Slashdot Mirror


DEA Presentation Shows How Agency Hides Investigative Methods From Trial Review

v3rgEz writes "CJ Ciaramella stumbled upon some interesting documents with a recent FOIA request: The DEA's training materials regarding parallel construction, the practice of reverse engineering the evidence chain to keep how the government actually knows something happened away from prosecutors, the defense, and the public. 'Americans don't like it,' the materials note, when the government relies heavily on classified sources, so agents are encouraged to find ways to get the same information through tactics like 'routine' traffic stops that coincidentally find the information agents are after. Public blowback, along with greater criminal awareness, are cited among the reasons for keeping the actual methodologies beyond the reach of even the prosecutors working with the DEA on the cases."

266 comments

  1. Prohibition... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Prohibition creates corruption at all levels of society. Lessons from history learned: zero. Film at 11.

    1. Re:Prohibition... by flyneye · · Score: 1

      In our more perfect world, President flyneye, after a Stalinesque purge of the Senate and Congress, enacts the TRUTH IN EVERYTHING legislation, deleting all spy agencies except military,fixing the FBI to investigating interstate crime only, and making government cover ups and purgery punishable by public hanging.
      Ye shall tell the truth and the truth shall keep you alive. Next, we apply that to Corporate America. Wealth WILL be redistributed. Television commercials will become more informative and less irritating. You will read a label and see what youre REALLY eating. Penis enlargement scams will dissapear. Phone contracts will be short and readable by all. WYSIWYG will rule the day. Most importantly, the government will eventually be peopled by ORDINARY people just trying to keep it all moving smoothly with their only ambition being to do a good job during their term. Did I mention the public hangings?

      --
      *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
    2. Re:Prohibition... by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Prohibition creates corruption at all levels of society. Lessons from history learned

      Lesson learned by FBI.
      Bring handcuffs. Not a tie.

  2. DEA should be disbanded by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They should have never been created, and should be disbanded / abolished immediately. If this doesn't serve as a wake up call, what else will?

  3. How about "play by your own rules", eh? by pla · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Americans don't like it,' the materials note, when the government relies heavily on classified sources

    That doesn't mean you need to find a way to "fake" the chain of evidence. It means that Americans don't fucking like classified evidence, what with our constitution guaranteeing us the right to face our accusers. As in, our actual accusers, not some fictional "these guys who just happened to smell bomb-making chemicals on your breath" accusers.

    You want to keep the public off your backs, quit playing all these bullshit "Big Brother knows best" games, and if you can't come out and say how you know something, keep it to yourselves.

    1. Re:How about "play by your own rules", eh? by amiga3D · · Score: 2

      What really tells the tale is that they don't even want the prosecutors to know about it. That means it's probably not even legal at all as most prosecutors, as officers of the court, have enough integrity to avoid outright illegal actions.

    2. Re:How about "play by your own rules", eh? by SecurityTheatre · · Score: 1, Troll

      THIS JUST IN: Prosecutors sometimes lie and cheat to get convictions, regardless of the legality or even sometimes the truth.

      I knew this, defence attorneys know this. I'm glad the public is hearing about it.

    3. Re:How about "play by your own rules", eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What really tells the tale is that they don't even want the prosecutors to know about it. That means it's probably not even legal at all as most prosecutors, as officers of the court,

      want plausible deniability.
      FTFY

    4. Re:How about "play by your own rules", eh? by sjames · · Score: 2

      In other words they know very well that what they are doing is unacceptable in this democracy but they have no care for the people or democracy so long as they get what they want.

      They are the cheesy bad guys with the affected Russian accents from the movies.

    5. Re:How about "play by your own rules", eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I disagree. Lawyers always lie. It is part of their job description. Why do you think they are never put under oath in court.

    6. Re:How about "play by your own rules", eh? by TheGavster · · Score: 2

      The horrifying part is that the lies and the cheats are so egregious that they thought a prosecutor would balk at them...

      --
      "Because Science" is one step from "Because old book". Try "Because of my experiment testing my falsifiable assertion".
    7. Re:How about "play by your own rules", eh? by vux984 · · Score: 0

      THIS JUST IN: Prosecutors sometimes lie and cheat to get convictions, regardless of the legality or even sometimes the truth.

      THIS JUST IN: commenter on slashdot posts without even reading the summary.

      The prosecutors aren't lying and cheating. Its the agents supplying the prosecutors the facts of the case who are lying to the prosecutors about where the evidence came from.

    8. Re:How about "play by your own rules", eh? by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1

      Merely following the news makes it obvious that a lot of people in law enforcement (and "national security") think getting their man trumps conforming to the constitution.
      I suppose a lot of citizens ("law and order types") think the same way, but that's not how it's supposed to work. A country's Constitution is its rule book.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    9. Re:How about "play by your own rules", eh? by SecurityTheatre · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, I should add.... AGENTS cheat, behind the prosecutors' back. Then prosecutors further cheat.

      No wonder the plea rate in the US exceeds 95%.

    10. Re:How about "play by your own rules", eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The prosecutors aren't lying and cheating. Its the agents supplying the prosecutors the facts of the case who are lying to the prosecutors about where the evidence came from.

      And I am sure that the prosecutor are completely innocent and in no way complicit whit this system that make their work so easier and boost their political carrier.

    11. Re:How about "play by your own rules", eh? by DarkOx · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Americans don't like it". Did anyone note how they did not use "we" or "some people" they used "Americans" it's almost as if they recognize they are outside and apart from the rest of us.

      These people hate freedom, they hate the rule of law, and they don't think of themselves as citizens and neighbors. I really think it's time the rest of 'us' start treating these folks accordingly, that is anyone working for a three letter should be assumed a scumbag until proven otherwise. Don't help them, if you see something say nothing, don't socialize with them, shun them. We can dismantle this crap from the ground up, nobody will join these organizations if they know it mean being blackballed the rest of there lives.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    12. Re:How about "play by your own rules", eh? by ukemike · · Score: 1

      You want to keep the public off your backs, quit playing all these bullshit "Big Brother knows best" games

      I'm afraid that this gets it a bit backwards. The government, or really any concentration of power, will always push the limits of what it can do, will always break the rules, and will always abuse its power. The only way to prevent or even delay this from happening is to never get off the back of the government.

      You leave them to their own devices for a minute and they'll abuse their power. You leave them to their own devices for 35 years or so (like we've done) and you'll discover you no longer live in a functioning democracy.

      --
      -- QED
    13. Re:How about "play by your own rules", eh? by Idarubicin · · Score: 1

      No wonder the plea rate in the US exceeds 95%.

      To play devil's advocate for a moment, a plea rate above 95% could also result from an effective, fair justice system that investigated crimes thoroughly, collected good-quality evidence in an open and transparent manner, and only laid charges in cases where there was strong evidence of guilt on the part of the accused....

      Heck, if prosecutors were sufficiently resource-constrained, they would be incented to allow criminals to go free in order to avoid the time, expense, and effort of trials; charges would only be pursued against the shoo-in cases....

      Just sayin'. The plea rate isn't the slam-dunk argument you think it is.

      --
      ~Idarubicin
    14. Re:How about "play by your own rules", eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not quite true.
      Consider the nation-state to be a major work of art. That nations laws, are the frame which borders the work of art.

      A lawyers job, is not to argue about the framework which contains the artwork, but rather to argue about its colour until the jury is confused enough to not be able to render the correct verdict on what the framework actually contains.

    15. Re:How about "play by your own rules", eh? by deconfliction · · Score: 1

      That doesn't mean you need to find a way to "fake" the chain of evidence. It means that Americans don't fucking like classified evidence, what with our constitution guaranteeing us the right to face our accusers. As in, our actual accusers, not some fictional

      This. Right here.

      quit playing all these bullshit "Big Brother knows best" games, and if you can't come out and say how you know something, keep it to yourselves.

      And That, Right there. Except the situation is even worse than that in the Neo-Stasi U.S. Not only must surveillance be "kept to yourselves", but also not acted upon in any way. Which is impossible, and why this is a true perversion of justice. When you have secret societies with access to such privacy invading databases (read: NSA agents with access to LOVINT on the entire populace), you end up with a lower class of citizens subject to the political manipulations of the elite LOVINT hoarders. Academic debates on public forums with so many spies privy to Stasi-files, that the under-class becomes oppressed for lack of equal status in the public forums. I for one do not trust at all that there aren't other slashdot commenters (and deconfliction units watching over them) that have illegal access to my private records that the NSA has hoovered up. Even if this isn't true, the system obviously presents the situation where people like me believe it anyway. I don't know how else to combat that sort of political manipulation other than putting a gun to my head and ending the psychological torture of living under the modern NSA (I'm not saying it wouldn't be worse if I were a minority 20 years ago amongst the likes of the Rodney King style police force, but in a nice colorblind sort of way, it feels like these days we are all fucked, unless we want to relegate ourselves to the role of little brothers who know our place in the world and don't expect more privacy than that (like the amount we were taught in school we had an 'inalienable right' to)

    16. Re:How about "play by your own rules", eh? by Eskarel · · Score: 1

      EXCEPT YOUR RIGHT TO FACE YOUR ACCUSERS DOESN'T APPLY HERE.

      You get to face your accuser for the crime for which you are facing prosecution, not any crimes you may have committed for which you are not being charged and not non exculpatory evidence which the prosecution chooses not to use in court. In this case that accuser is the law enforcement officer who caught you red handed with your stash of drugs. You might not like that, but stop pretending you have rights you don't.

    17. Re:How about "play by your own rules", eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      EXCEPT YOUR RIGHT TO FACE YOUR ACCUSERS DOESN'T APPLY HERE.

      You get to face your accuser for the crime for which you are facing prosecution, not any crimes you may have committed for which you are not being charged

      Except that in your scenario, if _any action_ is taken against you as a result of that surveillance that didn't result in a charge, then the result is tantamount to being punished without being given a trial and a chance to defend yourself, including facing your accusers. One does have the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. In a world where tens or tens of thousands of agents of or related to the law enforcement and surveillance system have access to privacy invading surveillance of you, and if they choose not to charge you with anything, but instead to take _actions other than a legal prosecution including a trial and the rest of due process_, people are being punished without due process. A perversion of justice. Even if that punishment is nothing more than being turned down for a job from an employer. I.e. - take this hypothetical-

      NSA uses hot-mic/camming of your mobile phone to discover you smoke pot. They, and nobody else in the FBI/DEA give enough of a flying fuck to prosecute you. But the CEO of the BIGMEGACORP has top secret access, and gets to know that you are a pot smoker and chooses not to hire you because they have a prejudice against pot smokers. You have now been punished without a trial. Without due process.

    18. Re:How about "play by your own rules", eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      or it could be that this is the alternative to plea bargains.

    19. Re:How about "play by your own rules", eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because a client has the right to a proper defense. If the lawyer cannot hear whatever his client can vouch to tell him without running in danger of sacrificing his client under oath, the tables are tilted because then it's better for the client not to talk to his lawyer at all in order to make the best of facts and evidence that might make him bad and look good, according to the law.

      The prosecution is free to make its best case from the pieces available to them, according to the law. If the client is not allowed to do the same, the tables are tilted.

    20. Re:How about "play by your own rules", eh? by allaunjsiIverfox2 · · Score: 1

      Heck, if prosecutors were sufficiently resource-constrained, they would be incented to allow criminals to go free in order to avoid the time, expense, and effort of trials; charges would only be pursued against the shoo-in cases....

      Good. Maybe we could stop prohibition 2.0 to relieve some of their burden.

      The plea rate isn't the slam-dunk argument you think it is.

      It is if you have principles and care about justice, rather than just caring about maximizing how many 'bad guys' you catch.

    21. Re:How about "play by your own rules", eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some of us don't want to live in the libertarian paradise that is Mexico. Where the small government can't deal with criminals and they know all of the tactics that would be used to catch them. It is great if you are smart and powerful and can get away with a bunch of crimes because there is no way for the government to prove it was you who did a crime, or to stop you from doing something.

      This crap that the government can't have secret methods to catch people who are obviously breaking the law is the real problem.

    22. Re:How about "play by your own rules", eh? by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      You get to face your accuser for the crime for which you are facing prosecution

      Except in this case, the crime for which you may be facing prosecution came about as part of other kinds of activity and likely would not have been discovered through means which would be admissible in court.

      This is using trumped up charges to hide the actual source of the information, and then pretending like the first source never happened. When there would be no evidence against you (or even reason to look) without this other thing, then the whole thing is essentially a poisoned well.

      If you really believe that the secret spy apparatus should be able to concoct a legal case on the basis of secret evidence, and then construct an evidence chain which excludes that -- well, then welcome to your new world, comrade.

      This is essentially a modern form of the Stazi and other nefarious agencies. That they have a manual on how to hide the original source of this information basically means they're doing a complete end-run around the law. Or they're using that information to set you up in such a way that a "routine and unrelated" police action catches you doing something they couldn't otherwise prove to know anything about -- they're fabricating a scenario in which it can be made to look like they didn't have other secret information they'd never have been able to use in court.

      The only reason your right to face your accusers doesn't apply here is they've carefully concealed who your actual accusers are.

      Papers please comrade, if we want to charge you with something, we will. If we can't get a warrant for something, or if we obtained it illegally, no problem ... we'll just make sure you get identified from an indirect way we can deny ever was connected to your case.

      So they'll use evidence which wouldn't hold up in court, to concoct a situation in which they can 'find' this evidence, and then reconstruct the evidence chain to make it look legit.

      If that doesn't scare the hell out of you, then you don't understand the issue very well.

      If this is what America has come it, America is fucked.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    23. Re:How about "play by your own rules", eh? by vux984 · · Score: 1

      And I am sure that the prosecutor are completely innocent and in no way complicit whit this system that make their work so easier and boost their political carrier.

