Defense Claims Courthouse Was Illegally Bugged
therecorder.com
therecorder.com
In one sense, this is a small thing. There isn't any allegation that the recordings caught privileged attorney-client communication or jury deliberations. But it is an attack on the integrity of the legal system, and it's part of a pattern of attacks on the legal system that adds up to a serious threat to the rule of law.
Defendants are asking for these recordings to be quashed. That is what is customary, but it is not sufficient; there need to be consequences for those who did it and who authorized it. The defendants are only incentivized to argue as far as necessary for their own defense; it is up to the judges to censure the parties responsible.
The rule of law is largely a joke that the powerful trick the weak into accepting. The constant drilling away at the supposed sanctity of the legal system is evidence that the people who run things really don't care so much about attorney client privilege or due process.
"Those politicians are all the same, there's no point in voting or being politically active, it's all going to hell, etc."
It's so not true, and it's just the kind of disempowering disregard for one's own agency that anyone who's greedy for power would love to hear. Man, when I hear that shit now, I just want to shake those people and say, "YOU'RE THE PROBLEM!!"
You're right, it is a continual fight. It never ends. There's no final set of laws or behaviors we're going for. The process is what matters.
When was that?
The rule of law might not seem always fair, but it hampers the powerful much more than the weak. As an example: None of the billionaires in my city have set up their own duchy pressed us into an army, enforcing their own laws. Their taxes, while not as high as I would like, in fact pay for much of our city budget including city services. Even the poor in my city have access to clean water and the library system.
Just because we have to fight to maintain the sanctity of the legal system and because every actor isn't perfect, does not mean that it's entirely corrupt and captive. I would ask you to take a moment to compare the current rule of law, rule of law in a developing country, and rule of law without the rights guarded by a nation-state.
I guess we live in different realities. The powerful have proven over and over that they are capable of subverting the system in their own favor using their resources and influence.
>>As an example: None of the billionaires in my city have set up their own duchy pressed us into an army, enforcing their own laws.
They haven't set up their own duchies with private armies because they haven't had to. The state already protects them. Here is a direct quote from Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations:
“Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all.”
At least the post you are replying to had the courtesy of providing supporting arguments.
http://www.vaildaily.com/article/20101104/NEWS/101109939 A hedge fund manager had his criminal charges substantially reduced over the victim's objections because having a felony would mean the hedge fund manager would have to admit what he did to his clients. The defendant in question struck a bicyclist in a hit and run, drove far away and called for roadside assistance for his car never mentioning anything about the bicyclist he left with lifelong injuries. Of course the excuse is that after he was caught he agree to pay some restitution to the victim...
Anyway, just a crazy story that I figured I'd share so not really a study of real national trends or anything.
The fact you attribute clean water as a sign of a functioning justice system shows how low your bar is.
Edit: I will say we have rights that exist. You just need to able to afford high power attorneys to prove such.
How is that an example of the justice system not functioning? 80-90% of people think drugs other than marijuana should be illegal. 32% see drug abuse as a "crisis" and another 55% as a "serious problem": http://www.people-press.org/2014/04/02/americas-new-drug-pol....
People thinking drug use is dangerous and making it illegal, and then putting people in jail for trafficking in drugs (which accounts for the vast majority of sentences), is not a failure of the justice system.
EDIT: Since people seem confused by certain FUD on this subject. The vast majority of "drug offenders" filling prisons are there for trafficking not possession: http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/Prisons_and_Drugs (only 5.3% of federal drug prisoners are serving time for possession; 91.4% are serving time for trafficking). And 80-90% of people support keeping cocaine and heroin illegal: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/17/drug-legalization-p....
Also account for the time lag between changing public opinion and changes in policy. As recently as 2001, 45% of people polled (and probably a much higher percentage of actual voters, who skew older and more conservative), opposed getting rid of mandatory minimum sentences for non-violent drug crimes.
Study controlling for type of crime and circumstances finds ~10% more severe punishment for crimes black to white: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1985377
Evidence that despite approximately equal occurrences of consumption of narcotics black citizens are arrested much more frequently than white citizens: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/06/04/the-b...
A successful rule of law functions in spite of, and not at the utter service to, the majority.
People do NOT support jailing offenders for minor drug offenders.
http://harvardjol.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/HLL104_crop...
And the poor haven't sacked them or hauled them to the guillotine. I still feel like the rich are winning here.
> Even the poor in my city have access to clean water and the library system.
Were there attempts to take those away that were successfully stopped in court? Because otherwise, you seem to be hand-waving more than arguing.
This reminds me, BTW, how lots of people have recently, after the terrorist attacks in Paris, urged us to sing La Marseillaise, to express sympathy to the French. That is slightly funny: the lyrics are rather blood-curling.
Do you hear, in the countryside, the roar of those ferocious soldiers?
They're coming right into your arms to cut the throats of your sons, your women!
To arms, citizens, form your battalions,
Let's march, let's march! Let an impure blood water our furrows! (Repeat)
I mean, it looks like people confuse it with All You Need Is Love which just steals the intro from it.
Well, duh. Did you miss the comment I was replying to, which suggested that the poor are better served by our system of laws than the rich are because the rich don't press them into servitude and they have clean water?
Yes in theory, but not so much in actual reality.
As Aesop said: "We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office."
Rob a gas station and get 10+ years. Rob the world economy and get promoted to Secretary of Treasury and the most powerful Governor's seat of the IMF.
