Gangs and drugs so terrorize some parts of Wichita that many people will shrug off the article in Tuesday’s Eagle about the apparent local use of the USA Patriot Act — which is supposed to target terrorism — to do a secret search of the house of a man accused of being a cocaine supplier to the Crips gang, a search that happened 90 days before the man was notified of it. To obtain the search warrant, authorities said the secret search would protect evidence and prevent suspects from fleeing or intimidating witnesses. The courts will sort out whether the evidence was legally obtained in this case. But such use of the Patriot Act certainly raises questions, including about whether it reflects Congress’ intent in passing the law post-Sept. 11. In a 2005 Eagle commentary, U.S. Attorney Eric Melgren assured the public that the Patriot Act “has been used to disrupt terrorist cells and espionage, as well as assist in solving horrific domestic crimes.†Does this alleged criminal activity count?
-
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in. -
Contact us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Rage on Open thread 11/29
- Pedant on Open thread 11/29
- Pedant on Open thread 11/29
- Regular on Open thread 11/29
- Rage on Open thread 11/29
- Wahine_Tara on Open thread 11/29
- Rage on Open thread 11/29
- beber on Open thread 11/29
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/29
- Monkeyhawk on Liberals feeling duped?
74 Comments
Kind of like Bloom-berg trying to use RICO to go after people who have sold guns that ended up being used in a crime.
Except that didn’t pique the Eagles interest apparently.
The Eagle NEVER complained when George Tiller used the KKK Act against Operation Rescue. The Eagle never even thought that was unusual.
The KKK Act requires “class based animus under color of law” — which judicial tyrant Judge Kelly never even tried to prove.
The United States Supreme Court, therefore, tossed out all of those KKK lawsuits against prolife protests.
One might argue that it’s a better use of the act than we’ve seen, but once that door is opened, widespread domestic abuse is inevitable. We’ve already seen what been done under the ambit of “fighting terrorism.” Expanding its mandate will increase those abuses exponentially.
So Heck, Econ, what are you saying? That if that was okay, then this is?
After discussing this at length, I have decided that using the Patriot Act for drug dealers is not appropriate, but maybe this warrant was a “sneak and peak”, which apparently is legal if no TANGIBLE evidence was taken during the “sneak and peak” warrant. Thank GMC and Vaughn for my enlightenment.
Only a bunch of liberals see fighting crime as an “abuse”
The truth of the matter is that The Patriot Act fixed laws already on the books and expanded them a bit.
Perhaps if The Eagle actually told us a bit more, like exactly which part of The Patriot Act they are talking about, we could do a more in depth look at this.
Folks, already been there. See part of “GOP, McCain must be loving this” thread. O’Hara’s claim is almost certainly nothing more than defense counsel bluster. Because O’Hara alleges it, does not mean it’s true (and that’s not a criticism, just a fact; I know Charlie O’Hara, and he’s a good attorney. He’s doing his job.).
I’ll point out here what I pointed out there, before the Eagle panics that the sky is falling: “sneak and peak” warrants, what, apparantly this one was, are not new. Further, this search was done, as the article notes (and the Eagle in this thread posting conspicuously ignores) under judicial authority, with a judicially-issued warrant.
There is no evidence, nor any need, of application of the eeeeeeevil Patiot Act here.
Claims of the death of the 4th amendment, to paraphrase a famous commentator, are greatly exaggerated.
But it never hurts to stir the pot, does it?
Exactly GMC70!
I read The Patriot Act a few years ago because I have done several debates on it for a class and just because.
If I remember correctly, The Patriot Act merely expanded on already existing legislation which allowed sneak and peak search warrants without notification in high risk cases.
Like those involving drug dealers.
This is nothing new.
Here’s a link Vaughn put up about the “sneak and peak” warrants that is understandable even to those of use who don’t speak legalese:
http://www.law.uga.edu/academics/profiles/dwilkes_more/37patriot.html
The Eagle never worried about RICO being used against prolife protests.
In fact, the Eagle NEVER really made it clear that a RICO judgement, against Kline’s employee, was actually invalidated by the United States Supreme Court.
SCOTUS ruled that RICO could only be used when the law is broken for a commercial or profit motive.
The Court said RICO could not be used against political protests.
