Secret Warrants and Black Bag Jobs--Questions

[Greg Broiles]

At 08:59 AM 8/8/2001 -0700, Tim May wrote:

>  According to my sources ("The Sopranos" 8-)), those doing the bugging 
> are supposed to "not listen" except when putatively criminal acts are 
> being discussed.

The Sopranos gets it right - the process is called "minimization", and is 
intended to limit the evidence collected to only that which discloses 
criminal activity - there are strict rules about how a conversation can be 
sampled, as the show portrayed.

But the agents don't need to follow the rules if they don't intend to ever 
use the proceeds of the tap in court, or disclose its existence.

>1) Are the secret warrants always revealed eventually, regardless of 
>whether a court case happens or the evidence is introduced? Is it possible 
>that there are N never-revealed secret warrants for every warrant 
>discussed in open testimony?

Yes. There is a time limit for when they should be disclosed if they don't 
lead to a prosecution - that time limit can be extended by a judge, if the 
agents think they need more time to develop a case. I don't believe the 
(federal) law allows for taps to go undisclosed forever, but I believe it 
happens anyway. Since the undisclosed taps aren't likely to be the focus of 
litigation, there's no effective check on that practice.

>2) What happens in these breaking-and-entering raids if the homeowner 
>surprises the burglar and kills him?

Ask Randy Weaver's son, Sam. Whoops, he's dead, like his mom and their dog 
that barked at the secret police infiltrating their rural property.


--
Greg Broiles
gbroiles at well.com
"We have found and closed the thing you watch us with." -- New Delhi street kids