      Apparently some do have ethics; hence the agents apparent need to lie to them.

    24. Re:How about "play by your own rules", eh? by Eskarel · · Score: 1

      It came about because of activity you weren't smart enough to hide the evidence of. Yes you might never have gotten caught, but you also might have. I'm perfectly happy to have a discussion about whether this sort of thing is good or bad, but you'll get nowhere fast trying to pretend it's unconstitutional because it violates your right to face your accuser. Two centuries of case law indicate that whether the actual interception of your communication is lawful or not(which is a separate issue), parallel construction is perfectly constitutional. It's no different than when a police officer is just convinced you did it and goes searching for evidence, so long as they don't violate your constitutional rights while doing so you've not got a leg to stand on.

      You get to face your accusers, anyone else who might want to accuse you can't and so you don't have to face them. I realise you're either a pro freedom nut job or possibly a pro drug nut job, but please, for your sake, stop trying to live by constitutional rights you don't have.

  4. in my dreams... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The people responsible for this should be put on trial and if found guilty, sent to prison. Even though the DEA has been fucking over the very people with the power to put them on trial, I doubt any pros will be moved enough to do jack shit about it.

  5. In the grand scheme of things by Sean · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The DEA are the real criminals.

    1. Re:In the grand scheme of things by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      Literally.

      In my state, this "excuse to make a traffic stop" is HIGHLY illegal. The ONLY legitimate reason to pull over a vehicle is probable cause to suspect a "crime" (which includes traffic infractions of course).

      And it does no good to say "they can just make up a reason". It's still illegal. Grounds for dismissal.

    2. Re:In the grand scheme of things by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The DEA are the real criminals.

      You have to be in order to justify the payroll every year.

      It's not the fucking taxpayer who thinks we're actually winning the war on drugs. It's the idiots championing their own pointless jobs.

  6. Fruit of the poison tree by duckintheface · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Not all evidence is admissable in court. Evidence that is illegally obtainted can't be used in a prosecution. And any resulting evidence (like from a traffic stop as described in the article) is excluded as fruit of the poisoned tree. So this DEA "parallel construction" is not only a subversion of the intent of the law but is actually a conspriacy to subvert justice. The people who organized and practiced this system are guilty of a crime.

    --
    "He took a duck in the face at 250 knots." -- William Gibson, Pattern Recognition
    1. Re:Fruit of the poison tree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      But they did it for the children to prevent terrorism and also apple pie. So it's ok.

    2. Re:Fruit of the poison tree by hsmith · · Score: 1

      lol, you actually think that evidence that is constructed like this isn't used in court?

    3. Re:Fruit of the poison tree by physicsphairy · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I completely agree that if, e.g., doing an illegal wiretap and then reconstructing the evidence through a more legitimate train is subservision of the system and should be prosecuted.

      But confidential informants, undercover work, legal wiretaps, etc. are all things which should be protected, and for which parallel evidence is a means of doing. In many cases, it is the civilians who are being shielded, not the police.

    4. Re:Fruit of the poison tree by melstav · · Score: 5, Insightful

      duckintheface didn't say it wasn't being used in court.

      the statement was that it can't [LEGALLY] be used in court.

    5. Re:Fruit of the poison tree by onyxruby · · Score: 1

      Thanks for playing internet lawyer. You have failed and now some person might think that they can get out of things just because the evidence was obtained illegally. As long as a private citizen gets the evidence without being under the direction of law enforcement, even if they got it illegally, it is admissible.

      United States v. Jacobsen
      (1984) 466 U.S. 109, 113 [The Fourth Amendment] is wholly inapplicable to a search or seizure, even an unreasonable one, effected by a private individual not acting as an agent of the Government or with the participation or knowledge of any governmental official

      http://le.alcoda.org/publicati...

    6. Re:Fruit of the poison tree by icebike · · Score: 3, Informative

      And defense attorneys had better step up their game and put state, county, and federal officers on the stand and start asking just how it is that they just HAPPENED to stop a certain car or visited a certain street corner at a specific time of day. Then ask them point blank if it was a case of parallel construction. Ask them to turn over the names of their CIs, even if its in closed court.

      Force them to Commit Perjury. Best case you get your current case dismissed, even if you never get off the radar of the local law.

      (I doubt the DEA is going to use secret sources of evidence or parallel construction to ensnare Joe Sixpack trying to score some recreational drugs. The fish will have to be worth the effort and the risk for the DEA to use this tactic themselves, but a casual word to the local sheriff might be used more often than you think.)

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    7. Re:Fruit of the poison tree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait... so...

      The NSA who aren't law enforcement agents and are acting as private citizens can hand off illegally obtained information to the police and that evidence can be used to plan collection of the evidence they actually present in court?

    8. Re:Fruit of the poison tree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Looks like those judges might need to reread the constitution. Using evidence obtained illegally by "private individuals" against someone is disgusting and violates the spirit of the constitution.

      It's not that people are trying to be Internet lawyers. I for one don't want to be anything like a lawyer, because I have a brain.

    9. Re:Fruit of the poison tree by kelemvor4 · · Score: 1

      Not all evidence is admissable in court. Evidence that is illegally obtainted can't be used in a prosecution. And any resulting evidence (like from a traffic stop as described in the article) is excluded as fruit of the poisoned tree. So this DEA "parallel construction" is not only a subversion of the intent of the law but is actually a conspriacy to subvert justice. The people who organized and practiced this system are guilty of a crime.

      Fortunately for the DEA, not all criminals get a trial anymore. Of course, this means anyone they say is a criminal is a criminal.

      America, land of the fee. Home of the Braves.

    10. Re:Fruit of the poison tree by He+Who+Has+No+Name · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Technically, conspiracy for depredation of rights under the color of law is punishable by death. It is legally constructed as domestic treason against the social compact, rather than wartime treason against the body republic.

      This shit would stop quick if some of these bastards faced the firing squad on national prime-time television.

    11. Re:Fruit of the poison tree by flaming+error · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "confidential informants, undercover work, legal wiretaps, etc. are all things which should be protected"

      So says the government. The Constitution says the defense is supposed to get all the evidence. That's been taken to include the whole story of what opened the case, and what led the cops to look where.

      Maybe the Constitution is wrong; I wouldn't know. But this "parallel evidence" is a secret end run around the Constitution, and it is illegal.

      If you want to allow this "parallel evidence" history revision, amend the constitution to say the government can lie about their evidence trail to keep secrets from defendants and even the prosecutors.

      Until then, follow the law. Or just stop pretending we have a Constitution.

    12. Re:Fruit of the poison tree by demonlapin · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Good luck getting a prosecutor to go after a cop for perjury.

    13. Re:Fruit of the poison tree by naughtynaughty · · Score: 1

      The Supreme Court made it clear in Whren v United States that pretext stops are completely legal. Failed to signal a lane change? The police now have a legal reason to stop you, detain you, pat you down, search the passenger compartment of your vehicle, have a drug dog sniff your car and on their claim that the dog alerted tear your car apart looking for drugs.

    14. Re:Fruit of the poison tree by iluvcapra · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The Constitution says the defense is supposed to get all the evidence. That's been taken to include the whole story of what opened the case, and what led the cops to look where.

      I'd love to see where you see that in the US Constitution, because no such specific language exists as far as I know. "Due process of law" is all that seems to be required, and in practice that means that discovery has to proceed in a normal manner and the prosecution may bring as much or as little evidence against you as they may require to convict you, no more or less. They must produce this evidence, and how they got it; any evidence they don't bring to court, they don't have to explain.

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
    15. Re:Fruit of the poison tree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The people who organized and practiced this system are guilty of a crime.

      And who do you propose charges them? The cops and the DoJ on whose behalf justice is being subverted?

      And who do you suppose tries the case? The judges who work for the judicial branch that says (a) the spying was legal, (b) as long as the cop who pulls you over for failing to maintain lane position doesn't know about the spying, it's a legit stop?

    16. Re:Fruit of the poison tree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      You're missing the point which is that the DEA *knows* the evidence can't be used in court. The DEA instead uses the evidence to surveil the person they are after to later catch them in the act or catch them in possession or whatever. In other words - the illegal spying just lets them know that criminal acts are going on and allows them to follow up with methods that are legal to actually catch the person in the act.

      There is legal precedent establishing that this *may* be legal (quote from a techdirt article earlier today):

      It appears that much of the DEA's arguments here rely on the Supreme Court's ruling in 1938 in Scher v. United States, in which a law enforcement agent was told some things by a source, and used that information to find and arrest the defendant handling whiskey (during Prohibition). The court said that how the agent found out about the information doesn't matter, so long as the agent saw illegal acts himself. And thus, the Supreme Court "enabled" the idea of parallel construction. That case pops up repeatedly throughout the documents, basically telling DEA agents: expect information to come from intelligence sources, but do your best to never find out why they know this stuff.

      To me, the contexts are different (a source coming forward vs. someone being illegally spied on) as well as over 75 years passing, so I think this is ripe for being re-tested in court. I hope the courts find this practice to be highly illegal.

    17. Re:Fruit of the poison tree by msauve · · Score: 3, Interesting

      "Every time a cop has ever testified that he just had a "gut" feeling about a certain car"

      A "gut" feeling is neither probable cause nor reasonable suspicion. Which is why the cop will simply lie and say your tail light was out or you failed to signal a lane change.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    18. Re:Fruit of the poison tree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... confidential informants, undercover work, legal wiretaps, etc. are all things which should be protected

      Do any of those look like things which would generate... "Public blowback, along with greater criminal awareness, cited among the reasons for keeping the actual methodologies beyond the reach of even the prosecutors" ?

      Do you think using informants might generate public blowback ? Do you think criminals aren't aware they might be tapped ? Do you think prosecutors aren't aware when undercover work is being employed ?

      You know as well as I do that what's being suppressed is the origin of illegal evidence: mass surveillance, targeted hacking, unlawful interception, torture, blackmail and all the rest. It has nothing to do with witness and officer protection which are addressed by specific laws.

    19. Re:Fruit of the poison tree by mosb1000 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That would make it practically impossible to defend yourself against any charges brought against you by a government agency. They would have all this information that they gathered by whatever means are at their disposal, and you'd only have the evidence they presented to be used you and whatever else you are legally able to obtain (within your financial means). There is no way that scenario fits the definition of due process, the government would be practically guaranteed to win every time. According to you, they could have evidence that exonerates you and simply choose not to present it and it would all be totally legal.

      You are not correct, during the discovery process the prosecution is required to turn over all the evidence they gathered. Not just whatever they saw fit to present.

    20. Re:Fruit of the poison tree by Bob9113 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Not all evidence is admissable in court. Evidence that is illegally obtainted can't be used in a prosecution. And any resulting evidence (like from a traffic stop as described in the article) is excluded as fruit of the poisoned tree.

      The one I've been noodling on lately is privileged communications. Doctor/patient, supplicant/confessor, and attorney/client privilege come to mind. Could the government tap the communication between a criminal and his lawyer and use the information to construct a parallel evidence chain? Seems that fear of such would have a chilling effect on medical care, legal representation, and mystical absolution.

    21. Re:Fruit of the poison tree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This shit would stop quick if some of these bastards faced the firing squad on national prime-time television.

      But then how could you argue being better then the communist Chinese? Which is exactly what they do with great success.

      Doing so in America would collapse the freedom illusion and would throw the nation in total chaos. The average walmart dweller is not mentally equipped to deal with reality, the illusion is essential to maintain economic growth and our benefits.

    22. Re:Fruit of the poison tree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Every criminal that wants a trial can have one. It's just that in most cases it makes more sense to take a plea deal, if the prosecutor offers it.

    23. Re:Fruit of the poison tree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The language in the US Constitution is geared towards limiting the power of the State. So as long as the state acquires the evidence legally, it's evidence. If individuals, of their own volition, are ready to break the law in order to obtain evidence, then they are liable for any crime they commit in the process. There is no direct conflict of interest in this case because individuals, unlike the state, don't administer justice to themselves. The evidence resulting from private individuals is a side-effect and it would be socially damaging to ignore it.

    24. Re:Fruit of the poison tree by DarkOx · · Score: 3

      Sure there is

      and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation;

      . It's in the sixth amendment. Parallel construction can't be legal because it denies you being informed of the cause of the accusation, a possible cause for the accusation domes not count, the Constitution says THE cause.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    25. Re:Fruit of the poison tree by Hutz · · Score: 1

      If you have a wiretap on the distributor, you don't want to reveal that when you arrest the courier. "Confidential" and "Classified" are NOT synonyms for "illegal".

      Did none of you watch "The Wire"?

    26. Re:Fruit of the poison tree by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      I think the "gut feeling" would apply more towards going down a certain street. The cop can claim he was just driving around randomly when he saw the suspect do something illegal, when in fact the cop knew exactly where to be to witness a crime because he was tipped off by the NSA, which actually wiretapped a conversation the suspect had over a phone.

    27. Re:Fruit of the poison tree by Electricity+Likes+Me · · Score: 3, Interesting

      That's not how parallel construction works.

      Parallel construction is based on the idea that if a crime was committed, then it's unlikely that the bit you got by a non-admissable means was the only evidence of that crime.

      "Fruit of the poisonous tree" is also specific: what it means is that you can't use an inadmissable wiretap to then carry out a normally disallowed search to get evidence of a crime.

      So for example, it is not illegal for police to search through public parklands. It's public property after all, they can go there. If it was discovered someone had committed a murder and buried the body in a public park, but it was discovered by inadmissable wiretap (say, a hitman telling a client the job was completed) - then you couldn't use that intercept to get a warrant to go search their house for murder implements, or collect DNA.