The part that we don’t know though, is whether they went beyond the scope of the warrant and actually took evidence during the “sneak and peak”. If they did, then that evidence wouldn’t be admissable from what I understand? Is that right GMC?
Gosh
Liberals want us to use law enforcement against combat enemies, and Liberals want us to give terrorists full due process rights, treating terrorists and criminals, basically, the same way — Except, of course, when we do?
How can it possibly be constitutional to have one set of warrant laws, for one type of “suspect” and another set of warrant laws, for another type of “suspect”??
Rage
I am saying that the Eagle is biased to the core.
In the case of the RICO Act and the KKK Act, the underlying statutes, which had both criminal and civil remedies, did NOT apply to the cases in which the Eagle supported their use.
In this “Patriot Act” case? We are talking about warrants and police should be able to use the same warrant proceedures, no matter the crime.
The cocaine most likley came from central or south america, Support our economy, buy American made drugs.
TDT,
As I understand it, not only would such evidence be inadmissable, but any evidence that wouldn’t have been discovered if they hadn’t conducted an illegal search- fruit of the poisoned tree.
FYI, the statutory provision which appears to me to be in question:
Sec. 3103a. Additional grounds for issuing warrant
(a) In General. - In addition to the grounds for issuing a
warrant in section 3103 of this title, a warrant may be issued to
search for and seize any property that constitutes evidence of a
criminal offense in violation of the laws of the United States.
(b) Delay. - With respect to the issuance of any warrant or court
order under this section, or any other rule of law, to search for
and seize any property or material that constitutes evidence of a
criminal offense in violation of the laws of the United States, any
notice required, or that may be required, to be given may be
delayed if -
(1) the court finds reasonable cause to believe that providing
immediate notification of the execution of the warrant may have
an adverse result (as defined in section 2705);
(2) the warrant prohibits the seizure of any tangible property,
any wire or electronic communication (as defined in section
2510), or, except as expressly provided in chapter 121, any
stored wire or electronic information, except where the court
finds reasonable necessity for the seizure; and
(3) the warrant provides for the giving of such notice within a
reasonable period of its execution, which period may thereafter
be extended by the court for good cause shown.
Last modified: April 12, 2006
I guess crime fighting isn’t the same as it used to be.
Drug money does finance terrorism.
It is called “narco-terrorism”
Claims of the death of the 4th amendment, to paraphrase a famous commentator, are greatly exaggerated.
Dead, no. But in serious condition. One example that comes to mind: the admission of suspicionless searches into the Fourth Amendment doctrine. We’ve already seen that in school context (stretching en loco parentis to its breaking point), and the stupid drug war (numerous precedents upholding compelled production and analysis of urine), and both together (the Earls case, when Anthony Kennedy actually had the nerve to suggest Lindsay Earls must prefer going to a “druggie school” (what a POS).
And that’s just the tip of the iceberg.
I don’t have time for an extended debate, so feel free to have the last word, GMC–at least with me. . . :)
Jed, see section (b)(2) of 18 USC 3103a, posted above, particularly: “except where the court
finds reasonable necessity for the seizure; and”, which appears to give authority to seize tangible evidence if the court so finds, with delayed notice to the person whose property was the subject of the search. This would avoid the “fruit of the poisonous tree”.
It’s Bush’s America where all Americans are terrorists. That’s why he tapped phones prior to 9/11, why the no-fly list has 10,000 names many with no terrorist connections, and so on.
Who was it that said, “Those who would sacrifice freedom deserve neither.”? Probably someone that would get spied on as an anti-American terrorist.
Econ, to put an end to my current participation in this discussion, the law enforcement personnel involved could have obtained, IMHO, a warrant without resort to the “sneak and peek” provisions; with such procedure now specifically statutorily authorized, they chose to go that route. Yes, there was a court authorizing the “sneak and peek” warrant. No question about that. It is my recollection, however, that Mr. O’Hara’s claim is based upon the inappropriate use of this provision in a drug case.
While it appears that the statute clearly authorizes this, there is a question of the constitutionality of this provision. IIRC, this provision was declared unconstitutional by a federal district court judge in Oregon in the case dealing with the falsely accused attorney. I’m not up on the case, and do not know if this ruling has been appealed, and freely admit the Oregon decision is not binding, in any way, upon the Federal District Court for the District of Kansas.
