Ashcroft Targets U.S. Cybercrime

[Black Unicorn]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Petro" <petro at bounty.org>
To: <measl at mfn.org>; <cypherpunks at einstein.ssz.com>
Cc: <cypherpunks at einstein.ssz.com>
Sent: Monday, July 30, 2001 9:53 AM
Subject: Re: Ashcroft Targets U.S. Cybercrime

> At 7:20 AM -0500 7/26/01, measl at mfn.org wrote:
> >On Thu, 26 Jul 2001, Petro wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> >a great majority of an LEO's "education" time is spent instructing them
on
> >> >how to determine [decide] what is and is not constitutionally protected
> >> >{speech, action}.  If they did not use this "ability", they would have
to
> >> >arrest *everyone*, and let the courts sort out the mess.
> >>
> >> KNo, they would have to arrest everyone they witnessed (or
> >knew) committed an act that violated the law.
> >
> >You are confusing "civilians" and LEOs.  Only civilians are held to the
> >personal knowledge standard.  Leos are held to profoundly lower probablity
> >models.
>
> In order to arrest someone they have to have some sort of evidence that not
only was a crime committed, but that the person they arrested has some
reasonable probability of actually having committed that crime.

Uh, no.

If I were a duly appointed law enforcement official I could arrest you for the
kind of shoes you were wearing.  You'll have recourse eventually, but it will
be after a 24 hour (or so) stay in the pokey and posting bail and hiring an
attorney, and....

> Maybe "know" is a little strong, "suspect" is probably a better way of
putting it.

You're reaching for the criteria by which the legitimacy of the arrest will be
judged ex post.  The terms you are grappling to find are "reasonable
suspicion" and "probable cause."  The point you are missing is that typically
the only downside for the officer in making an "illegal arrest" is that the
case will get tossed.  Big deal.

Probable cause to arrest exists where facts and circumstances within officers'
knowledge and of which they had reasonably trustworthy information are
sufficient in themselves to warrant a person of reasonable caution in the
belief that an offense has been or is being committed; it is not necessary
that the officer possess knowledge of acts sufficient to establish guilt, but
more than mere suspicion is required.

I suggest you attend 3 years of law school or otherwise educate yourself in
the matter before presenting yourself as an authority on the issue and
blathering off for paragraphs on end about nothing in particular.  Sheesh, at
least invest in a copy of black's law dictionary or something.  It's common
respect for the rest of the list members.

> >> Other than said 4th amendment issues, street cops *rarely* get
> >> involved in constitutional issues.
> >
> >If you honestly believe this, then someone needs to beat the shit out of
> >you with a clueclub.  By definition, LEOs are [daily] involved in all
> >issues, from 1-ad to no-ad...
>
> Nonsense. In a LARGE percentage of the stuff a police officer deals with,
there are no constitutional issues (other than the 4th). Robbery, murder,
drunk driving, and the vast majority of traffic violations there aren't many
constitutional issues involved in the laws the enforce, there may be some
issues in *how* they enforce them (4th, 5th, and 6th) but little on what they
enforce.

There are constitutional issues in every interaction with police and citizens.
The question is if they are raised or significant enough to be regarded in the
judicial system.  Probable cause to make an arrest is but one of the issues
that is triggered on every arrest or other police action.

> Rarely will you find a street cop, on his on initiative, making arrests in
questionable areas (1st and 2nd).

To you the only "questionable" areas are the 1st and 2nd amendments?
Interesting.

> >> >And if you are at all familiar with the history of 2A case law, you
> >> >will understand why the SCOTUS has been so meticulous in avoiding a
> >> >ruling.  Of course, our friends [hrmmm... Never thought I'd say THAT] in
> >> >Texas may well put an end to the charade soon.
> >>
> >> Still waiting to hear about the Emerson case (and the 5th is in
> >> New Orleans IIRC).
>
> Interesting "rumor" on this front. Don Kates spoke to a group of us on
Thursday. He wrote an amicus brief for the Emerson case, and I asked him what
if he'd heard anything about what was going on. According to him, rumor has it
that one of the judges in that case is writing a long (150 pages was
mentioned) decision.

[Firearms rights are being taken away by the power to tax... The power to tax
is the power to destroy... McCulloch v. Maryland blah blah blah]

> Here's how it works (and there is a case going on right now about this). The
government says "you have to have a tax stamp to own <x>". Then doesn't
provide you any mechanism to actually *get* that stamp.

Chicago does this.  It requires registration for all handguns.  No
registrations have been issued since the early 70s or so.  It's been
challenged over and over.  It stands.  And will.

The rest of this drivel deleted.  (Is Detweiller back or what?  If so, he's
violating his consent decree).