For a notorious example, consider that some members of the Weather Underground committed crimes that could easily have resulted in life sentences, yet they are free today because the court found the evidence against them was collected illegally. This may not be a typical example, but it would seem to conflict with the idea that the rule of law is "largely a joke."
If you're saying that in the US the rule of law has been corrupted to the point that it's largely a joke that the powerful trick the weak into accepting, then while that's a bit stronger than I'd agree with, I do see how you'd come to the conclusion.
If you're saying that rule of law itself is largely a joke that the powerful trick the weak into accepting, then that's a deeply concerning statement.
Which do you mean?
But do let us surveil all your conversations, we promise we won't abuse the privilege. You know you can trust us, because we follow the law.
This functionality is built-in to Hacker News.
[that's sarcastic but also seemingly true]
The part of not getting a warrant is really the problem.
It really is up to the judges to prevent tainted evidence and flat out fishing from being made cases of. The method is not unreasonable, in the right circumstances, but the justification and building of a case makes all the difference.
> However that doesn't mean that they should be permitted in court
Really? I thought these two items were quite tightly connected.
Without knowing the details, it's really hard to say, but it sounds like this was a very targeted operation more similar in nature to bugging the home than to a general purpose security camera catching a glimpse of someone on the street.
Unsettling nonetheless.
It depends on states, but almost every state falls into the classification of one-party or all-party. In one-party states, at least one person being recorded must be aware of the recording. In all-party states, all parties being recorded must be informed.
These laws were originally written for telephone tapping, but my understanding is that they have been used in cases of bugging as well, even when no phone was involved.
Just curious what the workarounds are really. If the wiretap style "one party" rules were applied then it seems you could just make sure that you get your own audio on there too; or with audiovisual recording you could sit in the shot somewhere and record people so long as you also captured your own voice. It would seem intent primarily to record others (as opposed to it being incidental to the recording you made) would be close to impossible to prove under such circumstances.
almost every state falls into the classification of one-party or all-party.
I should add; if this were not the case, then manufactures of modern gadgets would be much less likely to have active monitoring of your microphone, for fear of how that action could be interpreted in court. Siri, what are your thoughts on this?
If someone does have an expectation of privacy in public (which does not necessarily seem clear to me), you would be engaging in unlawful surveillance. Whispered conversations in public may be protected. The language used by CA law is: "circumstance in which the parties to the communication may reasonably expect that the communication may be overheard or recorded." See: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&gr...
In CA, video recording laws are more liberal. That's why you see surveillance cameras all over the place in cities (and increasingly in residential suburban or rural neighborhoods as well).
I like how they start some huge investigation to to try to fix the auctions instead of just building an auction website and opening it up to the entire US public. This would probably make collusion impossible and get better prices for the property.
Even though it probably did that as well.
Do the recorders have their own power supply? Their own cellular connection? Are they essentially phones with giant batteries and a good external microphone?
As an aside, it's always annoyed me that cell phones don't all come with built-in call recording capabilities.
Oh but they do! Haven't you read the Snowden docs? You just don't have access to the recorded files ;)
http://www.amazon.com/Enemies-History-FBI-Tim-Weiner/dp/0812...
Requiring registration to view even a limited number of articles is a great way to get me to never read your articles.
EDIT -
Yeah, that's right. Don't respond or disagree, just vote it down. Dear (non-existent) God, echo chambers everywhere, with just different brands of stupid.
> Don't respond or disagree, just vote it down
It's faster to produce bullshit ideas than to respond to them civilly, as anyone who has an incompetent coworker can attest to. You aren't owed anything.
A clear example here being a drone you're flying in a park. With that interpretation only law enforcement's drones' recordings would ever have a chance of being used in court. This is about protecting your right to have equal footing with law enforcement for evidence.
I would also submit that the critical factor in this case was the state's use of a hidden camera. We've already agreed that there is no problem with the FBI posting an actual agent on the steps.
Finally, this type of law applies much more to audio than to video. I am allowed to record video to my heart's content. I am only allowed to record a conversation with consent of all parties in my state. But even if I did so, no sane court would prevent me from using such a recording in my own defense.
I want to have just as much a right to record law enforcement in public as they have to record me. I'm not grasping at straws, I'm arguing for openness rather than privacy in public, which I think is a much better and more achievable outcome.
It really does depend alot on who is making the recordings and for what purpose. Incriminating evidence obtained illegally is always bared because the state is in the business of snooping into people's business and needs strict boundaries set. Exculpatory evidence collected by the neighborhood busybody can be allowed even if the recordings were made illegally.
Of course, the Busybody's lawyer may try and get it struck as admitting it would make any civil and/or criminal trial harder to defend against, but that wouldn't necessarily stop them from doing so. Makes it more complex if the Busybody is also the defendant, but then you're trading admission of guilt for a lesser offense (illegal recording) to get you off from a higher offense, like anti-trust type stuff.
And that's also assuming that the people you are recording decide they want to press charges.
Also, is evidence gathered illegally by a non-government entity inadmissible? I thought that they would use it anyway, and also prosecute the recording party for breaking that law.
"What the government did here is not unlawful only because it occurred outside a courthouse..."
The headline says illegal, but that's not what the term actually means. I know it's semantics, but the argument you appear to be making is that law enforcement broke laws here. They did not. They may have a recording that they can't use in court, but the recording itself is not illegal.
Downvoting is disagreeing here.
> therecorder.com