Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Or they "haven't been telling prosecutors and criminal defense attorneys" because agents are not supposed to use the information directly obtained from SOD as the sole basis of a case.

Per the article that Whembly just posted:

According to the document, IRS agents are directed to use the tips to find new, "independent" evidence: "Usable information regarding these leads must be developed from such independent sources as investigative files, subscriber and toll requests, physical surveillance, wire intercepts, and confidential source information.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Read your own article Whembly.

According to the document, IRS agents are directed to use the tips to find new, "independent" evidence: "Usable information regarding these leads must be developed from such independent sources as investigative files, subscriber and toll requests, physical surveillance, wire intercepts, and confidential source information. Information obtained from SOD in response to a search or query request cannot be used directly in any investigation (i.e. cannot be used in affidavits, court proceedings or maintained in investigative files)."

Information obtained from SOD in response to a search or query request cannot be used directly in any investigation (i.e. cannot be used in affidavits, court proceedings or maintained in investigative files).

But, you're not making the leap about what's concerning here...

You cannot use evidence that was acquired illegally... as what the SOD claims you cannot do (see what's quoted). So, once an investigator finds that a crime has been committed, via illegal means. They then go about building a more valid legal investigation to be used in prosecution.

The danger here is that if the court determined that the case would NOT have moved forward without the initial illegal evidence... it's susceptable to be thrown out.

That's WHY this practice has (or is likely) to stop.

Do you even read your own articles when you post them?

Seriously? Read your own article.

Officials have stressed that the NSA and DEA telephone databases are distinct. The NSA database, disclosed by Snowden, includes data about every telephone call placed inside the United States. An NSA official said that database is not used for domestic criminal law enforcement.

The DEA database, called DICE, consists largely of phone log and Internet data gathered legally by the DEA through subpoenas, arrests and search warrants nationwide. DICE includes about 1 billion records, and they are kept for about a year and then purged, DEA officials said.

So once again.
The evidence is not gathered "illegally".
The point of the practice is not to conceal evidence or anything illegal. It is to, again quoting from YOUR OWN ARTICLE:

DEA officials said the practice is legal and has been in near-daily use since the 1990s. They have said that its purpose is to protect sources and methods, not to withhold evidence.

I understand that you and Frazzled have a hate-on for law enforcement, but read your own freaking articles guys.

Jesus Kan... you're missing the point ENTIRELY.

Let me spell out for you:

The use of "parallel construction" and the admission by former DEA agents to Reuters that DEA hides the true origin of investigations from prosecutors... which means... guess what? That the prosecutors can't turn it over to the defense during discovery.

Again... if prosecutors don't know about it, they can't turn it over to defense lawyers. If the affidavits for wiretaps and investigative reports make no mention of the real origin of the investigation, that means what the defense gets is a lie, and lawyers are advising people to plead guilty/not guilty based on false information.

Affidavits are filed under oath. If an agent says in a sworn affidavit that the investigation began with a routine traffic stop when in reality, the DEA asked a local law enforcement agent to make the stop based upon information obtained from NSA intercepts, the affidavit is a lie. It means the prosecutors relied on the false affidavit to request authorization from DOJ for the wiretap. It means the federal judge who then received the application for the wiretap from prosecutors and issued the wiretap order based on probable cause from the affidavit, was lied to.

That part is inexcusable in the course of any investigation.

I'm all for catching the bad guys Kan. But, we have rights in this country too...

Again... I've said this in different threads. It's NOT surprising that various department has tools to intercept communications (PRISM, DICE, NSA, DoJ) due to advances in communication technologies. The real question is this: Is our fundamental rights being protected? Who's watching the watchers?

 whembly wrote:
Jesus Kan... you're missing the point ENTIRELY.

I'm not missing the point. I'm the only one reading your article without adding my own commentary or interpretation to it apparently.

For some reason, I was just reminded of those episodes of Star Trek with the Carassian justice system, which apparently delivers a verdict of guilty, and then uses to court to display how terrible and guilty the person is.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Jesus Kan... you're missing the point ENTIRELY.

