Comment by ajsnigrutin | Hacker News Reader

Comment by ajsnigrutin | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

The problem is, that they lied about how they got te evidence.

Eg, they plant a hidden camera in your house, see you packing drugs and puting them in your car in your own garage, and driving away. Since they got the info that you had the drugs from illegally set cameras, they can't just stop and search your car, but they can "randomly" stop you for a traffic check, and just "randomly" have a drug sniffing dog present, which finds the drugs in your car.

If the judges let this go through, the police would use more illegal methods (illegal searches, etc.) to gather data, then just "randomly" detect crime, and then the state would win cases.... and we (the people) don't want that. That's why, if you prove, that they knew the drugs were there from an illegal source of information, everything derived from that illegal source should be dropped as a illegally obtained evidence, to disincentivise the use of illegal methods.

Basically, the officer saying they randomly stopped you, would be a lie (=perjury), because they stopped you due their illegal cameras.

This already happens. I once had a conversation with a Homeland Security officer at a backyard BBQ, and he said:

"When you see on the news that Police randomly stopped a car and discovered a huge cache of drugs... you don't actually think that's random, do you?"

TBH I had never thought about it before but now I recognize this pattern everywhere.

Yes, it already happens and that's why it's a problem. If they discovered that they should "randomly" pull over that vehicle through evidence that was gathered illegally, then it should also be considered a violation of the 4th amendment... which is likely why the EFF has launched this project.

It would be interesting - and likely amusing - to extrapolate how many people must be driving around with huge caches of drugs, based on an assumption that purportedly unrelated traffic stops (or equivalent) were in fact random samples.

I really do think a "google maps" for police activity needs to be created -- including every single arrest, prosecution , subsequent legal claim... you should be able to rate police officers like restaurants on Yelp

My local courthouse is rated on Yelp. In a shocking turn of events nobody could have ever predicted, it has 1 star.

That doesn't mean those stops aren't base on intel gained via legal warrants. It's more likely the police are trying to protect a source, either a person or technical means that is providing them greater information.

They used to say people going the speed limit on the New Jersey turnpike was a tell. I guess it was/is? a major drug trafficking artery.

There's a DEA program called SOD.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-dea-sod-idUSBRE97409R2013...

https://www.deamuseum.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/042215-...

Most of the time that’s from confidential informants. Not parallel construction.

Technically it could be random....

If you "did nothing wrong", you also drive like you did nothing wrong (5-10 over), hit some yellow lights, etc.

If you know you have a bag of drugs in your car, and a police vehicle pulls at a stop next to you, you can panic.

Also if they do stop you, becase you (eg.) didnt use your turn signal, most people just sigh., give some excuse ("I wanted to, but that black car came, and i had to go around, and the cat, and the wipers, and this and that"), and calmly wait for a ticket... people with drugs usually act different.

And thirdly, police usually know all the drug dealers in their area, know their cars, and just have to catch them with enough drugs to make it worthwile.... so they probably get stopped a bit more often than a normal random commuter does, even if neither of them use turn signals regularly.

>This already happens. I once had a conversation with a Homeland Security officer at a backyard BBQ, and he said:

Oh, it definitly happens.

But officers also make fishing stops all the time too.

It might be worth coming up with an example that doesn’t illustrate an end that may justify precisely the means you describe. In your hypothetical scenario, the system would be working as intended according to many people, because the drug dealer would have otherwise gotten away with illegal activity that those people perceive as harmful.

But the end does not justify the means, due to the fact that it is a violation of their 4th Amendment specifically the right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects. Illegal searches are illegal no matter the sound basis after the fact. As an order of our society, historically police where not supposed to go looking for crime. They where commissioned to enforce the law. One cannot enforce the law by breaking the law and it has set a very bad precedence that the police now go looking for crime. Because if they "believe" you are a criminal there is a better than average chance they are going to find something no matter how petty or insignificant. The point being, it does not matter the end result, it never justifies the action in retrospect as the person is and should be assumed innocent until legal evidence of a crime is uncovered. If it was obtained illegally all evidence even parallel construction should be tossed out for the taint it bring with it.

All of that is true, and nonetheless the parent comment stands: it will be rhetorically more convincing if you show how this negatively impacts the law-abiding.

Like having a police officer watch you shower, jerk off, and eat pizza in your underwear every day, in your own home, while you have no drugs there, but they think you do?

Let’s start with the same scenario: cameras are placed inside a home to try to catch you packing drugs except... it turns out you’re not a drug dealer. So they wait, and wait, and the whole time record everything going on in your house. Your arguments with your wife, your “romantic time”, the ridiculous things your kids say.

Doesn’t that feel like a huge violation of your privacy?

While it may be move convincing, the hope is for people to see that these rights exist for a reason and that even in the presence of mortal outrage, they should still be defended. Because someone out there, is morally outraged at the way you live your life and would make something illegal that you do if they could. That is the whole point of the bill of rights and the amendments. Is to guarantee a base level of freedom no matter how the winds change. I don't understand why that is so hard for people to get. Maybe it's because I am older and boy have I seen the winds change, but it only takes one swing away from your viewpoint to understand how important they are.

>>In your hypothetical scenario, the system would be working as intended according to many people, because the drug dealer would have otherwise gotten away with illegal activity that those people perceive as harmful.

>But the end does not justify the means, due to the fact that it is a violation of their 4th Amendment specifically the right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects.

You're greatly underestimating how many people who unironically oppose due process and civil rights because it "helps the bad guys", they themselves "don't have anything to hide", and "if you're being investigated, you probably did something wrong".

> "if you're being investigated, you probably did something wrong".

Yeah, like being born a Jew in Germany a little over a century ago.

The meaning of "something wrong" can change over time.

> It might be worth coming up with an example that doesn’t illustrate an end that may justify precisely the means you describe

Agreed.

And a lot of people will miss an important point: for every dealer caught using 'parallel construction', countless of innocent citizens would have to be surveyed to score a "hit".

Yes, but what if the cameras are not illegally placed, but in fact put there with a warrant. Then there is nothing illegal going on at all, but it would still be in LE interest to parallel how they know about the drugs, so that they can continue using the camera and maybe find out where the next shipment is going to be as well.

Then the judge would be aware of the warrant, and wouldnt throw the evidence away, because it would be obtained legally.

Yes that's precisely my point - there would still be parallel construction but there would be nothing illegal

Reply on news.ycombinator.com