      But you can suggest to law enforcement to check public parks for bodies, particularly within 100m of these coordinates or so. Law enforcement is normally able to do this, and might have stumbled across this anyway, or a hiker might have or something. If they then find the body, they can work backwards from the victim, rebuild the profile, and when it comes time to asking for warrants, they can happen to ask for a warrant against the intercept guy first (amongst others they would normally have done so with).

      All this evidence, collected this way, is admissable because it could have been discovered as a part of normal, admissable police/law enforcement procedure. It's public, it's out in the open and you have to explain it because it was perfectly legal to collect it.

    28. Re:Fruit of the poison tree by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Indeed. Next step is to completely fabricate the "evidence". That is not far off, the only thing they need to work out is to make sure they are not caught for the first few years or so. After that, nobody that cares will be left.

      This has nothing to do with "right" or "wrong" anymore, it is just one group of people that have gotten far too much power by accident (they certainly have no qualities that justify this level of power) trying to destroy individuals they do not like by any means necessary and hence circumventing any checks and balances placed in place for very good reasons.

      The other thing that will happen as soon as "evidence" is primarily manufactured, is that they will come after other groups they do not like. History has numerous precedents, up to and including genocide. In a society that pretends that all people have rights, it is always done this way.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    29. Re:Fruit of the poison tree by synaptik · · Score: 0

      ... and mystical absolution

      Thank you for that... from now on I will use that term in lieu of 'religion', at every opportunity.

      --
      HSJ$$*&#^!#+++ATH0
      NO CARRIER
    30. Re:Fruit of the poison tree by Etherwalk · · Score: 4, Informative

      "Due process of law" is all that seems to be required, and in practice that means that discovery has to proceed in a normal manner and the prosecution may bring as much or as little evidence against you as they may require to convict you, no more or less. They must produce this evidence, and how they got it; any evidence they don't bring to court, they don't have to explain.

      They have an obligation to make evidence, including exculpatory evidence, available to the defense. Some of them don't--that's prosecutorial misconduct and gets convictions overturned when the courts catch them.

    31. Re:Fruit of the poison tree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then let it be "socially damaging," whatever that loaded bullshit means. What this article is talking about is clearly immoral and should never be allowed.

    32. Re:Fruit of the poison tree by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 1

      ... the prosecution may bring as much or as little evidence against you as they may require to convict you, no more or less. They must produce this evidence, and how they got it; any evidence they don't bring to court, they don't have to explain

      .

      False They must produce ALL exculpatory evidence, and yes that means illegal means must be disclosed. Failure to do so is grounds for arrest and conviction for conspiracy, fraud and, in capital cases, attempted murder.

    33. Re:Fruit of the poison tree by Frobnicator · · Score: 5, Informative

      I'd love to see where you see that in the US Constitution, because no such specific language exists as far as I know. "Due process of law" is all that seems to be required, and in practice that means that discovery has to proceed in a normal manner and the prosecution may bring as much or as little evidence against you as they may require to convict you, no more or less. They must produce this evidence, and how they got it; any evidence they don't bring to court, they don't have to explain.

      That's okay, not everybody went to law school.

      Due Process, as currently enumerated:
      1. An unbiased tribunal.
      2. Notice of the proposed action and the grounds asserted for it.
      3. Opportunity to present reasons why the proposed action should not be taken.
      4. The right to present evidence, including the right to call witnesses.
      5. The right to know opposing evidence.
      6. The right to cross-examine adverse witnesses.
      7. A decision based exclusively on the evidence presented.
      8. Opportunity to be represented by counsel.
      9. Requirement that the tribunal prepare a record of the evidence presented.
      10. Requirement that the tribunal prepare written findings of fact and reasons for its decision.

      Got that?

      Next up, the SCOTUS clarified the requirements (and some consequences) in Brady V Maryland. Coupled with that is a body of rules such as Brady disclosure. In the past few decades judges have slowly gotten lax on Brady rules, but that has picked up sharply in the past year or two.

      --
      //TODO: Think of witty sig statement
    34. Re:Fruit of the poison tree by cheater512 · · Score: 2

      Why should a legal wiretap be hidden from the court? Anyone who does illegal things and talks about them over the phone is a moron.

      The identity of the informants or undercover agents don't need to be revealed and they usually aren't. The court just needs to know it was legal.
      The DEA is talking about breaking the law, then trying to cover it up. They aren't trying to protect anyone except their backsides.

    35. Re:Fruit of the poison tree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The word "corruption" doesn't mean what you seem to think it means.

    36. Re:Fruit of the poison tree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because they're guilty.

    37. Re:Fruit of the poison tree by pete6677 · · Score: 1

      You're missing the point which is that the DEA *knows* the evidence can't be used in court. The DEA instead uses the evidence to surveil the person they are after to later catch them in the act or catch them in possession or whatever. In other words - the illegal spying just lets them know that criminal acts are going on and allows them to follow up with methods that are legal to actually catch the person in the act.

      There is legal precedent establishing that this *may* be legal (quote from a techdirt article earlier today):

      And the problem with this is?

    38. Re:Fruit of the poison tree by Peyna · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The prosecution is required to hand over all the evidence they intend to use at trial, and any potentially exculpatory evidence. Not "all the evidence they gathered."

      --
      What?
    39. Re:Fruit of the poison tree by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 1

      ... and mystical absolution

      Thank you for that... from now on I will use that term in lieu of 'religion', at every opportunity.

      Before you get too excited, the "absolution" part is just the "forgiveness" aspect of the confession example of privileged communication he used. It's just one aspect of some religions (particularly Roman Catholicism), and not a term for religion in general.

      --
      I am not a crackpot.
    40. Re:Fruit of the poison tree by Peyna · · Score: 2

      Evidence that that police heard you on an illegal wiretap saying that you wanted to buy a kilo of cocaine is not exculpatory if you happen to later commit a traffic violation while transporting said kilo of cocaine and the police develop independent probable cause justifying a search of your vehicle.

      It might be exculpatory if you said you wanted to buy a kilo of cocaine and the police found a kilo of heroin, though.

      --
      What?
    41. Re:Fruit of the poison tree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And the problem with this is?

      Most folks frown on cops breaking the laws simply because it's convenient for them.

    42. Re:Fruit of the poison tree by KingOfBLASH · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's about over reaching.

      A LEO may in the course of his or her duties come across information that he can't use. For instance, hearsay is inadmissable in a court of law so if someone tells a cop he heard you say something, it is not something you could use to send the person to jail. Then the officer is allowed to dig up, legally, evidence that might be able to use to convict. With warrants and proper investigation.

      The problem is that the DEA takes this one step further. They take investigative measures they're not supposed to, and then try to do the whole "well let's find some legal way to find this."

      That's the issue.

    43. Re:Fruit of the poison tree by icebike · · Score: 0

      That would make it practically impossible to defend yourself against any charges brought against you by a government agency. They would have all this information that they gathered by whatever means are at their disposal, and you'd only have the evidence they presented to be used you and whatever else you are legally able to obtain (within your financial means). There is no way that scenario fits the definition of due process, the government would be practically guaranteed to win every time.

      Well, not to state the obvious, but you could actually not do the crime!
      Don't run the drugs.
      And don't be doing strong arm robbery, or what ever, to get the police so desperate for a way to lock you up that they plant drugs on you. Contrary to popular opinion, its not too hard to go about your life without attracting any police attention.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    44. Re:Fruit of the poison tree by icebike · · Score: 1

      Sure there is

      and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation;

      . It's in the sixth amendment. Parallel construction can't be legal because it denies you being informed of the cause of the accusation, a possible cause for the accusation domes not count, the Constitution says THE cause.

      The CAUSE of the accusation is that you were running drugs. And that fact came to the attention of law enforcement.
      The 6th doesn't really say that every detail of how that fact became known to the police needs to be spelled out for you.

      There are further supporting laws on the books that set the standard for evidence, but the Constitution does not.

      Further Parallel Construction is mostly used to catch you AFTER you commit another crime, such as picking up
      a kilo from your supplier. Parallel construction is seldom (but not never) use to charge you with a prior crime.
      As far at the DEA is concerned its used to catch you red handed at a continuing crime. This is much easier
      (we got an anonymous tip), than it is to pin a three year old crime on you.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    45. Re:Fruit of the poison tree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And that's assuming he wasn't some poor shmuck that pissed off someone with a few good friends.
      He could just as easily know exactly where to be and what to look for because they're planting evidence at the moment.

    46. Re:Fruit of the poison tree by icebike · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Except, the illegal wiretap probably gets the case thrown out.
      And with it, the search of your car.
      A traffic violation does not automatically give the police the right to search.

      Its much easier for the police to say they got an anonymous tip.
      Even if that tip was texted to 911 on anonymous burner phone. (Which happened to be in the possession of a DEA agent).
      That would be probable cause.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    47. Re:Fruit of the poison tree by allaunjsiIverfox2 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, not to state the obvious, but you could actually not do the crime!

      Well, not to state the obvious, but it's entirely possible that you didn't do anything illegal, or that the law is absolutely unjust and should be challenged.

    48. Re:Fruit of the poison tree by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1

      Contrary to popular opinion, its not too hard to go about your life without attracting any police attention.

      ...as long as you are a white middle-class mainstream Christian (Jews are ok now too) of moderate and acceptable political and social views.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    49. Re:Fruit of the poison tree by noh8rz10 · · Score: 1

      it's clear that all of this snowden jazz is going to need to end up in front of the supreme court. My concern is that at the rate they go it will be 10 years before they are addressed. We're just now taking care of the phone program thing. the NSA's best strategy now may be to dump everything out now with the strategy of overwhelming the supremes and bullying congress with looking like they're weak on terrorism.

    50. Re:Fruit of the poison tree by mysidia · · Score: 4, Interesting

      and any potentially exculpatory evidence.

      Since with an analysis by the defense, together with additional statements, ANY kind of evidence the prosecution has might turn out to be exculpatory or pertinent to the defense --- they can't withold anything they gathered.

    51. Re:Fruit of the poison tree by mysidia · · Score: 1

      that's prosecutorial misconduct and gets convictions overturned when the courts catch them.

      That's one thing, BUT it's not persuasive enough.

      The prosecutor should get serious jail time over such misconduct, dependant on the gravity of the case.

      For example: prosecutorial misconduct on a murder trial should be treated as a crime of: Attempted unlawful lifetime imprisonment, with a possible lifetime prison term for the prosecutor.

    52. Re:Fruit of the poison tree by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      It is looking more and more like it is not a wiretap nut an illegal global wireless wifi tap. It is starting to look like they have hacked the crap out of wifi and are using hacking wifi access points to tap into hacked smart phones and suck up all the data whenever that wifi hacked phone wanders into a hacked wifi point. The reasoning for doing the initial hack of wifi points and phones because they can and the two leading provisioner of those hacking services Google and Apple, they are the ones giving them an inside run at hacking your phone with a hidden installed app.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    53. Re:Fruit of the poison tree by synaptik · · Score: 1

      Yes, I understand that. But-- at least in the judeo-christian realm-- it seems that 'divine forgiveness' is really only 1 step removed from the primary point of religion: learning to cope with mortality.

      --
      HSJ$$*&#^!#+++ATH0
      NO CARRIER
    54. Re:Fruit of the poison tree by j-beda · · Score: 1

      Because they're guilty.

      We hope.

      Two times out of three...

    55. Re:Fruit of the poison tree by Macgrrl · · Score: 1

      I read that last paragraph as 'secret sauce' and wondered what drugs we were talking about...

      --
      Sara
      Designer, Gamer, Macgrrl in an XP World
    56. Re:Fruit of the poison tree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You could probably argue this, but the Judge isn't necessarily going to agree.

    57. Re:Fruit of the poison tree by number11 · · Score: 2

      Well, not to state the obvious, but you could actually not do the crime!

      You could not do rolling stops at stop signs, not spit on the street, and not "forget" to add those few bucks you made at the yard sale onto your tax return, too.

      As long as you're not doing or advocating anything that upsets the (current, whatever that may be) government. Whether that's whistleblowing, opposing some local official's actions, telling people that government officials who violate the law should go to jail, being a PITA, whatever. Keep your mouth shut and don't raise your head, and you'll be ok. There's a religious and ethnic element (Muslims and brown people and black people and people with funny names are at far greater risk), but anybody who threatens the status quo, whether that's the town council or the ruling party, can be a target.

    58. Re:Fruit of the poison tree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are quite wrong. They can withhold, for example, evidence of secondary crime of which they will charge or not charge the defendant later. Also, you seem to be forgetting, along with many others, "good faith." Evidence obtained illegally is not 100% unusable. For instance, if the police/prosecutor file for a warrant using information that was later found to be incorrect, but not due to police/prosecutor negligence or if a judge should not have signed the warrant, the evidence will be allowed. This is because the police acted in "good-faith". The system is broken anyway. 95% of criminal cases are plead out, largely because inflating sentencing time and charging for a higher crime is not illegal. EG, attorney knows that murder 1 is a near 0% chance for success, so he threatens defendant with that charge (murder 1) and, say, capital punishment and then offers murder 2 with possibility of parole after 15 years or something; you think many people risk possible death?

       

    59. Re:Fruit of the poison tree by Znork · · Score: 1

      Why would they overwhelm the supremes and bully congress with weakness on terrorism? Don't you think they've got enough dirt on both?

      If congressmen or supremes want to claim terrorist threats as the reason they'll do what the NSA tells them to do it's because terrorists sounds better than 'we need to vote for this NSA authorization or they'll leak the mails to my mistress to the NYT'.