I'm not missing the point. I'm the only one reading your article without adding my own commentary or interpretation to it apparently.

How much of

Affidavits are filed under oath. If an agent says in a sworn affidavit that the investigation began with a routine traffic stop when in reality, the DEA asked a local law enforcement agent to make the stop based upon information obtained from NSA intercepts, the affidavit is a lie. It means the prosecutors relied on the false affidavit to request authorization from DOJ for the wiretap. It means the federal judge who then received the application for the wiretap from prosecutors and issued the wiretap order based on probable cause from the affidavit, was lied to.

is interpretation?

I'm not going to bother with this thread anymore. Have fun with your circle-jerk of 'Murica.

 Kanluwen wrote:
I'm not going to bother with this thread anymore. Have fun with your circle-jerk of 'Murica.

Hey, you're the expert. That's why I asked.

 Kanluwen wrote:
I'm not going to bother with this thread anymore. Have fun with your circle-jerk of 'Murica.

Hmmm okay.

I was trying to educate you on why we're wigging out over this.

Also, I don't think we're the 'muricans.

I mean, we're troubled by the state of things in our country. Other countries are troubled by the same things present in our country, to the point that they're considering issuing travel advisories against visiting our country. You're screaming that everything is fine, and beating the "you can trust our law enforcement" drum as hard as you can.

If anything, that makes us pinko commie socalists, and you the 'murican.

 Kanluwen wrote:
I'm not going to bother with this thread anymore. Have fun with your circle-jerk of 'Murica.

Does Kan always act like a baby when he's wrong?

 Kanluwen wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Jesus Kan... you're missing the point ENTIRELY.

I'm not missing the point. I'm the only one reading your article without adding my own commentary or interpretation to it apparently.

So if the DEA sneaks in while you're away and puts microphones all over without a warrant, and uses that information and then builds a retroactive case that they couldn't have done without those microphones you're ok with that?

If the DEA picks you up and puts electrodes to your ears to get a confession, and then builds a restroactive case based on whatever you said you;re ok with that?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
I'm not going to bother with this thread anymore. Have fun with your circle-jerk of 'Murica.

Does Kan always act like a baby when he's wrong?

No that would be me.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
I'm not going to bother with this thread anymore. Have fun with your circle-jerk of 'Murica.

Does Kan always act like a baby when he's wrong?

No that would be me.

That's quite a thing to imagine

 Frazzled wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Jesus Kan... you're missing the point ENTIRELY.

I'm not missing the point. I'm the only one reading your article without adding my own commentary or interpretation to it apparently.

So if the DEA sneaks in while you're away and puts microphones all over without a warrant, and uses that information and then builds a retroactive case that they couldn't have done without those microphones you're ok with that?

If the DEA picks you up and puts electrodes to your ears to get a confession, and then builds a restroactive case based on whatever you said you;re ok with that?

But that is not close to what is happening, and you know it. Your example is a completely illegal procedure. What is going on is the DEA is using info from incidental collection (info gotten via legal means but where some info collected was not collected against the target of the legal means). The incidental collection can't be undone and gives reason to believe a crime has been committed. The DEA then uses legal means for the new target to collect usable evidence which will hold up in a court.

Kind of like the cops have a warrant to conduct surveillance on Perp A, and during that surveillance pick up info that a previously unknown Perp B has committed a crime in no relation to what they are watching Perp A for. TO prosecute Perb B for his crime, they need to go back and collect evidence they can submit in court and have accepted. The incidental collection won't be used in court.

If the DEA can't use the information it gleans then its an illegal search. the only difference is where they are putting the electrodes.

Wrong, and again, you're smart enough to know it. If/when incidental collection occurs, it does not make the search illegal for the intended purpose of that search.

 CptJake wrote:
Wrong, and again, you're smart enough to know it. If/when incidental collection occurs, it does not make the search illegal for the intended purpose of that search.

Its not incidental collection. Its direct, intended collection.

 Frazzled wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
Wrong, and again, you're smart enough to know it. If/when incidental collection occurs, it does not make the search illegal for the intended purpose of that search.

Its not incidental collection. Its direct, intended collection.

This... that's the big distinction.