TDT, Jed
I have no idea whether the officers went beyond the scope of the warrant. None of us do, of course, that is what the hearing that is apparantly going to be held is to decide. O’Hara alleges, same, of course, but that is merely defense counsel allegation. I’ll remain skeptical.
And if they did indeed go beyond the scope of the warrant and seize evidence illegally, then yes, the Court would and should suppress any such evidence, as well as its “fruit.”
Rage:
Surprisingly perhaps to you, I share some of your concerns about particular searches which have been ruled to be constitutional. But that is not evidence of the death of the 4th amendment; on the contrary, it is evidence of its vital health. We AGREE that searches have to be reasonable, and that searches without warrants are presumptively unreasonable absent some recognized exception to the warrant requirement. There is universal (or damn near) agreement on those principles. That alone, to much of the world (and even in our not so past history), is a major hurdle crossed.
What we are arguing about, then, are exactly where the lines are to be drawn. And there will be differences about that, of course, as would be expected. So what you put up as your evidence that the 4th amendment is on life support is, to me, evidence of its continued vitality. We argue those circumstances in the context of 4th amendment principles on which we agree.
This is why law never gets dull. You’ve NEVER seen it all . . .
VT
Got it!
Hey, I have dealt with O’Hara before, myself, when I worked for the County.
If I were in trouble I would not hesitate to use him, but I am not convinced that he has a strong argument here.
For instance, in a case where a “search warrant” is issued and nobody is home, the police are not required to wait, in order to “serve” the warrant on someone, are they?
A search warrant is about property access.
The question comes up: What if the police deliberately wait to execute a search warrant until a time that they expected that no one would be home?
What are the Constitutional requirements for “notice” to the property owner, of a search warrant being issued or executed?
Who was it that said, “Those who would sacrifice freedom deserve neither.”?
Doug - It is “Those who would sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither”, and I think it was Franklin. But somebody with more trivia knowledge will need to verify that.
Econ, back for a moment. The circumstances you describe are covered within Rule 41, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. The warrant may, of course, be executed if “nobody is home”, but the police or other LE personnel are required to provide notice of the execution thereof and a receipt for property seized at that time (from memory).
On the question of “notice” for Fourth Amendment purposes; I would direct you to the opinion of Justice Thomas in Wilson v. Arkansas. Now, as GMC will be quick to let you know, this is NOT a “sneak and peek” case; rather, it is a “knock and announce” case. However, one may read the decision as finding notice an integral part of the Fourth Amendment’s requirement of “reasonableness”. Thus, according to some legal scholars, the addition of 18 USC 3103a by the passage of the Patriot Act (sec. 213 thereof, particularly) was necessary to shore up the legality of “sneak and peek” warrants; while such does not necessarily resolve any constitutional infirmities concerning the same, it does, by providing explicit statutory approval of such warrants, provide a stronger legal basis therefor.
Again, Mr. O’Hara is doing his job by raising the issue. Outside the Oregon case of which I posted earlier, I’m not aware of any other decisions concerning this provision of the statutes (although there surely must be some others by now).
“Those who would sacrifice freedom deserve neither”
What freedom was sacrificed by the Drug Dealer?
His freedom to be deceptive and hide drugs in another house where he didn’t live?
Two words…
boo
hoo
From his counsel’s perspective, Regular, the freedom to be free of an unreasonable search and seizure. It is the curse of defense counsel in a criminal matter to be presented with such an issue when, in the great majority of cases, one’s client is not a person that will gain the sympathies of the public.
True Vaughn,
My lack of legal knowledge leaves me to deal out the only weapon I have - apathy towards the defendant because he is a predator on our young children and the addicted.
Not usable in court, but it is quite powerful in its own right. :)
Regular, there you go again. Everyone, even ALLEGED drug dealers, is innocent until or if proven guilty. There is never a perfect defendant; one of the biggest free speech suits was fought over Larry Flynt’s right to publish the trash he does in Hustler. Far from being a perfect defendant.
Tipping point, camel’s nose under the tent, etc., it is, as I said on an earlier post, just another step toward having a secret police and a police state.
And Jim Cross, the spokesman, would have been enraged over this back when he was an Eagle reporter.