    60. Re:Fruit of the poison tree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not all evidence is admissable in court. Evidence that is illegally obtainted can't be used in a prosecution. And any resulting evidence (like from a traffic stop as described in the article) is excluded as fruit of the poisoned tree.

      The one I've been noodling on lately is privileged communications. Doctor/patient, supplicant/confessor, and attorney/client privilege come to mind. Could the government tap the communication between a criminal and his lawyer and use the information to construct a parallel evidence chain? Seems that fear of such would have a chilling effect on medical care, legal representation, and mystical absolution.

      Arg, will you guys read some fucking law. Just because evidence was illegally obtained doesn't make it "tainted." Go read about the NY cop who recorded his bosses. Even though some of the recordings might be illegal, the fact that they were already published via news agencies meant that they could be used. Do you really think that if you broke into some house, stole a computer, found hundred of horrible child porn photos of the house owner molesting children and turned that in to the police it would be unusable? This doesn't even get into "good faith".

    61. Re:Fruit of the poison tree by noh8rz10 · · Score: 1

      I don't think you read my post very closely...

    62. Re:Fruit of the poison tree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/civilrights/federal-statutes/#section242

      "Punishment varies from a fine or imprisonment of up to one year [...lawlawlaw...] or may be sentenced to death."

      This statute covers a lot of ground not included in your statement.

    63. Re:Fruit of the poison tree by phantomfive · · Score: 2

      I feel like nearly every comment in this story is hearsay and has very little relation to actual law.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    64. Re:Fruit of the poison tree by JonBoy47 · · Score: 1

      You've clearly never been picked for jury duty... A court case, be it criminal or civil, is to be decided SOLELY on the basis of evidence and testimony introduced at trial, and in accordance with instruction given the jury by the presiding judge. Yes this means the prosecution gets to cherry-pick what evidence they decide to make their case with.

    65. Re:Fruit of the poison tree by aviators99 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well, not to state the obvious, but you could actually not do the crime!

      I guess there's no point in even having a trial?

      Contrary to popular opinion, its not too hard to go about your life without attracting any police attention.

      Happens every day. The odds of it happening to a particular individual may be pretty low, but when you beat those odds, you'll probably argue for the rules of justice to be followed.

    66. Re:Fruit of the poison tree by JonBoy47 · · Score: 3, Informative

      You people are all forgetting about inevitable discovery. If the prosecution can prove that a piece of evidence would have been "inevitably discovered" then the fact that it was actually obtained by illegal means becomes a moot point. This inevitability can be empirically proven if the illegally obtained evidence is later also obtained via legal means. See Segura vs. United States. Grand juries are allowed to question witnesses based on evidence that was allegedly collected illegally. See United States vs. Calandra. The Court has also ruled that the exclusionary rule goes out the window if the evidence was obtained, even illegally, by a private citizen. Purely coincidentally, law enforcement agencies have a penchant for using confidential informants.

    67. Re: Fruit of the poison tree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Fully Informed Jury Association states that jury's have a right to decide independent of both the facts and the law. A jury has a right to acquit anyone if they believe the law is misapplied or something they disagree with.

    68. Re:Fruit of the poison tree by icebike · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Purely coincidentally, law enforcement agencies have a penchant for using confidential informants.

      Exactly.
      Simply having an anonymous tip can serve to get some fact or allegation into the record to serve as a basis for investigation.

        Cops have been using those tactics for decades to protect undercover officers or snitches embedded in criminal organizations. Parallel Construction simply applies this technique of protecting sources from retribution, and redirects it to protecting government illegal activity.

      The solution isn't to expect cops not to use information that comes into their hand via less than perfectly legal means. That goes against human nature.

      The solution is to make sure goverment isn't in possession of this information in the first place.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    69. Re:Fruit of the poison tree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh please, you DO NOT TELL the mafia or the cartels about anyone that witnesses against them. That would be just awesomely idiotic. They are not petty criminals, it's like a war inside our own borders. Against a well funded, organized enemy that is trying to subvert the goverment. Criminal law isn't in all cases strong enough to face the threat. IF they wore rags around their heads and had other motives than money you'd call them terrorists or rebels. Well funded and very well organized rebels.

      Legalize the mild stuff for personal use and growing. Treat everything that threatens the country as acts of war, and act accordingly. No war on drugs, but war on cartels, or the organizations, whatever they call themselves. Execute the soldiers of said organizations, or treat them as war prisoners. Not sure what should be done as they are not soldiers of some nation state. The cartels do have de facto control of some areas, so maybe just kick some of them back there? After bombing said areas?

    70. Re:Fruit of the poison tree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hi,

      Your laws are stupid. Around here all evidence is admissable. The court decides what to include and what to not include. The reasoning goes along the lines "Even if the police didn't follow the rules when he found the body in your trunk you still had a body in yout trunk". The police will get to go to court for breaking the law, or gets some kind of punishment if he just broke some rules but not the law. But that doesn't make the criminals crime go away. It actually works really well, as the cops are not above the law here, and hence don't generally use illegal means to obtain evidence. If your cops do something illegal will they get punished Or is the punishment just the case going out the window?

    71. Re:Fruit of the poison tree by N1AK · · Score: 1

      The people who organized and practiced this system are guilty of a crime.

      I'm only going by the summary, and would also like to note that I am sure that what you are talking about will also have happened, however you are missing another, more legitimate reason for why they might want to do this that is entirely legal: If they have an informant or have legally tapped a phone line etc then they might not want to declare that in court because it would kill a source of information. I'm not saying I like the method, nor am I saying that I don't think it opens up other abuses, but I can appreciate that a completely ethical police officer may wish to avoid disclosing the source because it makes it harder for him to do his job.

    72. Re:Fruit of the poison tree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the presumption is now that everytime a cop says he or she did something randomly they are lying.

      The "randomly" bit seems overspecific.

    73. Re:Fruit of the poison tree by mosb1000 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Discovery can involve any material which might be relevant to a particular case with substantial restrictions to protect the identity of government informants and to prevent intimidation of witnesses. The prosecution is not the authority in determining which information may or may not be relevant. They must comply with any request for information the defense makes which the court agrees may lead to information relevant to the case. Any lawyer worth anything will ask for, and be entitled to, all the information the police gathered during their investigation. Of course, this also goes the other way in that the defense is required to comply with any requests made by the prosecution.

      With regard to illegal wiretaps, if a defendant's civil rights were violated during the course of an investigation, that would certainly be relevant to the case. That is why they build a parallel case using legitimate means to present to the prosecutor.

    74. Re:Fruit of the poison tree by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

      FREE AMANDA KNOX

      In every packet of cornflakes!

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    75. Re:Fruit of the poison tree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I read that last paragraph as 'secret sauce' and wondered what drugs we were talking about...

      Damn near every single iteration of "secret sauce" served up by fast food restaurants has drugs in it.

      The FDA simply legalized those drugs in order to feed the medical industry.

    76. Re: Fruit of the poison tree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Don't drive out of your home COUNTY, because in Florida that's "cause". Don't drive out if state because in Alabama and Louisana that's "cause". Don't drive on a busy freeway between two states. Don't drive while black or Mexican or Arab.... Don't be Athiest, Evolutionist, or pro-choice. Don't ever show up to freely assemble and ask the government how to vote.

      Lastly, don't have a hot wife or be a hot married chick a cop might want to date. Don't piss off public officials in your private business... Just give those people whatever they want.

    77. Re:Fruit of the poison tree by allaunjsiIverfox2 · · Score: 1

      No. Because they're afraid they'll lose, regardless of whether or not they're guilty. Intimidation works very nicely.

    78. Re:Fruit of the poison tree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does the story bother to mention what means the DEA uses that really aren't illegal. While how they obtain information which turns into 'reasonable suspicion', can be argued, to be illegal.

      If they have informants, do you think they testify? I don't believe undercover agents testify either. This really isn't evidence they use against you.

      As dumb as this sounds watch Moonshiners and you'll see the how cops obtain evidence/leads to go after the illegal production of distilled spirits. The point is to know who is doing what, and then you have to catch them in the act, you can't just bust anyone based off of hear say. If you watch the 2nd season, "sit down interviews" you'll see how the ABS went thru a number of questionable tactics to try and bust Tim Smith, or intimidate him into saying something or slipping up.

      That crap should be illegal..... They can just do whatever they want, hoping to catch you. And it isn't just because he was on TV, I know of several people that have to deal with law enforcement harassing them.

    79. Re:Fruit of the poison tree by allaunjsiIverfox2 · · Score: 2

      Do you really think that if you broke into some house, stole a computer, found hundred of horrible child porn photos of the house owner molesting children and turned that in to the police it would be unusable?

      Do I think it would be unusable? No. Do I think it should be? Absolutely.

    80. Re:Fruit of the poison tree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is early in the morning and I just woke up, but don't you mean mythical not mystical?

    81. Re:Fruit of the poison tree by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      Wait so your argument is that "you are charged with running drugs because we say you were running drugs" is what the sixth amendment is supposed to mean?

      The language of the amendment is meaningless if that dog hunts

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    82. Re:Fruit of the poison tree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you actually technically required to pay taxes income made from yard sales?

      I'm from Canada and real estate and the sale of personal items, don't count towards personal income tax if they are used. (Provided they were your primary residence and actual personal items - if you were renting them out to make money and then sold it later, that is a separate issue and counts as a capital gain/loss). Technically if you made more from them than you paid initially you are probably required to pay on the gains, but generally that is not the case at yard sales.

      I sold my house for almost 3 times what I bought it as, but since it was my primary residence I didn't have to pay any income tax:

    83. Re:Fruit of the poison tree by Phrogman · · Score: 2

      Which is why the fact that they are building a parallel case should be relevant and should be revealed to the Defense. In essence the use of these parallel cases means the government has the motive to "find" evidence to create a chain of evidence that can be used against the defendant. That is an encouragement to create evidence if it can't be found by other means. That's just wrong, period.

      This also provides and incentive for the prosecution to rely on evidence acquired illegally, and only encourages the surveillance state mentality.

      --
      "The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
    84. Re:Fruit of the poison tree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For example: prosecutorial misconduct on a murder trial should be treated as a crime of: Attempted unlawful lifetime imprisonment, with a possible lifetime prison term for the prosecutor.

      That's funny. You actually think the government would stop using double-definitions of crimes, in order to prosecuted one of it's own thugs no less? Ha.

    85. Re:Fruit of the poison tree by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      The problem is that the DEA takes this one step further. They take investigative measures they're not supposed to, and then try to do the whole "well let's find some legal way to find this."

      That's the issue.

      So? They're only breaking the spirit of the law, not the letter.

      --
      No sig today...
    86. Re:Fruit of the poison tree by TheCarp · · Score: 2

      > But confidential informants, undercover work, legal wiretaps, etc. are all things which should be protected, and
      > for which parallel evidence is a means of doing. In many cases, it is the civilians who are being shielded, not the
      > police.

      If they can't prove a case with real evidence, then they can not bring the case. We are talking about bringing charges against a person who is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Their job is to collect evidence, not to produce a fantasy scene. This is not hollywood.

      It doesn't matter what the intent here, the result is that people are going to jail without the possibility of having a fair trial based upon an entirely fake construction. Not just people and their attourneys but even the prosecution and courts are being presented these fantasies.

      Oh there just happened to be an officer sitting there who claims he saw the car swerve and they "found" all these drugs. How convinenet. Except, its bullshit. The officer never would have been there and never would have picked up another car....his entire report is a fabrication. Perjury.

      We are talking about nothing short of a criminal conspiracy to systematically deny people of their right to a fair trial. Nothing justifies that.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    87. Re:Fruit of the poison tree by naughtynaughty · · Score: 1

      The cop doesn't need a "gut feeling", he only needs to see a violation of the law to have justification for pulling the vehicle over. That he was tailing the vehicle for 30 minutes waiting for that violation because he got a secret tip from the CIA is of no consequence, the US Supreme Court ruled that pretext stops are legal and the real motivation for the stop is irrelevant.

    88. Re:Fruit of the poison tree by Imrik · · Score: 1

      The investigative measures they're not supposed to use are against the letter of the law.

    89. Re:Fruit of the poison tree by davecb · · Score: 2

      That would make it practically impossible to defend yourself against any charges brought against you by a government agency.

      That's exactly what happens in terrorism cases in Canada: the security service swears they have secret evidence, and the Court has to make a decision based on that claim.

      The courts are pushing back, asking that at the very least, the Court, Crown and Solicitors be cleared for the material on which they are to argue. It's contentious: even officers of the court have had to make anonymous comments in the media asking for more transparency.

      --
      davecb@spamcop.net
    90. Re:Fruit of the poison tree by Luthair · · Score: 1

      Though in this instance by the slides the DEA isn't even informing the prosecutor, they're hiding it from everyone even other officers.

    91. Re:Fruit of the poison tree by therealkevinkretz · · Score: 1

      Not exactly correct. The prosecution has to provide the defense any exculpatory evidence it has.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B...

    92. Re:Fruit of the poison tree by RavenLrD20k · · Score: 1

      They're preventing Apple Pie???? CRUCIFY THEM!

    93. Re:Fruit of the poison tree by parkinglot777 · · Score: 1

      You're missing the point

      I still don't see that the point is missing. melstav just directly stated what duckintheface said that it cannot be legally used in court (because the reply from AC implies the direct opposite). However, you are correct and pointing out how they turns illegal into legal way which is further and extend the statement.

      I agree and disagree with you about using the illegally obtained information to legally catch the suspect in the act. The agree part is that they could misuse the information and set up a scenario for the suspect to be caught. A set up is usually set with bias that the suspect is the real criminal. Many of the set ups are playing with human mind and that could easily produce false negative results. The disagree part is that it could really take down the real criminal who knows what he/she is doing and covers his/her trace very well.

