them that there was no connection. I was just uncomfortable about talking to a cop behind closed doors and was 17. When asked what we talked about, the cops response was something along the lines of, "nothing, the little asshole just kept saying lawyer. Check the tapes." It was then that I realized the power of video.

SyncTheory13 12y ago

I have a story similar to this, though it didn't involve the police actually searching my home. In March of 2011, my St. Louis hosted an Occupy convention - which was mostly workshops/lectures and some very tame marches due to out-of-town folks. My roommates and I had been involved for a bit and some had given our address out when arrests were made. This was prime-time for police intimidation (including of witnesses) and undercover agents. We were aggressively tailed by unmarked cars, had police writing down license-plates of those at our house, and had a constant police presence circling the block and down the alley. Aside from very close friends being intensely beaten for participating in a march that was staying on the sidewalk (a scene that still haunts most of us) - the most corrupt thing that happened to us was when they worked with the local Electric company (Ameren UE) to have our electricity shut off. We called the electric company to find out why it was shut off when the bill had been up-to-date and were told they were ordered to by the police due to the house being declared Condemned and us being labeled as squatters. We had some pro-bono lawyers who advised me to threaten the electric company with legal action - which made their representatives quickly make up a legal excuse as to why our electric was shut off. I informed the landlord, who checked into it and found that it involved a Sergeant with the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department. The conversation between then went something along the lines of: - Landlord: Why has the house been declared condemned and the electric shut off? - Police: This house has been involved with Occupy and often serves as a meeting place for it. - Landlord: Ok... Is it illegal to hold meetings in a house? - Police: Well... No... - Landlord: Then we shouldn't have a problem. Probably helped that the landlord is a high-ranking official in the nearby Air Force base. Within 24 hours, our electric was reconnected. My take-away from all of this, and the current events, is that the best course of action in dealing with aggressive and usually illegal police activities is to fight back with an even more aggressive legal campaign as well as establishing a very close and open relationship with all surrounding neighbors. Their fraternity acts as an organizational bully that constantly pushes what they can get away with until they sense actual danger to themselves/their jobs in terms of legal ramifications, etc.

infinite8s 12y ago
My takeaway from your story is that the high connections your landlord probably had to draw upon was the reason you prevailed with the electricity company.

rdtsc 12y ago

FBI is now an "organized crime" cartel. It is the Mafia. This is not unlike the corruption at high levels in places like Russia, China etc. There, they have a grey zone between law enforcement and criminal organizations. Think of it as "regulatory capture" but in respect to law enforcement. Here there isn't as much of a grey zone (yet?), it is more isolated, but the acting above the law bit is the same. You can look at it as both being a bad thin in an of itself but also a signal (proxy) for deeper and more serious issues coming down the pipeline. The one thing that FBI has is better technology and resources than any of those other criminal organizations. So any corruption no matter how small will be amplified many times over.

dragonwriter 12y ago

Well, they obviously can. Whether or not they should, OTOH...

s_q_b 12y ago

This will be tossed out at the district magistrate prior to trial due to Fourth Amendment violations. The amendment does exist, and still has quite a bit of force of law in traditional criminal prosecutions.

click170 12y ago

I once caught a pair of police officers trying to break into my home through my 2nd story bedroom window (while I was sleeping) in the middle of the day. I was home and caught them in the act, which was evidently unexpected because one of them nearly fell off my roof when I asked them wtf they were doing. They claimed they had received a 911 call from my home, despite the fact that I was asleep and was home alone. After searching the home myself looking for a possibly incapacitated relative (with them in toe, despite the fact that I had not granted them access) and finding no-one, they left. I asked around, and this apparently happens very frequently in my area. If there's a 911 call and it is disconnected, that does sound like grounds to at least attend to the residence. But breaking and entering when there aren't signs anyone is even home? I have a hard time agreeing that this was called for. I now live in an apartment building or I would block my windows from opening wide enough for someone to enter through them.

grecy 12y ago
> break into my home through my 2nd story bedroom window It's even more telling they were trying to break in secretly. If they were genuinely concerned someone desperately needed medical attention, where were the paramedics, and why didn't they loudly bash on the front door, announce themselves then smash it down loudly in front of everyone?
Natsu 12y ago
How did you confirm that they were actual police officers?
- click170 12y ago
  Fair question. They had police uniforms, complete with radios which were squawking occasionally, they had a police cruiser complete with Toughbook, and it appeared to me as though the older officer was training the younger one. All in all, I'm not 100% sure, but I'm pretty certain.
  - Natsu 12y ago
    Sounds reasonable. My first thought would've been that these are impostors, but that's a rather complete set of props.

mbrutsch 12y ago

As hard as it is to believe, in all my encounters with the police over the past few years, they have been courteous and professional, and, as far as I can tell, completely honest. Go figure.