A few years ago, after the P.A.T.R.I.O.T Act was passed, law enforcement in Las Vegas cracked a bribery case involving county commissioners. Caught ‘em red handed by using warrantless wire taps and other “tools” of the anti-terrorism legislation.
Now, nabbing corrput county commissioners is a good thing. But that’s not what the P.A.T.R.I.O.T Act was for, nor what it was promised to be. (It’s an acronym, btw, standing for Providing <b<Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism.) No matter how you stretch the word (and, btw, narco-terrorism is a big stretch), those crooked Vegas commisioners weren’t terrorists. And neither are these drug thugs.
True conservatives should be upset by this unconstitutional increase in police power; even against really bad guys.
It used to be there was a crime and law enforcement sought to find the criminals. We’ve devolved into a state that fingers alleged criminals and goes looking for a crime. That’s a serious distortion of justice.
Sorry Dennis, but the law has no jurisdiction over my apathy towards an individual.
Deal with it. :)
MH, my concern lies, as you may have figured out by now, with the provisions of 18 USC 3103a, which was amended, as near as I can now ascertain, to its current form by section 213 of the U.S.P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act. It seems to me that this (sec. 213) was a badly written provision that was added to the Act to provide some statutory justification for “sneak and peek” searches, and had little to do with “terrorism” as such. While probable cause is still necessary to obtain a search warrant, to convert to a “sneak and peek”, only reasonable cause need by shown to the magistrate to believe that one of the things set out in 18 USC 2705 would occur absent the use of “delayed notification”. These include, from memory, the chance for witness tampering, destruction of evidence, among other things.
While I’d not find this as objectionable as I do should it be limited to “terrorism” cases, the fact that these provisions extend to any federal criminal investigation, misdemeanor and felony, bothers me. In a drug investigation, and prosecution as is the current matter, it seems a “traditional” search warrant might well have been used. That said, the statute is as it is, and absent a controlling ruling as to its constitutionality, to change it will require amendment by the Congress. As section 213 was NOT subject to the sunset provisions of the act, I think this will be highly unlikely unless someone who would be held in greater public esteem is subjected to this kind of “sneak and peek” than the defendant in the local case, and Congress, due to the outpouring of public opinion, thereafter acts.
BTW, while the provisions which appear to be in question were added by said Act, this is really not a “Patriot Act” case as such, but one arising under the statutes governing criminal procedure in the federal courts.
“It used to be there was a crime and law enforcement sought to find the criminals. We’ve devolved into a state that fingers alleged criminals and goes looking for a crime. That’s a serious distortion of justice.”
Well said Monkeyhawk!
“SCOTUS ruled that RICO could only be used when the law is broken for a commercial or profit motive.”
Posted by econ.
Then why would the patriot act be needed in a gang/drug bust? SCOTUS said the RICO act supported gang busts, did it not? Expanding the patriot act to include drug dealings between gangs infringes on already written laws, like the RICO act. It ain’t right.
TDT
Posted March 25, 2008 at 2:56 pm | Permalink
“It used to be there was a crime and law enforcement sought to find the criminals. We’ve devolved into a state that fingers alleged criminals and goes looking for a crime. That’s a serious distortion of justice.”
Well said Monkeyhawk!
_____________________________________
DITTO
Let’s see, a Crips gang member, known drug dealer, criminal record and people are worried about alleged criminality and looking for a crime?
Please…
“It used to be there was a crime and law enforcement sought to find the criminals. We’ve devolved into a state that fingers alleged criminals and goes looking for a crime. That’s a serious distortion of justice.”
I agree with at least part of that statement. Whether we actually do the second part is highly questionable, and certainly I wouldn’t support same.
That said, I think this particular case is much ado about nothing. There is NOTHING to indicate that this is anything more than a garden variety warrant (though of the “sneak and peak” variety), entirely unrelated to any Patriot Act authority.
In other words, Charlie O’Hara is blowing smoke.
Privacy is begining to be nostalgic. Kennedy didn’t get busted for his affairs, yet everyone knew about it. I think we used to respect peoples vices as personals problems that need to be dealt with on a personal level. Now, the Detroit mayor might face 20 years in prison for having an affair because he lied under oath about it. Maybe the issue of his affair should have never been brought to court in the first place, that sounds like a personal issue between him, his wife, and his well known mistress, is it worth millions of dollars its costing Detroit for this stupid shit, I don’t think so. We need to stop holding people to impossible standards, we’re all human and flawed, unless someone is physically injured, or is connected to major political corruption for personal gain, all this petty shit going around about affairs and drug use is a waste of everybody’s time and energy.