    94. Re:Fruit of the poison tree by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 1

      Look up the case of a guy named Ryan Frederick. His house was burgled while he was out one day, and the next day it was raided by the police suspecting there was a marijuana grow operation. The burglar wasn't caught.

      When raided, he had no plants, I don't know if he ever did. He did have Japanese maples.

      If we allow "parallel reconstruction", then police have a different path they can take to investigate crimes, and it's not a pretty path.

    95. Re:Fruit of the poison tree by flatrock · · Score: 1

      Evidence that results from a constitutional violation can't be used in court. Evidence obtained in a manner that breaks legal but not constitutional protections in many cases can be used in court.

      For example, the Supreme Court ruled that you don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy regarding pen register data such as what phone numbers you call and how long you spoke (Smith v Maryland), and the Pen Register Act does not contain an exclusionary rule. So even if the officers gained a pen register for a phone under false pretenses and violate the law in the process, the information is still admissible. The officers could be prosecuted for breaking the law, but the evidence isn't excluded.

      I also believe that the fruit of the poisoned tree is regarding search warrants. It the evidence submitted to the court in order to acquire a search warrant is obtained improperly, then any evidence gathered through that search warrant is excluded. However, I don't believe that the defendant is allowed to challenge every aspect of the investigation regardless of if the information was used in court.

      As for parallel construction, the stated reason for using it is to protect sources where the source might be compromised if the data is used. That doesn't mean the source is illegal, just that the source could be put in danger or is in danger of not being useful in the future if exposed.

      So the source is treated like a tip rather than evidence itself. The authorities use that tip to seek our solid evidence that can be used in court. Authorities get lots of tips that aren't enough to get a warrant by themselves but tell them where to look to gain evidence. As long as the evidence isn't used to get a warrant or used in court, I don't believe the defendant has a right to challenge that data.

    96. Re:Fruit of the poison tree by KingOfBLASH · · Score: 1

      That's not really a good argument even if it was true.

      There's all kinds of big fiascos where this was used (unsuccssfully) to defend what people did, like with Enron, or the subprime mess

    97. Re:Fruit of the poison tree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yes. yes!

      --- your dear leader.

    98. Re:Fruit of the poison tree by KingOfBLASH · · Score: 1

      I don't think you read my post very closely...

      This is slashdot. He probably didn't read your post at all before responding.

    99. Re:Fruit of the poison tree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This shit would stop quick if some of these bastards faced the firing squad on national prime-time television.

      Why would it stop? Executions haven't stopped corruption in China.

    100. Re:Fruit of the poison tree by Taibhsear · · Score: 1

      "Every time a cop has ever testified that he just had a "gut" feeling about a certain car"

      A "gut" feeling is neither probable cause nor reasonable suspicion. Which is why the cop will simply lie and say your tail light was out or you failed to signal a lane change.

      And "Whoops, dashboard camera must be on the fritz again..." right when said event supposedly happened.

    101. Re:Fruit of the poison tree by SleazyRidr · · Score: 1

      Well, not to state the obvious, but you could actually not do the crime!
      Don't [tap the phones].
      And don't [...] plant drugs on [people]. Contrary to popular opinion, its not too hard to go about your life without [violating the constitution].

      FTFY.

    102. Re:Fruit of the poison tree by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      Better yet: if those things need to be protected, protect them further by not using them to prosecute criminals you could stop through ordinary, legal police work. Or that you don't really need to stop at all.

      It's like antibiotic resistance. You preserve antibiotic efficiency by using them only when you need to. Wiretapping for stupid shit like drug offenses is just asking for wiretapping to become useless, on top of skirting the law.

    103. Re:Fruit of the poison tree by SleazyRidr · · Score: 1

      US tax law is pretty fucked up. You need to pay tax on your primary residence. If you're walking down the street and see something shiny, pick it up and decide to keep it, you're required to declare its value as income on your taxes.

    104. Re:Fruit of the poison tree by RobertLTux · · Score: 1

      even better
      Anybody on the State side should be found guilty of the crimes being charged if they can be found guilty of misconduct. Also the minimum sentence in this case should be not less that 75% of the MAXIMUM of the combined sentences.
      this is a great idea for many reasons

      1 Prosecutions would be careful of what they charge a suspect with (stops spaghetti charging)
      2 it scales well
      3 it keeps things inside The Blue Wall honest
      4 This could result in some of the skankier folks having their CAREER END
      5 Its an easy end to folks getting pulled for Driving While %Race%
      6 it could open a gateway for Criminal Charges for some of the shadier types of misconduct
      7 Defense lawyers would LOVE THIS

      Personally i would like to see a misconduct case result in

      1 The case dismissed due to "It is now Impossible to Properly Try this case due to the evidence being tainted"
      2 The persons involved with the tainting be arrested and a Public Notice posted on same (Police Blotter anyone??)
      3 a Notice that the person was cleared of the charges posted in the same place any arrest posting was.

      --
      Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
    105. Re:Fruit of the poison tree by tomkost · · Score: 1

      IANAL, but if the government had some classified evidence, and then they recreated it with illegitimate traffic stops, then the classified evidence itself is exculpatory because it would show that the government used evidence that violates your 4th amendment rights to then create evidence that is probably based on a traffic stop where there is no legitimate probable cause. So the whole thing is some kind of paradox where the government believes their actions allow them to hide the classified intelligence, but those actions actually should require them to disclose it. It's all rather Machiavellian to say the least.

    106. Re:Fruit of the poison tree by rlwhite · · Score: 1

      In that case, they should have to reveal the source to the judge in chambers or closed court or something. There must be a means to prevent abuse even when the public and the defendant aren't privileged to see the full evidence.

    107. Re:Fruit of the poison tree by runeghost · · Score: 1

      That would make it practically impossible to defend yourself against any charges brought against you by a government agency. They would have all this information that they gathered by whatever means are at their disposal, and you'd only have the evidence they presented to be used you and whatever else you are legally able to obtain (within your financial means). There is no way that scenario fits the definition of due process, the government would be practically guaranteed to win every time.

      Well, not to state the obvious, but you could actually not do the crime!
      Don't run the drugs.
      And don't be doing strong arm robbery, or what ever, to get the police so desperate for a way to lock you up that they plant drugs on you. Contrary to popular opinion, its not too hard to go about your life without attracting any police attention.

      As long as you're not a minority and only engage in any status-quo approved activities in public.

    108. Re:Fruit of the poison tree by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

      Sure there is

      and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation;

      . It's in the sixth amendment. Parallel construction can't be legal because it denies you being informed of the cause of the accusation, a possible cause for the accusation domes not count, the Constitution says THE cause.

      The CAUSE of the accusation is that you were running drugs. And that fact came to the attention of law enforcement.

      Guilty until proven innocent? How does that work? We are putting you on trial for running drugs because you ran drugs.

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    109. Re:Fruit of the poison tree by RobertLTux · · Score: 1

      and any defense lawyer worth their suit should be able to ring "Objection Hearsay/ Assumes Facts not in Evidence "

      if the DashCam was out of order 1 why was that rig certified for use?? 2 where is the repair record (with techs sig)

      (and why is it always stated as Dash CAM and not Dash CAMS heck there should be a LEO version of GoogleGlass with red and blue blinky lights and the video dumped to a Google DotGov server farm)

      --
      Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
    110. Re:Fruit of the poison tree by wiredlogic · · Score: 1

      That example isn't a parallel construction. It's basic detective work. If an informant performs their duty to report a crime it is within the purview of a LEA to further investigate. If a LEA uses illegal methods to collect information they can't hide that fact by parallel construction.

      --
      I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
    111. Re:Fruit of the poison tree by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

      If evidence is collected illegally, then the evidence is considered a poisoned tree. Thus using evidence that was from this "tree" is called "poisoned fruit." That would mean that Law Enforcement Officers are "fruits?"

    112. Re:Fruit of the poison tree by phorm · · Score: 1

      Indeed, a "gut" feeling could also be that a person of a certain race/colour was driving a fancy car (which is reality is just racial profiling). More than that should be needed for pulling a stop.

    113. Re: Fruit of the poison tree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't even need cause in most of Florida. Don't need cause anywhere within 100 miles of the border. We don't live in America any more. It doesn't even exist.

    114. Re:Fruit of the poison tree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think it is more that the LEOs (think about that acronym for a moment) are being TRAINED in how to subvert the legal process.

    115. Re:Fruit of the poison tree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      well, gosh, but you DID state the obvious, after all ! ! !
      good thing 'stating the obvious' isn't against the 'law' (whatever that means)...

      you know, when i was 10-12, i was an idiot, too: why not make the punishment for EVERY 'crime' be the death penalty ? ? ?
      then i grew up some...

      urine idjit

    116. Re:Fruit of the poison tree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, there's an important difference between "inadmissible" and its subset "unlawfully-acquired". The DEA wants to pretend that they're the same thing.

    117. Re:Fruit of the poison tree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A LEO may in the course of his or her duties come across information that he can't use.

      Nonsense, officer, the scientific studies and communications satellites in LEO are valuable assets. What are you blithering on about? Oh, and please don't arrest me for asking, but what are you doing at slashdot?

      HINT: The three letter word for "police officer" isn't an acronym. It's spelled "cop". We're nerds here, dufus. LEO is Low Earth Orbit and has nothing to do with law enforcement. Cops enforce the law.

      LEO... sheesh, -1 notanerd

    118. Re:Fruit of the poison tree by icebike · · Score: 1

      You're being ridiculous.
      There will be ample evidence at your trial that you are free to challenge.

      The current discussion is about HOW they got the INITIAL IDEA that you were running drugs.
      Its not about what additional evidence they turn up in their subsequent investigation.

      Its impossible to write a law listing all the legal means by which police can initially acquire the vague idea that you might be involved in running drugs, if for no other reason than you can never know the content of their brain.

      Because that is what you are trying to control, not where the investigation take you after the police get a lead to the effect that you were running drugs. You are trying to control what they happened to come across in their daily lives.

      The problem isn't that police follow up on leads. We pay them to do that.
      The problem is that the Government has information that they have no business collecting, and your congressmen decided that was a good idea, and you re-elected them.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    119. Re:Fruit of the poison tree by Fnord666 · · Score: 1

      Not all evidence is admissable in court. Evidence that is illegally obtainted can't be used in a prosecution. And any resulting evidence (like from a traffic stop as described in the article) is excluded as fruit of the poisoned tree

      The underlying assumption that everyone seems to be making is that the original evidence was gathered illegally. That is often not the case. The concern the presentation is addressing is that entering the evidence into a court proceeding could compromise classified sources or methods. An alternate but valid evidence trail is then found that will hold up in court without compromising the classified details. That doesn't in any way imply that the original chain of evidence was gathered illegally.

      --
      'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
    120. Re:Fruit of the poison tree by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

      And if that evidence is illegally collected, it should be thrown out. "But we just know he is guilty, and we cant tell you why we know because national security" is the excuse of the NSA.

      Yeah, I know it sucks that this will let some criminals go free, but not holding law enforcement accountable is what led us to the erosion of freedoms we all currently have.

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    121. Re:Fruit of the poison tree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am afraid that this is the the reason that the DEA doesn't report these procedures to the prosecutor. From your second source:

      The prosecutor must disclose

      If he doesn't know then he can't disclose. It just takes the rule breaking up a notch to see if that can squeeze by the SC.

    122. Re:Fruit of the poison tree by iluvcapra · · Score: 1

      "Exculpatory" means "shows you didn't do the thing." It doesn't mean "can get your case dismissed by dint of rules of evidence."

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
    123. Re:Fruit of the poison tree by iluvcapra · · Score: 1
      Not at all. The 6th amendments means you can't be brought up on a secret indictment, or no indictment at all. A grand jury has to conclude there's enough evidence to support the contention that you were running drugs, and they hand up the indictment.

      If they've got a picture of you running drugs, they've got the evidence. How they knew to put a camera on that particular street corner that day isn't "the cause for your indictment."

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
    124. Re:Fruit of the poison tree by iluvcapra · · Score: 1

      And if that evidence is illegally collected, it should be thrown out.

      That's reasonable, but that's not in the Constitution.

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
    125. Re:Fruit of the poison tree by iluvcapra · · Score: 1

      Yeah, none of this seems to conflict with parallel construction. Brady disclosure doesn't require disclosing a parallel construction of evidence -- the fact that evidence was obtained from an NSA wiretap doesn't make it "exculpatory," unless the wiretap shows you didn't do the thing. Evidence isn't exculpatory because of how it was gotten, it's exculpatory because of what it says; as the wiki says "material to guilt or punishment." The illegality of a wiretap is not material to your guilt.

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
    126. Re:Fruit of the poison tree by MBC1977 · · Score: 1

      Sigh...LEO = Law Enforcement Officer

      --
      Regards,

      MBC1977,
    127. Re:Fruit of the poison tree by mdielmann · · Score: 1

      Do you really think that if you broke into some house, stole a computer, found hundred of horrible child porn photos of the house owner molesting children and turned that in to the police it would be unusable?

      Under normal rules, if a private citizen did that, it would be perfectly admissible. If they did it at the behest of the government, whether it be police, DA, or others, then it isn't.

      Or, playing the think of the children card the other way, would you prefer the police to not be able to enter a house where a kidnapper is holding a child because they heard about it from a burglar of that house?

      --
      Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
    128. Re:Fruit of the poison tree by mysidia · · Score: 1

      Come to think of it.... there are two more things I would like to add:

      +Add: The defendant can make and prosecute an allegation of prosecutorial misconduct, and compel the state to participate ---- in other words: no prosecutorial discretion for the district attorney to refuse to prosecute, if someone in their office is to be charged with this misconduct.

