Can Authorities Cut Off Utilities And Pose As Repairmen To Search A Home? | Hacker News Reader

Can Authorities Cut Off Utilities And Pose As Repairmen To Search A Home?

npr.org

333 pointsDickingAround163 comments

> the FBI provided two blank CDs, claiming the recording devices malfunctioned

The levels of day-to-day corruption within the US judicial system are almost comical at times, scary at others...

Between the police constantly getting away with committing crimes, prosecutors essentially blackmailing innocent people into pleas, and judges often ignoring the rule of law (with VERY shaky justifications), it seems like the entire system is fubar.

The US system is just corrupt through and through. I see nothing redeeming about it. The only people who seem to [sometimes] receive justice are the rich, and while that is the case on other countries, in many of those countries that is a "scandal" in the US it is "working as intended."

> the FBI provided two blank CDs, claiming the recording devices malfunctioned

I think "contempt of the court" is a tool which should be applied here. No warning, high fines.

fines? do you get fines as a regular citizen if you lie with premeditation to a judge or do you get jail time? plus government officials should be held to a higher standard -> higher penalties than regular citizens imho

My opinion is that the levels of corruption in the American justice system have always been the same or are tending to decline in aggregate, similar to violent crimes (I don't have any statistics for corruption). It just seems that the opposite is happening because of the ubiquity and lack of cost associated with mass communication. To put it another way, when corrupt actions occur in a particular case, hundreds of thousands and possibly millions of people hear about it. This didn't always used to happen, especially when mass communication was centrally controlled by a few broadcasting corporations.

The Corruption Perceptions survey is a useful metric. The USA tends to hang with Japan around the high teens in ranking year after year. Interestingly, there is a wider variance in perceptions of American corruption than for other countries.

the wider variance certainly would make more sense... the US has a ton of people. New Orleans PD is notoriously corrupt, the "Chicago Way" is even a thing (vote early and vote often!). Compare that to a mid size city/state like Des Moines, Iowa and of course you're going to see big differences in corruption perceptions.

>The Corruption Perceptions survey is a useful metric. The USA tends to hang with Japan around the high teens in ranking year after year. Interestingly, there is a wider variance in perceptions of American corruption than for other countries

I think the perception of corruption is interesting, because overall the West is far lower than elsewhere. Link for those interested: http://www.transparency.org/cpi2013/results

While when you actually talk to people, corruption in the West is pretty widely acknowledged and even outright accepted. For example, when the NSA stories first broke the reaction on Reddit was largely a mix of:

"Duh, this is confirming what we already know"

and

"Well, it's not like other countries aren't doing it too" (even though, at that time, only the NSA was being highlighted and there was little/no news about their European, Canadian, Australian etc. counterparts.

What had been previously relegated by the mass populace as conspiracy theory nonsense was very quickly accepted, and then very quickly relegated to acceptance.

What this would lead me personally to believe, from just watching these things unfold, watching the mass reaction to it and then talking with others about it, is that we in the West widely acknowledge corruption here but out of a combination of a feeling of powerlessness (what am I, Joe Bloggs, going to be able to do about it), being removed from it (this doesn't affect I, Joe Bloggs, all that much) and probably an inherent sense of nationalism (well, it's probably much worse over there in that other country) we actively downplay the level of corruption in our societies, and I believe that this probably ends up being reflected in these surveys.

I've no doubt that the above is conjecture, but it's just what I've formed from my own experiences. There is a very marked feeling of powerlessness though, and the little action taken, even political action, over the things that have been exposed in the West would solidify that opinion somewhat more.

Well there's got to be a way to test that hypothesis

It would be helpful for you to have data to back up that sentiment. But quite frankly, I am very skeptical that corruption is on the decline. Yes, mass communcation makes it easier to hear about these sorts of violations, but easy mass communication has also opened the door to easy mass surveillance. So corruption is being expressed in new ways. Easy communications and information sharing also makes it possible for law enforcement to coordinate these kinds of dodgy ways of circumventing the spirit of laws and regulations.

While I fully agree that mass communication is inflating our perception, it also goes both ways. A person that get constantly bombarded that their profession is corrupt is more likely to yield to corruption themselves.

Indeed. It's hard to even say we have had popular rule of law given things like Korematsu, but these days we have legitimately challenging legal questions (about whether a human has to see something for it to count as a search, for instance), and as bad as some things are, it's not public mass lawless condemnation like there used to be. Now we have some private courts and a comparatively small number of suspicious governmental mishaps (perhaps an advantage to "Terrorism" being the enemy of our era -- hard to paint millions of people with that brush).

I think you may be right about peoples' perceptions. No matter what the case, we should still work to improve the system by minimizing corruption.