Looking for that ‘one whore’ politician Buck? :D
I’d service Sebelius, but she dosen’t strike me as the whorish type.
“GMC70″ first quotes my comment —
“It used to be there was a crime and law enforcement sought to find the criminals. We’ve devolved into a state that fingers alleged criminals and goes looking for a crime. That’s a serious distortion of justice.”
And then responds with –
“I agree with at least part of that statement. Whether we actually do the second part is highly questionable, and certainly I wouldn’t support same.”
Did you support the Kenneth Starr chamber’s $70 million witch hunt against the Clintons in the 1990s?
Even in an era where a competent prosecutor “can indict a ham sandwich,” nothing happened to the main targets.
Rudy Giuliani’s reputation came from targeting all the power and force of the United States Government against John Gotti. Probably a worthwhile cause, really, but it was a classic example of picking the target and searching for convictable crimes.
It goes back to the Al Capone case. And again, maybe it was the right thing to do, but it was (if you proclaim to be a conservative) extra-constitutional.
The slope is getting slipperier.
You’re not likely worth of a $70 Million witch hunt, “GMC70,” but I bet I could find someone somewhere who’d testify to a grand jury that you once drove 80 mph in a 60 mph zone. And that you told someone, perhaps, that you were doing it to get to a soccer game on time; thereby making your minor traffic offense a felony: a “conspiracy.”
Idiots such as “Regular” find comfort in assuming the “drug pushers” in the case at hand were guilty before any evidence was obtained. But you, as a trained attorney and an officer of the court should know better.
Even if (and that’s a big if) this is nothing more “than a garden variety warrant (though of the “sneak and peak”[sic] variety)…”, the ever-expanding power of government to infringe on individual rights should be disturbing to anyone who claims “Conservatism” as a political philosophy.
“Sneak and peek” as a generally accepted law enforcement process should scare the hell out of any patriotic American. Convening grand juries to look for a crime against a pre-determined target should bother anyone who’s read the Constitution of the United States of America.
MH -
Believe it or not, I agree with most of that diatribe. I have always maintained that in the long run, the State is a greater threat to liberty than the criminal. What is key about this case, however, and why I believe that O’Hara’s puffing is just that, puffing, is that this search was conducted WITH A WARRANT which authorized exactly what officers did. And - get this, because it’s important - THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT THE 4TH AMENDMENT ENVISIONS.
So why are we writing about this? Because Charlie O’Hara is smart enought to try his case in the court of public opinion, pushing the right self-rightous buttons. Charlie is not practicing law, he’s practicing theatre, with the public (and his potential jury pool) as the audience. And the Eagle was dumb enough to bite. I have the headline in front of me as I write; It reads “Patriot Act used in drug case; lawyer riled.” But that headline assumes that it’s assertion is true; a more accurate headline might be “Lawyer alleges Patriot Act used in drug case,” but that would not have pushed the same buttons.
If (and I’ll wait for the ruling; this is an IF), after hearing, a federal judge holds that in fact there was no Patriot Act involvement and that the warrant was legal and the fruits of same are legally admissible, do you think there will be a similar headline announcing that? I don’t. Neither does Charlie. The retractions are always buried on the back page. I suspect in part that’s what he’s betting on.
BTW - how is using all the legal (emphasis on the word LEGAL here) tools at your disposal to target mafiosos and gangsters “extra-constitutional?”
Regular, I’m with you on your last comment.
BucKCorvus, I agree with you that personal problems are none of the press’s or public’s business unless they endanger public safety and trust…ie. use of public funds to pay for drugs or mistresses or other inappropriate activities. And I believe we are all intelligent enough to recognize ‘inappropriate activities’ when we see them. Enough said about that.
My personal take on gangs is to declare them a ’social terrorist’ status and apply the same laws. IMHO
MonkeyHawk once again fills the blog with 99 percent fluff and 1 percent objectionable rhetoric.