      +Add: For any case, in which the defendant was found guilty, OR, in which there was a suspicion of conduct, an panel of outside reviewers, should be appointed to review ALL evidence and records of any sort that BOTH, law enforcement, and the prosecution has access to.

      The reviewer should manually select (within their full discretion) a random set of cases for additional extensive scrutiny. The guilty verdict shall be null and void, if the reviewer finds misconduct, or if the reviewer finds a clear misrepresentation, or pertinent evidence was not disclosed to the defense.

      Further review processes, and occasional random audits to weed out any potential corruption or abuses, and ensure that abuses are reported to the public and prosecuted, should be a daily activity, and at least 10% of every prosecutor's cases should be subject to reviews.

    129. Re:Fruit of the poison tree by almechist · · Score: 1

      The Court has also ruled that the exclusionary rule goes out the window if the evidence was obtained, even illegally, by a private citizen. Purely coincidentally, law enforcement agencies have a penchant for using confidential informants.

      Yes, and in fact the DEA actually has a pay scale for informants, whereby a snitch gets so much for a street dealer, more for a large distributor, and truly staggering amounts for a "kingpin". They have many so-called informants who do nothing but travel the country looking for opportunities to make the big money infiltrating cartels and gangs. Some of these professional C.I.s have been documented as regularly making 6-figure yearly paychecks. Now ask yourself, how are these so-called informants working regularly and permanently with the DEA any different from DEA agents? They are in fact employees, regardless of how the DEA would like to spin it, and thus they are agents of the government. A tip from a true street informant trying desperately to keep his ass out of jail is one thing, but making big money continually infiltrating drug rings for the government is something else entirely. These people are working for the DEA, they are not confidential informants, and do not deserve the protections normally given to a C.I.

    130. re:fruit of the poison tree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or because it's easier to take two years instead of paying thousands of dollars to defend against every charge they can think of to rack up the maximum sentence.

      It's like getting told you can contest your speeding ticket, but then they'll also charge you with terrorism.

    131. Re:Fruit of the poison tree by Reziac · · Score: 1

      U.S. Code, Title 18, Sections 241 and 242.

      Text of the law:
      http://www.lneilsmith.org/18us...

      In layman's terms:
      https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/i...

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    132. Re:Fruit of the poison tree by Etherwalk · · Score: 1

      that's prosecutorial misconduct and gets convictions overturned when the courts catch them.

      That's one thing, BUT it's not persuasive enough.

      The prosecutor should get serious jail time over such misconduct, dependant on the gravity of the case.

      For example: prosecutorial misconduct on a murder trial should be treated as a crime of:
      Attempted unlawful lifetime imprisonment, with a possible lifetime prison term for the prosecutor.

      I would suggest the sentence should be more dependent on the willfulness of the misconduct. Intentional misconduct should absolutely result in serious jail time.

      Ultimately, however, this is something that the courts could not do alone--they would need support from Congress or state government, who could set up a system of special prosecutors to investigate.

    133. Re:Fruit of the poison tree by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Hearsay is admissible in court. There are some restrictions around it, but a cop is *never* bound by the rules of court. If they think someone is in imminent danger, they should act on it, even if that taints the court case later. In most cases, if they honestly believed a crime was in progress, there's little they could do that would jeapordize the court case.

      The problem isn't street cops that heard someone say they heard someone say something else, then arrests them (which should be fine in court, but possibly hard to convict on), but when a cop illegally searches something, finds illegal drugs, then puts them back, knowing he broke the law. Later, he tips off another cop to pull the guy over for a broken tailight, and claim to have "smelled something" then perform the search and find the illegal substance.

      IF the first search is known, and the connection to the second search is known, the second search is still illegal fruit. But if you hide the first search and its connection to the second, then it's "legal" (in that it's admissible, it's still illegal, but who's going to press the issue?).

    134. Re:Fruit of the poison tree by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      If you do something, and don't get arrested for it, then it was legal. What they are doing must, therefore, be legal. After all, when the President does it, it isn't illegal.

    135. Re:Fruit of the poison tree by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      If a LEA uses illegal methods to collect information they can't hide that fact by parallel construction.

      Why not? Lets make up a story. I'm a cop. I search every car I stop, even without cause. I find cocain in a guy's car one day. I put it back and waive him on. I call up Bob, also a cop. I give him the "suspect's" address and tell him to pull him over soon after he leaves home the next day. Bob pulls him over at the end of the block for "failure to come to a complete stop" when the suspect did come to a complete stop. Bob then asks to search the car. The suspect refuses. Bob then calls out the dog squad to sniff the car (no, you don't even need reasonable suspicion to hold someone roadside for a dog search). IF that doesn't work, Bob will assert reasonable suspicion from the suspects nervous manner, and search the car. The cocaine found would then be a legal search (based on today's court rulings), so long as nobody links my previous search with Bob's actions.

      That's parallel construction. Using the fruit, but in a manner than hides illegal acts by the investigators.

    136. Re:Fruit of the poison tree by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      You missed a good complaint. The plea system is torture. Threatening someone with worse consequences if they don't do what you demand is torture. And that's what a plea is.

    137. Re:Fruit of the poison tree by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      And don't be doing strong arm robbery, or what ever, to get the police so desperate for a way to lock you up that they plant drugs on you. Contrary to popular opinion, its not too hard to go about your life without attracting any police attention.

      And your suggestion for persecuted minorities? Many have an issue with run ins when not trying to attract attention. http://gawker.com/black-man-ar... He should have stopped working, as it obviously got the attention of the police?

    138. Re:Fruit of the poison tree by q4Fry · · Score: 1

      It's contentious: even officers of the court have had to make anonymous comments in the media asking for more transparency.

      I would really like a citation. This is intriguing, and I'm curious how you would know about it if they were anonymous.

    139. Re:Fruit of the poison tree by davecb · · Score: 1

      Sure: http://www.slaw.ca/2013/07/30/...

      Reaching a Proper Balance
      by "Abe Edric", guest blogger

      Editor’s note: What follows is unique on Slaw, in that it is a pseudonymous post. We have entertained many pseudonymous comments, but not a column or blog entry. I do not expect this rarity to be repeated. The writer is a Canadian public sector litigator who prefers to remain anonymous to emphasize that the views expressed are not purported to be those of his employer. His identity is known to me. The writer and I are aware of the irony in writing pseudonymously about a government spying on its citizens...

      --
      davecb@spamcop.net
    140. Re:Fruit of the poison tree by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 1

      The fact that the wiretap is illegal is itself exculpatory and MUST be revealed in discovery or the conviction is a criminal conspiracy rewarded.

    141. Re:Fruit of the poison tree by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 1

      The "inevitability" defense must be discarded if the chain leading to this "inevitability" requires the illegal act of wiretapping, that is, unless you already had a reasonable suspicion of THAT person, any later legal discovery is poisoned by the wiretap to begin with.

  7. ten bucks says it was just some snitch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    but they want everyone to think high tech big brother sees all, knows all...

    1. Re:ten bucks says it was just some snitch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That's how the cops and prosecutors work. They'll stick a colander on your head and call it a lie detector, ring a bell when you say something they don't like and see if you crack. They'll swear up and down in courtrooms (remember, the prosecutor isn't sworn in) that DNA evidence is proof beyond a shadow of a doubt, but as soon as someone has DNA evidence showing the accused is innocent (especially if the accused is already convicted, doubly so if the prosecutor's star witness "misspoke" on the stand about that very same DNA evidence), suddenly they go off about their gut feelings and wax philosophical about just what truth is.

      Thing is though: they really, really hate being lied to, so we'll have to see just what they think about the DEA hiding things from them.

  8. ok but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    US Attorneys are NOT officers of the court

    They are part of the executive

    1. Re:ok but by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      Even more so then, if they are keeping them in the dark you know it's got to be illegal.

    2. Re:ok but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's called plausible deniability.

  9. Re:This is quite the dilema by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The DEA also have a presentation on how to void the slashdot beta site.

    captcha: rimjob

  10. Cheaters by Avidiax · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The underlying problem here is that prohibition is a failed policy, and yet another form of moral panic.

    As such, the DEA has an impossible task (enforcing the failed policy), and yet also knows that everything they do to enforce that policy is Right (justified by the moral panic).

    Hence, they will cheat once, they will cheat always, they will make deals with the Devil, just to "win".

    And this is the modus operandi for an organization that operates a fleet of drones.

    1. Re:Cheaters by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      The DEA is useless, their only job is to make sure drugs have a high street price to make organized crime rich. Users will use, so let's at least get tax from it.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    2. Re:Cheaters by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Indeed. And hence they become a fundamentally evil organization, seemingly for all the right reasons. This has happened before, numerous times in fact.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  11. The Revolution will NOT be televised by Crypto+Gnome · · Score: 2

    In the end revolution occurs because, eventually, enough people completely lose faith in their government.

    Unfortunately for most values of John Q US Citizen, nobody has the balls for it any more.

    That doesn't mean there WILL NOT be a revolution

    But rather that it's building up a MUCH bigger head of steam, and when it does eventually blow (most likely due to some kind of global disaster which impacts The US) it will be one appallingly unholy holocaust.

    --
    Visit CryptoGnome in his home.
    1. Re:The Revolution will NOT be televised by Luthair · · Score: 2

      Shame it isn't televised, the general population might notice.

    2. Re:The Revolution will NOT be televised by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They think it's a new scripted reality show, nothing more.

    3. Re:The Revolution will NOT be televised by faraway · · Score: 1

      Thanks.  I'm sure people will catch it on Youtube, after watching the latest Biebersode.

    4. Re:The Revolution will NOT be televised by speckman · · Score: 0

      Hahaha.

      Revolution in the US is a big deal. I mean it's sort of happening in the Ukraine, Thailand, Syria, etc. so it does definitely happen in a lot of countries at any given time, even if it's not just or justified or what-have-you. But in the US, the scale of revolution it would take to overthrow this government... it's humongous, and it's going against an extremely entrenched apparatus designed to not let that happen, in place since at least the 60s but probably the 40s and, oh, the Civil War. The US is basically the strongest military, the biggest empire, the center of propaganda (hollywood, NY, publishing, newspapers, magazines, etc. .. advertising for sure, but basically the sort of American imperialist worldview, naively thinking it's about democracy, promulgated via our media, and making big bucks doing so.). It's big. It's really big. And there's a lot going on to make sure its citizens don't revolt. This probably includes the existence of the Democrat and Republican parties.

      But Lord, I want to see a revolution. I'm not saying it wouldn't be an awful thing, but there's some amazingly corrupt forces at work here in the states, and honestly, much of the planet would be better off with a new government over here. And like the parent poster said, it ain't happening yet, but it's building up steam. The smart thing to do, if you're in government, would be to preempt this and, oh, I don't know, make some meaningful legislation, modify some of our practices, foreign policy, etc. .. BUT IT KEEPS NOT HAPPENING, over and over, throughout the decades. LOL! So yeah, it just never seems likely to happen.

      But would it mean death in the streets? Blood, broken bodies... For now, people vent this shit in forums. Forums, where yeah, I guess we share these opinions, but not much is actually done. It's diverted. In some places, like Egypt, facebook revolution calls turned into real revolution. That's some powerful shit. That's why I say stupid shit in my facebook feed. :) But the US is special. We are immunized, innoculated, propagandized, managed into not having a revolution, and have been for a very long time.

      But if it ever happens, it'll be its own chapter in history books a thousand years hence. (Not that they'll be reading books. :)) It's such a big deal. And it's inertia. If it wasn't so hard and so necessary maybe or such a big deal, it would have happened in like 2003 or 1963, etc. If it wasn't so diverted into the dual party camps. And it seems to me that a nation full of really smart people, the source of such amazing ingenuity, could form a government and system suitable for its time, up to date, with liberties and rights and responsibilities and allowances for all, all making sense, something suitable for the 21st century where we can talk about revolution, across the planet, instantly, and get auto-read by bots while doing so, files updated, etc. :) Which is all to kinda say that there are peaceful ways to go about this, like constitutional conventions, third parties, election boycotts, etc. It's got to be big though. So far, it all gets sucked into the uselessness of politics as usual and protest against the same... this time with snarky gifs and hashtags. And if it takes two decades for this to happen, we all know how bad this surveillance stuff etc. is going to be, knowing what it was a decade ago and is now. This is some intense shit, and when it blows, it may be fully justified in going kabloom. And then we'll have a new country. And killer robots. :) Which is the truth and honestly part of the problem.

    5. Re:The Revolution will NOT be televised by speckman · · Score: 0

      the other minor part of the problem being I'm drinking wine while posting to slashdot. :) And so making a bit less sense as time wore on there, a few edits and deletes later... :) hahaha

    6. Re:The Revolution will NOT be televised by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No need to explain, son - your post got the modding it deserved.

    7. Re:The Revolution will NOT be televised by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately for most values of John Q US Citizen, nobody has the balls for it any more.

      It's not a matter of balls, it's a matter of believing that whatever replaces it will be better. Not only does it have to be better, it has to be enough better to risk your life for.

      So far YOU haven't given any ideas that good, and neither has anyone else. That's why there's no revolution. So start coming up with a good idea.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    8. Re:The Revolution will NOT be televised by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the end revolution occurs because, eventually, enough people completely lose faith in their government.

      The way the revolution will happen will be likely the same way that the German people ended fascism: lose a war after the government has turned completely insane and megalomaniac. Then find a few dozen responsible people to execute, and every survivor has somehow been part of the resistance, wouldn't you know. It actually worked even better in occupied France: there everybody was "resistance" so much that they don't even need to be ashamed of having something like the "Front National" get majorities nowadays. Because, you know, fascism did not happen in France. It was all the others. So it's fine to hate foreigners. Because we always hated them properly.

