in message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.91.950209105922.8309A-100000@chewy.wookie.net> slowdog@wookie.net wrote: SG>On Thu, 9 Feb 1995, Robert Rothenburg Walking-Owl wrote: SG>> I heard yesterday that someone in the House of Representatives proposed an
amendment to the new crime bill which was soundly defeated it. Turns out t Amendment was worded exactly as the Fourht Amendment in the Bill 'o Rights Apparently many a congressman/woman has egg on their face...
SG>Yes indeed, in response to the H666 bill. The Dems placed up for vote the
text of the 4th Amendment without attributing it to be such. It was defeated. Dems then immediately took to the floor of the House accusing the Repubs of tryingto dismantle the Constitution.
Almost all right. The Dems did acknowledge it was the fourth amendment, they drummed on that fact during the debate. What they failed to explain was that the amendment was not offered TO the bill but IN PLACE OF the bill. Even the Republicans failed to properly explain this, instead saying it would "gut the bill." This bill is not new, people. It codifies what has been the practice in two federal district courts for several years. The boogie man raised most often it the "confidential informant." The use of a bogus CI is illegal. It is still illegal under this bill. The major problem with this bill is it does not add the penalty to law enforcement officers for "bad faith actions." This was proposed by the republicans last year and ignored by the democrats. Tis year the republicans had the power to push it through and they ignored it. Shows how really different they are. The "bad faith actions" provision would have made a LEO who knowingly generated a search warrant, searched without one without probable cause, liable for criminal charges at the federal level. In other words when cop A uses cop B as his evidence for a warrant, and cop B lies, cop B goes to jail. If cop A knew it was a lie, cop A goes to jail. If it results in a shoot out like Waco and lives are lost, he goes to jail on murder one charges. This carries the death penalty for a federal offense. Naturally the one outfit which opposed this the most was the BATF, who violates this provision as the preferred way to do business. It is now up to the senate. Hopefully Senator Byrd can stop taking about his dog long enough to bring these points to the fore. Lee Lee Noon (lee.noon@mgmtsys.com) * 1st 2.00b #3833 * A government can't give back anything it hasn't taken first.