I was aware of the “sneak and Peek” before being reminded by our friends of the bar. And the only question I had was if a warrant was involved or none was used to sneak and Peek. I will agree with GMC and Vaughn that it seems more that O’Hara is using the boogie man of the Patriot act to sidestep and misdirect.
Unless there is evidence that the Patriot act was used in this court, there does not seem to be anything that is not standard practice. There is ground and a sound argument for the Sneak and peek warrant along as the limits have been observed and the law has been followed. I suspect the fact it is even brought up in the news is for the sensationalism value of tying it to the Patriot act.
when the patriot act first came out, and people were concerned that this would be abused, we were assured that it ONLY applied to terrorists. Now of course, we know they have used these laws to look after anti-war organizations that had nothing to do with terrorism. How does it feel that Michael Moore was right?
Nobody likes crime, and we should use RICO laws to deal with gangs. But this is an abuse of power and totally unconstitutional. I wonder how many other people who’ve had their constitutional rights stripped from them?
We are supposed to be America, and right now, all day long, listening to people justify Rush Limbaugh’s voter fraud, I”m so incredibly pissed off more and more at what is going on. This is not the kind of country I want to live in. I was always proud to be American but I will not be anymore if this isn’t reversed and soon. I’m ready to start charging republicans with treason. I’m ready for a civil war right here. I swear to you if more people don’t wake up, we’ll be living as Nazi Germany did.
I tend to agree with you, PMama!!
Here ya go, PMama >>>>
“First they came for the Communists,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Jew.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me,
and by that time there was no one
left to speak up for me.”
by Rev. Martin Niemoller, 1945
So what you are saying is that Selbelius having a lesbian affair is her own business?
But if I have that information and evidence and go to her and say, if you don’t give me the contract to give “whiskerectomies” to all of the cats in Kansas to the tune of 30 million, then I release what I have on you.
That wouldn’t be any of the citizens business either?
Gene — I dont see anything about any lesbian affair upthread…
And that has what to do with Gangs, Drugs, and the Patriot Act??
Well it was a few folks talking about how much should not be any of our business as the citizens.
So a Governor is getting rubbed up and down by women and giving those women state government jobs. Thats none of our business right??
thats the governors personal business.
Larry Craig doing his tap dance in a men’s room. That’s was none of our business, he should not have been drummed out of office. Right??
Talk about a slippery slope.
Gene writes >>>>
“So a Governor is getting rubbed up and down by women and giving those women state government jobs. Thats none of our business right??”
You get this information from where??
It is NOT illegal to switch parties back and forth, as often as you want to do so.
No law can prevent such action, even if such laws exist.
Any attempt to enforce such a law would be tossed out of court.
The law can require registration by a specific date, prior to an election, but that is about it.
“Are you now, or have you ever been, a Republican”?
“Are you now, or have you ever been, a Democrat”?
Any law to prevent party switching would be pure tyrany.
Besides, Obama and Clinton are BOTH asking for Republican votes.
Switching parties in order to vote for who you WANT to win is a whole lot different from switching parties in order to cheat the election.
I know its hard for you to realize the difference, since corruption is ingrained in your head Paul, but it’s WRONG, it’s evil, and it is no different than tearing up ballots.
It is anti democratic. We have to stop this.
The law is a little more dynamic and evolutionary than most people believe it to be. Most people tend to think of it as static and literal. It’s not. Just as RICO has been adapted to a multitude of criminal/legal circumstances over the years, so may be the so called “Patriot Act.” Remember that “Patriot Act” is just a moniker for a bill, and terrorism may not have been the only issue the authors intended it to address. Terrorism may have been the motivation for our congessional representatives to approve the bill, but it may be very adaptable to drug crimes as well. Obviously, the judge who issued the warrant thought so. Also remember that the courts, over the past 20 or 30 years, have granted the most discretionary latitude where drug crimes are involved, because drugs are such a monumental problem. We’re all entitled to have an opinion about this, but none of us is qualified to have an opinion about this until the issue runs the appealte gauntlet. It’s Charlie O’Hara’s job to marshal it through the maze. I’m sure he will present eloquent arguments at each station, for Charlie knows where the Pope craps in the woods and how to find Catholic bears.
Pmom
Democrats have voted in Republican primaries for years, with the deliberate intent to cause trouble.