      And frankly, the "electoral system" of the U.S. is so far removed from providing the populace with actual democratic control that it is time for an externally controlled reboot along democratic principles.

      This system will refuse to cleanse itself.

    9. Re:The Revolution will NOT be televised by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately for most values of John Q US Citizen, nobody has the balls for it any more.

      It's not a matter of balls, it's a matter of believing that whatever replaces it will be better. Not only does it have to be better, it has to be enough better to risk your life for.

      So far YOU haven't given any ideas that good, and neither has anyone else. That's why there's no revolution. So start coming up with a good idea.

      Sitting on your ass collecting welfare checks for every kid you pop out was never a good idea, yet millions subscribe to the belief that doing exactly that is not only the right thing to do, but also somehow deserve it.

      Don't give me this simplistic bullshit. This answer isn't easy, nor summarized in a sentence or two. Otherwise, we would have done it already.

  12. Even more troubling by oodaloop · · Score: 1

    Is thinking this is new, when it's a dupe.

    --
    Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
    1. Re:Even more troubling by n1ywb · · Score: 1

      It's not a dupe, it's new information, as in the whole fucking powerpoint deck.

      --
      -73, de n1ywb
      www.n1ywb.com
  13. Moral of the story... by Lumpy · · Score: 2

    The whole system is corrupt from the bottom up. The best thing is to do your damndest to stay out of the system and become a person of interest because they will do anything to get you. The Law is not something they pay attention to.

    Understand that, LAW enforcement and judicial are above the law, You can not win if you play their game.

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    1. Re:Moral of the story... by dkf · · Score: 1

      LAW enforcement and judicial are above the law

      You're doing it wrong.

      --
      "Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
    2. Re:Moral of the story... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's because the citizens of this country are all pussies.

    3. Re:Moral of the story... by bughunter · · Score: 1

      The whole system is corrupt from the bottom up.

      ... which makes the whole concept of a "Taint Review Team" hilarious in more than one sense: one ironic and one... well, just unfortunate.

      --
      I can see the fnords!
  14. Re:FUCK the D.E.A. by slick7 · · Score: 0

    FUCK the D.E.A. ..|..

    The DEA is the counterpart of the CIA, the CIA gets its heroin from the US military protected Afghanistan and makes money selling it to the American people. The DEA then goes in and busts the users of the CIA heroin and makes more money. What happens to the confiscated heroin? It goes back on the street to be sold once again.
    The purpose of drug enforcement should be busting the major drug dealers (the CIA) and not the users, heroin is a self-cleaning oven, the users will do themselves in. But since there is so much money in illicit drugs, the crooked government agencies in collusion with the banksters and the rubber-stamping politicians make it impossible to seek justice. Lenin said that justice comes from the of a barrel.

    --
    The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
  15. Complete deck, without reader by ciurana · · Score: 4, Informative

    Hi.

    Here's the complete presentation deck without the annoying reader:


    for ((n = 1;n <= 276;n++))
    do
            wget "https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/1011382/pages/responsive-documents-p$n-normal.gif"
    done

    Cheers!

    --
    http://eugeneciurana.com | http://ciurana.eu
    1. Re:Complete deck, without reader by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Excellent -- thank you. I had to add --no-check-certificate for wget to pull the files. Well done!

    2. Re:Complete deck, without reader by kbonin · · Score: 4, Informative
    3. Re:Complete deck, without reader by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Method #3: Use FISA (apparently, we're not even blanking out parts of the pages and telling you why we blanked them out. Maybe we're not even allowed to photocopy the pages in order to blank them out :)"

    4. Re:Complete deck, without reader by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You should be careful with this. Someone might you a hax0r hacking into teh amazon tubes.

  16. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 4, Informative

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  17. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  18. ex parte Garland ruled they're officers of the cou by raymorris · · Score: 4, Informative

    They are officers of the court, and not of the executive. This was made explicit by ex parte Garland shortly after the civil war.

  19. Taint Review Team by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I would *not* want *that* job...

  20. We've known this since August by Nerrd · · Score: 1

    But it is nice to know they are responding to relevant FOIA requests. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/...

  21. Just another reason to abolish the DEA by blindseer · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I'm trying to figure out why the DEA even exists. I know it exists to enforce drug laws but that is not what I mean. I found out a couple interesting facts about the DEA. One is that the DEA shares jurisdiction with the FBI. Any crime the DEA investigates the FBI can also investigate. That was something undoubtedly enacted to smooth over the politics of creating a new federal law enforcement agency.

    Another interesting fact is that the DEA shares authority with the FDA on the classification of drugs. I'm not quite sure on how this authority is shared but the DEA has some sort of say in how the Controlled Substances Act is applied to new and existing drugs.

    So, what does the DEA actually do that some other federal agency cannot? Apparently it can violate our rights and get away with it. It seems to me that the FBI somehow keeps itself above this crap. Perhaps its because the DEA is so good at violating our rights that the FBI lets them do the dirty work. Perhaps it's because the FBI is too busy investigating murders, assaults, rapes, arson, thefts, and so on (you know, "real" crimes) that they don't have to resort to such depths to keep busy.

    The way things are going now with the federal government turning a blind eye to violations of federal prohibitions on marijuana trade I suspect we are going to see marijuana reclassified under the Controlled Substances Act in less than five years. It might not be complete legalization and getting dropped from all controls but something has to change. I see marijuana getting federal control somewhere between alcohol and tobacco (getting carded upon purchase, high taxes, etc.) and Tylenol (strict laws on labeling, purity controls, but generally over the counter).

    I recall that the DEA gets most of its arrests and convictions from marijuana. When (not if, it's going to happen) marijuana laws change the DEA is going to have a real hard time justifying its own existence.

    --
    I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    1. Re:Just another reason to abolish the DEA by stox · · Score: 1

      They got that covered, they'll change names to the Hacker Enforcement Agency. Problem solved.

      --
      "To those who are overly cautious, everything is impossible. "
    2. Re:Just another reason to abolish the DEA by swb · · Score: 2

      I have a feeling they're going to get scared of losing their empire and will trump up some kind of hype that will cause them to swoop in and invalidate state level legalization. There has been hype lately about THC confections and children in emergency rooms, I suspect that it will be this kind of avenue used.

      The FBI spent years working its way out of the woodshed after the revelations of COINTELPRO, black bag jobs, and all the abuses of the Hoover era. They probably don't want to go back.

      About the best saving grace for the DEA would be turning it into some kind of counter-terrorism arm focused on narcotics-financed terrorism. There's some legitimate ability there, since they've worked pretty hard at tracking dirty money and drugs in a lot of places.

    3. Re:Just another reason to abolish the DEA by pete6677 · · Score: 2

      Public opinion is turning sharply towards favoring legalization of marijuana. If the DEA did what you said and swooped in, that would backfire big. Congressmen would be talking about chopping the DEA's budget down to basically nothing, because its what the people would want to hear.

    4. Re:Just another reason to abolish the DEA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought most narcotics-funded terrorist organizations were in the past, or are currently, patronized by the US government. A prime example here would be the Contras that Reagan was officially unaware that his administration was supporting (yeah right).

      I could be wrong but it seems to me that under modern whitewashing-protocol parameters nobody in D.C. would actually want them to do what you suggest. For one thing, it would highlight the phenomena of all those *other* narco-terrorists they don't chase. Another is that they would be reviving the 'tinfoil hat crowd' hypotheses about the DEA being responsible for a substantial amount of drug smuggling and distribution to the US. A third would be that they would either be useless or they would make the DHS and TSA look bad by actually catching more terrorists than they had.

    5. Re:Just another reason to abolish the DEA by some+old+guy · · Score: 1

      The DEA exists for three reasons:

      1. Present a "tough on crime" Potemkin village to the drooling voter masses.

      2. Provide a clandestine conduit for diplomatic/economic ties to certain unsavory groups/persons.

      3. Pork-barrel make-work for the buzz-cut Wyatt Earp types and their cronies in the legal and prison systems.

      Everything else is bullshit.

      --
      Scruting the inscrutable for over 50 years.
    6. Re:Just another reason to abolish the DEA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When (not if, it's going to happen) marijuana laws change the DEA is going to have a real hard time justifying its own existence.

      Stop assuming. We have a hell of a long way to go with marijuana laws. Even as we stand with two states legalizing consumption outright, I still laugh at your idea that the federal government will ever change it's classification of marijuana. We've been thinking that for over 70 fucking years while over a dozen states legalized it for medical use. You fail to understand the impact. They know they're going to have a "real hard time", which is why marijuana laws at the federal level won't ever change. Too many jobs rely on it now.

    7. Re:Just another reason to abolish the DEA by swb · · Score: 1

      It's the CIA that's had its hands dirty with drug smuggling -- heroin in Indochina, coke for the Contras, and hashish for the the anti-Soviet Taliban in the 1980s.

      They did work against the FARC and its role in coke production in Columbia, they could focus on Taliban heroin once the US military leaves Afghanistan; the military has avoided doing anything about Afghani opium production because it works against their counter-insurgency mission.

      My guess that having them focus on overseas narco-funded terrorism would be a precursor to just rolling them into DHS.

    8. Re:Just another reason to abolish the DEA by swb · · Score: 1

      I mostly share your optimism, but I don't think public opinion has shifted far enough to prevent the DEA from using negative publicity to try to close them down.

      A lot will depend on the position that Hillary Clinton takes during the 2016 election cycle. If she blesses the current arrangement and gets elected, it will probably stay. If she doesn't or a Republican gets elected (except for maybe Christie), they could turn the tide.

      It will take significant congressional action towards reclassifying cannabis to really make a guaranteed change and that seems unlikely in a Republican controlled House.

    9. Re:Just another reason to abolish the DEA by dbIII · · Score: 1

      I thought most narcotics-funded terrorist organizations were in the past

      The Taliban and AQ were that for a while and may still be. There may be others but I'm sure you've heard of those, they are infamous.
      Quite funny in a black humour way since the Taliban started by killing off poppy farmers for growing opium and then went on to be financed by them.

    10. Re:Just another reason to abolish the DEA by Bookworm09 · · Score: 1

      It seems to me that the FBI somehow keeps itself above this crap.

      If you really think they don't do it at least as often, think again. Just because you haven't read about it in the news (yet), doesn't mean it's not happening every day.

    11. Re:Just another reason to abolish the DEA by blindseer · · Score: 2

      As I understand the law the House removed itself from the process of scheduling drugs decades ago. The Controlled Substances Act granted the DEA and FDA authority to schedule drugs. As I recall the FDA has been trying to do research into the potential medical uses of marijuana for a very long time, likely ever since marijuana was banned. So far the DEA has only allowed that for a very limited time and for very few test cases. A change in that policy would require either the head of the DEA has a change of mind, or the head of the DEA is exchanged for someone that would allow for rescheduling marijuana. The President can appoint someone to that position, and the Senate would have to approve.

      I don't believe that the Republicans are willing to expend a whole lot of political capital on fighting rescheduling marijuana. A quick Google search tells me that between 1/3 and 1/2 of Republicans would support lifting the prohibitions on marijuana. Assuming the Republicans do want to keep marijuana illegal, they'd have to pass a law to keep the Democrats from doing so. That law would have to get past the Democrat controlled Senate and White House.

      If I'm wrong and it would take legislation to make marijuana legal again it still leaves the Democrats in charge. The Senate can propose a bill and it'd only take a handful of Republicans to go along to get it through the House. Every two years the entire House comes up for elections, and a majority of Americans support legalizing marijuana. If the Republicans want to retain control of the House then I suspect a few of them will have to vote with their constituents to stay in office. I'm not so sure how Obama would react if such a bill landed on his desk but I suspect he'd reschedule marijuana so he can get out of the corner he's painted himself into.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    12. Re:Just another reason to abolish the DEA by blindseer · · Score: 1

      Yes, law enforcement jobs rely on keeping marijuana illegal. The problem is that the prolonged recession we've had has left the government with not enough revenue to pay their wages. What the states have figured out is that by legalizing marijuana they get both more revenue (through taxing marijuana sales) and reduced spending (fewer potheads in jail means fewer jailors required).

      I recall that one aspect that ended the prohibition of alcohol was the Great Depression placing similar forces on the government. Enforcing Prohibition required spending on law enforcement and no revenue from the black market alcohol trade. Legal alcohol means less spending on enforcement and more tax revenue.

      Yes, it's been 70 years since marijuana has been made illegal. A lot of little things have changed since then. One of those little things is that there are now jobs that rely on non-enforcement of marijuana prohibitions. If the DEA wants to act on that prohibition then they should expect a reaction from the people that are now making money on marijuana. Those people vote.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    13. Re:Just another reason to abolish the DEA by mdielmann · · Score: 1

      It seems to me that the FBI somehow keeps itself above this crap. Perhaps its because the DEA is so good at violating our rights that the FBI lets them do the dirty work. Perhaps it's because the FBI is too busy investigating murders, assaults, rapes, arson, thefts, and so on (you know, "real" crimes) that they don't have to resort to such depths to keep busy.

      I know it's been a while, but have you heard of this guy Hoover?

      --
      Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
    14. Re:Just another reason to abolish the DEA by swb · · Score: 1

      I suspect it would take some kind of omnibus bill which repealed all the various laws which criminalize marijuana in different ways.

      For some reason, I don't think congress was smart enough to define a macro in drug legislation that just says "controlled substances" and once you remove marijuana from the list of controlled substances, it's no longer illegal. I'm sure there are plenty of laws referring to controlled substances, too, but plenty of specific legislation.

  22. This! by Burz · · Score: 2

    This is why you just don't let TPTB--in whatever combination of governments or corporations--collect the mundane and fine details of your life... because the twin sister of the "parallel construction" is the "fishing expedition".

