On Friday, October 26, 2001, at 10:24 AM, Tim May wrote:
On Friday, October 26, 2001, at 05:38 AM, Declan McCullagh wrote:
Too many totalitarian surveillance state measures to comment on, but the "sneak and peek" provision is such a slam dunk violation of the Fourth Amendment that it bears special comment.
Other sections of the USA Act, which the House approved by a 357 to 66 vote on Wednesday, that do not expire include the following:
* Police can sneak into someone's house or office, search the contents, and leave without ever telling the owner. This would be supervised by a court, and the notification of the surreptitious search "may be delayed" indefinitely. (Section 213)
Anyone caught inside a house or office should be dealt with in the most expeditiious manner possible.
Most people who detect an intruder in their homes going through their stuff aren't going to think "This must be a government agent performing an appropriately authorized black bag job." They're going to think "Holy shit! There's a criminal in my house." and do whatever they feel is necessary to defend their loved ones. So lets say a hypothetical woman named "Sue" ventilates "Agent Smith" (who she perceives as a burglar & possibly a rapist) with her twelve gauge. Will she be charged with a crime? Will she be "detained" until such time as the Feds have finished determining her involvement with terrorism? If she asserts her fifth amendment right to not answer questions will the FBI torture her until she "admits" she is a terrorist?