A vote Against is just as valid as a vote For someone.
It is perfectly legal, it can not be stopped.
Any attempt to stop it will be pure, corrupt, tyranical rule!
If the patriot act might be amenable to civilian cases, so to might not torture be amenable to civilian cases. Once you’ve stepped off the edge, it’s hard to regain your footing!
This stinks of gestapo tactics, drug dealers today, political rivals tomorrow!
“Democrats have voted in Republican primaries for years, with the deliberate intent to cause trouble.”
And your proof of this is WHAT?
Gene–
You are truly a sick individual.
Get professional help.
Of course, if you’re like a lot of Americans, you can’t afford it because you’re not covered.
OK Reg — lets say the police think you are trading in child porn they come to your house with a search warrant — you’re not home —- so they let themselves in and find thousands of kid porn pics and movies ——
you come home and get busted and ya found out they found out about you through a tip and used a wire tap to set up the warrant —-
boo hoo now ?
I think dems. have a little higher moral values than to crossover during a primary. Personally, I find that repugnant.
GMC - In regards to your wondering why the public is so up in arms about this, it is because WE DID NOT KNOW that there was such a thing as a “sneak and peak”, and furthermore, that in the Patriot Act, they had expanded that to be used for virtually anyone, and also have the ability to obtain evidence during the so-called “sneak and peak” warrant. I don’t care if there is a warrant involved, I don’t like the idea that you can get a couple of crooked cops going to a crooked judge, and have them go into a house and snoop and take what they want in order to charge that person with a crime.
This law needs to be posted everywhere as a warning of what happens when laws are stampeded through congress.
And from here on out, anyone who says “There ought to be a law that…!” should be taken out back and shot before being allowed to complete the sentence
TDT -
Why the assumption that these are “crooked cops” and a “crooked judge?” Because Charlie O’Hara says so? I’d remind you that the fact you may not have known of “sneak and peek” warrants makes them illicit, or unusual, or illegal. further, I’d point out, just as I did with MH, that this was done with a judicially-issued warrant - JUST AS THE 4TH AMENDMENT ENVISIONS.
This case, I strongly suspect, has nothing to do with the Patriot Act; that’s just a boogieman Charlie has trotted out on behalf of his client.
crap! edit, edit, edit . . .
should read: . . . the fact you may not have known of “sneak and peek” warrants DOES NOT MAKE them illicit, or unusual, or illegal.
There. Though there’s probably more I’ve screwed up.
GMC, I know about the need to edit. :-(
Yes, Charlie’s claim about the Patriot Act makes for good press, and you gotta admit, he’s doing his job. The only connection to the Patriot Act and what it appears to be the situation in his case was the specific authorization of “sneak and peek” warrants in sec. 213 thereof, amending (IIRC) 18 USC 3103a. Not quite as dramatic to say in a headline “18 USC 3103a” as it is “Patriot Act”, huh? :-)
WS
Every Presidential election in modern history has included “crossover voting” in the various party primaries and caucuses.
I will not get into a stupid “prove it” contest with you.
It happens.
It has ALWAYS happened.
Every Candidate for President openly encourages it.
In THIS election, BOTH Hillary and Obama have openely encouraged Republicans to vote for them, in the PRIMARY!
As for the terrorist spy stuff, look, the first job of the government is to protect us.
If a terrorist attack is in process, authorities should concentrate on stopping the attack.
What you can use in Court, and what you can use, in Combat, are two different things.
I know this is going to sound like the mind of a very simple man, perhaps even one of limited thought, compared to the great thinkers involved with these blogs. As far as the drug problem goes, why doesn’t our country (feds, law enforcement, dea, etc.) enforce the laws that are already in effect? We have some very fair and simple laws concerning the drug trade. Why don’t we use them? And as far as the gang problem goes, aren’t an awful lot of these folks here some of those illegals everyone is all excited about? If this is true and they are gun-toting, drug smuggling criminals wouldn’t that make them armed invaders and wouldn’t that be classified as an act of war against the U.S.A.?? Just curious. And as far as the gangs made up of citizens of the U.S. Wouldn’t it be fair to say the anyone who arms themselves and declares that they no longer have to abide by the laws of the land are guilty of treason?? There are simple solutions for simple problems.