    And neither of these demons permits the herded ones to stare back; They are a pat-and-proven recipe for the inversion of healthy private-vs-open interrelationships.

  23. Kudos! by Burz · · Score: 1

    I've long wanted a way to get around those applet-things.

    1. Re:Kudos! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      May I introduce you to NoScript?

  24. Two words: by MobSwatter · · Score: 1

    Plausible Deniability, it's not just for presidents anymore!

  25. Parallel sentances by WaffleMonster · · Score: 1

    I would be ok with the practice if everyone who does it went to jail along with the person they bust. Even if the suspect is ultimately found not guilty the parallel constructionist should still go to jail.

  26. "could have" citation? by raymorris · · Score: 1, Interesting

    > All this evidence, collected this way, is admissable because it could have been discovered

    The ccops illegally tap your phone line and hear about a pot deal.
    What did not happen is that a a K9 officer COULD HAVE been taking the dog out for a walk when they just happened to walk by a car full of pot. That didn't happen, but it could have.

    If I'm understanding you correctly, you are claiming that the cops can search the vehicle and it's not fruit of a poisonous tree because they could have stumbled upon it. They didn't, but they could have. Do you have a citation for that? In all of American jurisprudence has any appeals court held that it's okay to violate the Constitution because they could have not violated it? I know a certain "law professor" (who never taught law) who might believe that, but has the court ever ruled such?

    1. Re:"could have" citation? by Frobnicator · · Score: 5, Informative

      > All this evidence, collected this way, is admissable because it could have been discovered

      The ccops illegally tap your phone line and hear about a pot deal. What did not happen is that a a K9 officer COULD HAVE been taking the dog out for a walk when they just happened to walk by a car full of pot. That didn't happen, but it could have.

      If I'm understanding you correctly, you are claiming that the cops can search the vehicle and it's not fruit of a poisonous tree because they could have stumbled upon it. They didn't, but they could have. Do you have a citation for that? In all of American jurisprudence has any appeals court held that it's okay to violate the Constitution because they could have not violated it? I know a certain "law professor" (who never taught law) who might believe that, but has the court ever ruled such?

      And that is precisely the difficulty around parallel construction.

      The government cannot withhold potentially exculpatory evidence. In the late 1960s, right after the SCOTUS decided the Brady case, prosecutors gave quite a lot of information to defendants. Over the years prosecutors and judges have taken progressively stricter interpretations to the point where they routinely withhold everything again, only handing over the minimum that they think might fall under Brady and often only if the defense uses very specifically worded discovery demands. If the prosecutors can argue that they didn't think it was material evidence, or argue that the discovery demand wasn't quite specific enough, they can get away with it. And since the defense doesn't know about the evidence (as it was withheld from them) they almost always get away with it.

      In very recent time, perhaps the last 18 months or so, there has been a surge in claims of withheld exculpatory evidence, and judges are increasingly more sympathetic to defendants during discovery. There have been quite a few major cases where prosecutors realize that maybe some of the evidence might have been potentially exculpatory, but often their excuses are enough to keep judges from dismissing the case outright. Both behaviors are changing, and we have multiple cases going right now in my state that are currently on the fast track for the state supreme court where evidence was "accidentally" withheld (except some leaked information shows it was quite intentional as the defense 'would never know') but prosecutors and judges had a wink-and-a-nod when it was discovered to be "accidentally" withheld. (There is a very active public debate about this right now; since prosecutors are immune for these violations and they are kept employed based on their results rather than fairness, they have every incentive to break the law with impunity.)

      Parallel construction is nearly impossible to detect, and if discovered is subject to the exclusionary rules. Depending on the nature of the construction and the interpretation of the judge, it could exclude no evidence, some evidence, or be enough to cause the case to be dismissed entirely. The problem is that when it happens you don't have any evidence that it happened. Prosecutors and officers might not even know it happened, since groups like the DEA use anonymous tips to police for the construction. Even though the entire case might be tainted enough for dismissal, it is possible nobody directly involved (even the police and prosecutors) know about the unlawfulness because it was laundered through anonymous reporting systems.

      --
      //TODO: Think of witty sig statement
    2. Re:"could have" citation? by icebike · · Score: 1

      You are over thinking this. (I suspect you watch too much TV).

      The dog will sniff out your car as you park it on the street.
      Or maybe your shoes as you walk down the street.

      Dog hits in public places are legal probable cause.

      WHY was the dog sniffing around that street need not be justified by anything more than Routine Patrol and training.
      (regardless of that phone call from the DEA that suggested 2nd Ave would be a good place to train).

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    3. Re:"could have" citation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I'm understanding you correctly, you are claiming that the cops can search the vehicle and it's not fruit of a poisonous tree because they could have stumbled upon it.

      Sounds more like Electricity Likes Me is saying that the cops still need to actually stumble upon it. That means that once they know about your pot possession from the illegal wiretap, they still need to actually take the dog on an ordinary* walk that just so happens to pass by your car. When/If the dog reacts, then they can search your car. If the dog does not react, then they cannot.

      Personally, I think as long as proper disciplinary action was performed on the officers involved in the initial illegal operation, I think I would be ok with such evidence being admissible.

      *I would hope that it would still need to be proved that the dog walk was not done for the sole purpose of detecting the pot. For example, that the dog is normally walked along that path at that time.

  27. Sigh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    FrandkDrebbin-NothingToSeeHereMoveAlong.jpg

  28. Omitting Stuff from a Warrant by MarkvW · · Score: 1

    Search warrants, arrest warrants, and indictments are based on sworn statements. It's obstruction of justice to lie on those sworn statements.

    1. Re:Omitting Stuff from a Warrant by Eskarel · · Score: 1

      True, but beside the point, this isn't fruit of the poisoned tree, it's parallel construction.

      This is where you have no admissible evidence against a person, but you know they did it, so you send a police officer to follow them(which is legal in public) or you make a routine traffic stop in states where there is no probable cause requirement for such a thing. You can't get a warrant so you can't search their home or for the most part their car, but you can sure as heck tail them around. It's identical to any case you might encounter but instead of "having a deep suspicion" that someone is guilty, they actually know they are. In the end though if they can't come up with other evidence you walk, just like any other crime.

    2. Re:Omitting Stuff from a Warrant by naughtynaughty · · Score: 1

      They aren't lying on the search warrants. You don't understand how parallel construction works.

  29. if the courts catch them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's if the courts catch them. Then there's the problem that the poor bastard's been bankrupted and been incarcerated for who knows how long because the motherfucker's with the resources didn't come clean.

  30. I smell a civil rights suit coming on. by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 3, Informative

    The very existence of this document is evidence of a conspiracy to deny civil rights under color of law. This is both a civil and a criminal issue.

    IMHO it should be trivial to show that the authors of this document, along with all adminstrators and instructors who used it in training agents and all agents who, having attended such training, committed any of the described acts, have committed a felony.

    I wonder if civil RICO suits might be brought, as well. B-)

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    1. Re:I smell a civil rights suit coming on. by TubeSteak · · Score: 1

      I wonder if civil RICO suits might be brought, as well. B-)

      Good luck proving that you have standing to sue.
      The whole reason the DEA and other law enforcement agencies were doing this is because [CLASSIFIED] meant they [REDACTED].

      The Feds staved off lawsuits by terrorism defendants for years with the same tactics.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    2. Re:I smell a civil rights suit coming on. by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

      Good luck proving that you have standing to sue.

      I suspect anyone convicted solely using evidence produced by the DEA since the circulation of the presentation will have a chance to take a crack at it.

      Any bets on whether a court will decide that one or more of them has enough standing to at least go for discovery?

      --
      Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  31. No, "not acting as an agent of the Government". by raymorris · · Score: 2

    No, the ruling is about private citizens who are "not acting as an agent of the government", meaning not even at the BEHEST of government. Clearly the NSA is government, so that doesn't apply to them. As government agents, any evidence produced by the NSA is inadmissible IN A CRIMINAL CASE unless it was legally obtained.

  32. true. Also, alot DO care about the Constitution by raymorris · · Score: 0

    What you've said is certainly true, that's clear.
    It should also be noted that many "national security types" take the Constitution very seriously. Some of them comment about that right here on Slashdot, where mentioning the Constitution in any thread not mentioning Snowden gets you ridiculed as a "tea bagger".

  33. Silk Road by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The Feds claimed that they caught Dread Pirate Roberts not by breaking TOR but because a package of fake IDs being shipped from Canada was randomly searched. (What luck!) I just thought of that while reading this. Coincidentally.

  34. Re:FUCK the D.E.A. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    FUCK the D.E.A., feed it to your dog, what for you dog to shit it out, and then fuck it again.

    You illiterate fuck.

  35. Most of you cannot handle the truth : by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The police are not your friends, not now, not ever.

    Anyone who thinks otherwise is living in a fantasy world.

  36. Blame Elvis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yet somehow Elvis was made an honorary drug agent after binging on liquid cocaine all night and flying into DC to meet Nixon. Yep - Merika...

  37. So when are we going to see by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    the perpetrators going to jail for the felony "obstruction of justice"? Because that's what it is: they are hiding details from the judges that would be required to make a ruling according to the governing law, denying the defendants due process.

    The law is not something for the DEA to "tweak" behind the judges' backs.

    1. Re:So when are we going to see by naughtynaughty · · Score: 1

      What relevant information are they hiding? If the police pull you over for speeding because they got a tip from the NSA from an email you sent that indicated you were delivering drugs, the reason for the stop was speeding and that is sufficient. It doesn't matter, legally, what the real motivation for the stop was.

    2. Re:So when are we going to see by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      What relevant information are they hiding?

      If the police pull you over for speeding because they got a tip from the NSA from an email you sent that indicated you were delivering drugs, the reason for the stop was speeding and that is sufficient. It doesn't matter, legally, what the real motivation for the stop was.

      You are an idiot.

      Kill yourself now.

  38. Should be old news by dbIII · · Score: 1

    See also how Homeland Security was established to be an Agency to Centralize Intelligence. The exact motive could be considered at length - was it because the CIA came up short or was it because the stuff it came up with was not acted on pretending a new group was needed was a face saving exercise? I'm sure there's other options but an entirely new group instead of building on the old raises a lot of questions since it makes no practical sense.
    Maybe both the DEA and Homeland Security were designed to be little empires as rewards for friends of the powerful?

  39. Related by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

    DNA analysis proves a convicted man was not a rapist. The prosecutors' respsonse? They got the right man; the DNA is just that of an un-indicted co-conspirator they haven't caught yet (but didn't bother to mention during the trial). Chance of it being a minority defendant? ~90%. Yay, 'justice'.

  40. wut by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Treason is the only crime defined in the Constitution, and clearly isn't what you're asserting here.

  41. This is rigged game by Trachman · · Score: 1

    If this is not a conspiracy to use powers at the same time denying their enemies, the Americans, due process and potentially exculpatory information, then I do not know what is.

  42. They don't tell anyone by Quila · · Score: 1

    Which is why the fact that they are building a parallel case should be relevant and should be revealed to the Defense.

    Even the prosecutor doesn't know about the parallel case. If the prosecution, defense and judge don't know about the illegal parallel case, then nobody's going to ask that the information be delivered.

    It might just become standard practice now for defense attorneys to demand any parallel case information. That will put someone on the line for misconduct sanctions, and be good grounds for appeal, if there is one and it's later discovered.

  43. Cryptonomicon by DaChesserCat · · Score: 2

    Really? This is news?

    In Cryponomicon, they create a special unit (Detachment 2702) to guard the secret of the Bletchley Park. This unit is engaged in actively feeding misinformation to the enemy and arranging "accidental" discoveries. For example, if decrypted information says that a convoy of German ships is moving from port A to port B, they determine about where that convoy should be at this time and "arrange" for a patrol aircraft to fly over the area and spot it. When the Allies, subsequently, bomb the heck out of the convoy, the Germans don't ponder "how did they know?" They know the convoy was spotted by an Allied aircraft before the bombers arrived on the scene.

    In one part of the book, a tramp steamer, operated by a bunch of people from this unit, "stumble" on a German "milk cow" submarine refueling/rearming an attack sub in the Caribbean. And Allied ships are promptly called in to depth charge the silly thing. The Germans don't have to ask how the allies knew it was there. They "stumbled on" it. The Germans are left to assume that they are just having really rotten luck. And that the Allies have a lot more patrol aircraft than they really do.

    Yes, Cryptonomicon is a work of fiction. Such things are, however, perfectly believable. The Allies went to great lengths to hide the fact that we could read their encrypted transmissions. A great many German officers, after the war, were told that we had been "reading their mail" for much of the war, and were utterly astounded. They had no idea. Such a good job had been done at keeping the secret.

    Protecting confidential sources? Arranging "accidental" discoveries of the necessary evidence? Gee, this sounds awfully familiar.

    --
    ... by the Dew of Mountains the thoughts acquire speed, the hands acquire shakes, the shakes become a warning
    1. Re:Cryptonomicon by metaforest · · Score: 1

      There is an important distinction here. The US Navy and Marines in Detachment 2702 are officers of the Executive. DEA agents, Prosecutors, FBI etc. are officers of the Court. Officers of the Executive, such as the DoD, NSA agents, and CIA agent are not supposed to engage in domestic operations, and when they hand off info to Officers of the Court, that is what they are doing. Further, Officers of the Court are supposed to be held to the Brady standard for disclosure. This stack of DEA training slides gives us a strong hint that at least the DEA has found an end-run around their obligation to the Court in order to launder the NSA data and other sources that a Judge might take exception to were they to find out about it during a trial.

  44. Shhhh....... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have a secret. Don't tell.

  45. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion