Ashcroft Targets U.S. Cybercrime

[Petro]

At 10:29 AM -0700 7/30/01, Black Unicorn wrote:
>----- Original Message -----
>> At 7:20 AM -0500 7/26/01, measl at mfn.org wrote:
>> >On Thu, 26 Jul 2001, Petro wrote:
>> >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....

	As a lawyer (and I strongly suspect based on your writing here over the years that you're not this kind of lawyer) if someone came to you wanting to sue the NYPD over whatever the legalese is for "false imprisonment" and had documents to prove that they'd been arrested for wearing purple oxfords on blue flue tuesday, would you buy a new BMW or a Mercedes? 

>> 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.

	I was trying to stay away from "terms of art" where possible, since while I know what the english words "reasonable suspicion" mean, I know they are also used in a lot of cop and lawyer shows, as well as by cops and lawyers, therefore they are overloaded terms and not always in scope. 

>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.

	I am seriously thinking about Law School, and several times during this "conversation" I have made it clear that (1) I am not a lawyer. (2) I am not speaking from a position of educated authority. I am speaking from *my* reading of the Constitution and discussions with lawyers and Cops, as well as other stuff I've read and thought about over the years. I've made it evident that I do not believe this is the way things *are*, but rather what *I* believe would work better. 

>> >> 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.

	In any interaction between the long arm of the law and the citizenry, there is the how, and the why. You are talking about how the police interact with the citizenry, which is mostly 4th (search, seizure, cause for warrants etc), 5th (due process, double jeopardy), 6th (speedy public trial etc). These all come into effect (usually) after there is suspicion that a crime has been committed (absent "fishing expeditions").

	We were talking about the why of the interaction, whether LEOs should decide for themselves what laws were constitutional and should be enforced. 

>> 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.

	Within the constraints of the discussion, yes. 

	There are constitutional questions in law enforcement about the  4th, 5th, and 6th, but these are procedural issues, and procedural laws. 

	I see many laws that are questionable under the 1st and 2nd (via the 14th) but I see few laws that can be violated outside the court system that are questionable under the 4th, 5th, and 6th. 

	To my limited knowledge there has been very few cases (I've heard of one, but I admit to not having done the research) dealing with the 3rd, the 7th deals with Civil courts (although the 20 dollar limit is probably a little low these days), the 8th is only in effect after you've been arrested.

	The 9th and 10th do not enumerate specific rights, only state that there are rights not listed, and that those belong to the states and the people. 

	State constitutions are another matter, and I'll admit that until I wrote this sentence I hadn't even been thinking about them. 

	So yeah, in the context of whether LEOs should decide for themselves which laws are constitutional, and hence enforceable, it's really only the 1st and 2nd that cause most of the questions. 


>> 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.

	Really? You mean *that's* why I couldn't find a gun store in Chicago the whole 7 years I lived there? 

	And it was the early 80s during the Byrne administration that new firearms registrations were halted (although rumor had it that if you knew the right people, or had a good enough reason you could still get one registered. Of course, that is normal for Chicago). Registration started in 1968, the law stoping registration apparently came into effect in 1982. http://user.mc.net/~chevelle/handgunbans.htm 

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