Systemic corruption, as with sketchy asset forfeiture, doesn't show up in corruption statistics. Pretty much any thuggery that did not end up in a conviction doesn't count.

>The levels of day-to-day corruption within the US judicial system

Yes, and it goes beyond the incompetence, crimes and corruption. It's expensive.

Amongst all the municipal election hoopla in Toronto, I read a tidbit that last year the cost of policing increased by almost $400 per citizen.

Now, I'll be honest, I have no idea what it really costs to run a police force, but it surprised me that it's increasing at such a rate. One would think that policing would become cheaper over time, via technology, an overall decrease in crime rates, and the nature of new crime that often involves people sitting in front of computers, both solving and committing the crime. That is unless you're buying all the new military toys to subjugate the citizenry.

" That is unless you're buying all the new military toys to subjugate the citizenry."

According to what I've read (relating to the US) unnecessary military equipment is generally supplied by the federal government or via funds acquired through "civil asset forfeiture" (theft).

Which often becomes the new budget the following year.

There are significant costs to owning an MRAP, not just to acquiring one. Training, maintenance, operation, etc is all much more expensive when your police force has specialized military hardware.

I had to LOL at "training" but I agree that US police forces are spending more on maintenance and operation, especially since they pull these things out at the drop of a hat.

inadequate training can cost just as much as (or more than) adequate training. If a police department is requisitioning big powerful toys, they are going to play with them. Going off-roading in the desert burns just as much fuel as doing a proper training seminar.

My point was the police don't really train or else we wouldn't have all these issues with their lack of professionalism and capabilities. They might "train" on how to clear a room but they don't train on appropriate escalation of force, for example.

Population of Toronto is ~2.5 million. $400 dollars a person is 1 billion dollars which is a bit absurd as an increase. It does however happen to be roughly what the city spends in totality. '13-'14 increase was ~12 dollars per person.

If Toronto is anything like many American municipalities, a large chunk of that cost is pensions. Pension funds are often not fully paid up, and payments into the fund are often subject to rosy predictions about future earnings that lead to shortfalls if the fund manager underperforms. Additionally, public pensions often have a large 'defined benefit' overhang meaning that many beneficiaries are contractually entitled to fixed payouts. Finally, many public pensions are also based on final salary at retirement or in a short (1-3 year) period leading up to retirement, so it's common for in the US (and likely elsewhere) for police to work ridiculous amoutns of overtime in their last few years on the force in order to puff up their pension. Since the administration of a pension fund can involve payment obligations that reach back for many decades, the burdens of past financial or contractual mismanagement are often cumulative and ultimately fall upon the taxpayer.

This is not as exciting or scarifying as police spending too much money on military toys, but it's a much more likely explanation for budgetary increases. One other possible problem which has recently been an issue in San Jose, California is that police academies sometimes spend a lot of money training new officers, only to see them leave immediately after graduation for other cities/counties that offer better pay or benefits. In the US many municipalities run their own police academies and there are no contractual obligations on graduates. San Jose has been strenuously trying to reform its pension system, so (unsurprisingly) new entrants to the force get a much worse deal than senior members whose benefits are locked in and have to be paid for by cuts to the benefits that can be earned by new members. So graduates train up in San Jose and then take off for some other city in the area that's offering a sweeter deal, possibly with the encouragement of of the police union that is not enthused about pension reform.

Maybe we need a law making it a crime to illegally violate somebody's rights. Throw a couple of cops in prison for stunts like this, and we'd probably see a lot less abuse.

Otherwise upstanding policemen are being pushing into violating the law by their superiors. Make it a crime, and the police unions would help make these problems go away.

Well, actually, I am pretty sure it is a crime, just not one that is enforced in any meaningful way.

That's precisely it.

It's simply not realistic to have a group of law enforcement officers to investigate their own alleged wrongdoing and expect them be impartial.

>Throw a couple of cops in prison for stunts like this, and we'd probably see a lot less abuse.

I think you'd see a variety of political arguments against this that would amount to such an action helping terrorism, those supporting it are trying to undermine America's security, or that placing the fear of prison over an officer's actions amongst the force would prevent them from doing their job properly.

>Otherwise upstanding policemen are being pushing into violating the law by their superiors

They already are in many ways. There were leaks from the NYPD where the officers involved exposed that they were subject to mandatory stop-and-frisk quotas and that racial profiling was highly used in doing so. Likewise, drug busts provide huge income to local police forces [1]. There is therefore an incentive to bend the law because it brings their force income, getting these busts looks good on an officer's record and having a cash flush precinct means there won't be any holding back on giving out overtime.

1. http://www.wfsb.com/story/22078253/what-happens-to-all-the-m...

That's a cop out. In my city, the police have a specific list of things that they are and are not allowed to do with certain populations. Following those rules is difficult, because it means that they cannot intervene in many cases without following a particular protocol.

Police organizations are command & control organizations. Policemen follow orders. Give them a strong message and something to comply with, and they will do so.

The scary thing about recent developments with Federal law enforcement is that the command culture is accepting or demanding certain behavior. The ATF "Fast and Furious" debacle, various border issues, the DEA and FBI's construction of cases from illegally gathered information isn't a bunch of rogue agents -- it is leadership acting in contempt of the law.

If you hold the officers accountable, they will push back.

Normally these discussions get framed in terms of "rights" and how the FBI are violating them, but the average person doesn't care a lot about their abstract rights. It doesn't register. The real issue, and what bothers me, and I think the FBI here don't "get", is that when they pull these stunts, they are helping the real criminals. In court, when someone who is actually guilty of a crime can show that the FBI did this sort of stunt, they can often appeal and nullify the entire sentence. Criminals can end up going free because the law enforcement felt it had a right to do whatever they wanted. When law enforcement acts in disregard to the law, they are not only breaking it, but aiding the real criminals escape justice.

I also don't think we should frame discussions in terms of crimes, criminals and justice. It's more like corporately sponsored regulatory code, code violators, and punishment if you're poor or a minority.

While I agree, poor minorities may be the most frequently punished, but they are by no means the only ones.

It's so great to have people like you, who are so much smarter than the average person. Continue to bless our internet with your wisdom!

But seriously, go talk to an average person. They'll care a bit more than you think especially if you drop the condescending attitude toward them.

Not one thing about that was condescending.

Have you spoken with someone aged 65+? How about people living in flyover country?

Most do not care about their abstract rights, as the OP stated. Life is mostly okay, maybe not as easy as 2000-2008, but pretty easy. Therefore, they don't want to rock the boat.

Actually, I would expect the opposite from people in flyover country, which has a common distrust of all things government.

I've noticed that it's an awkward distrust. They distrust police, but support them because they're heroes. They unabashedly support the military, for any reason. Federal government they sort of distrust, but mostly just don't want feds around. State government they don't want anywhere near their lives, but are staunchly supportive of state's individual rights. Local government they only distrust because they know the people on the county board and don't like them, but believe that all power is derived from local government.

At least those are the general attitudes in my small portion of middle-America; take it for what it's worth, I guess. I can't wrap my mind around it.

So, basically, they are just people. Much like everywhere else.

How about you stop calling it flyover country. You're just making wild generalizations anyways. I grew up "there" and have always appreciated government. I hunt if that's enough "flyover" cred for you.

Funny thing to say, since you have no idea where I'm from nor know anything about me.

>Most do not care about their abstract rights, as the OP stated. Life is mostly okay, maybe not as easy as 2000-2008, but pretty easy. Therefore, they don't want to rock the boat.

I'm surprised that you've been downvoted for this, because it's absolutely true.

The complete inaction in reaction to the scandals that have broken over the past decade or so, and I'm not going to just confine this to the US as it has happened in Europe and elsewhere, showed that people feel disconnected and completely powerless to what has gone on.

If it is true the FBI tried to cover their asses, heads should roll. This kind of stuff is so despicable. If it is inconvenient to get a warrant, then that's where your job ends.

My civil liberties should not be crumbling because of overzealous FBI agents going after some silly illegal gambling.

When you look at it from the perspective of the officers, this plan was a win-win proposition. Even if it gets thrown out it court, they stopped the allegedly illegal operation. When there is no consequence to the officers themselves for their actions, then the ends will justify the means.

(It's unjust, unethical, and possibly illegal, but it's the same reason people are still reading and discussing Machiavelli 500 years later.)

It's only win-win if no heads roll, as the parent proposed.

The odds of heads rolling, going by previous non-attempts at holding these agencies responsible for their actions, seem to be low enough that they're quite happy to engage this behaviour without fear.

And as for bringing about a change that would see future incidents causing them to be held accountable? I think the average person, and therefore the population, feels entirely powerless in that regard. I mean the US voted for a supposedly liberal, progressive President who even has it on his campaign website [1] that he would "Protect Whistleblowers", who has then gone on to prosecute more whistleblowers than all other President's combined [2].

So it's no wonder why people feel powerless, and it's no wonder why any change to these situations is certainly not coming in the visible future.

1. http://change.gov/agenda/ethics_agenda/

2. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/sep/05/obama-c...

That's why it's such a shame the Obama administration especially (but probably the previous admins, too) fight to hard to protect the criminals in the government, instead of punishing them. That just sends a message that they can keep doing this sort of stuff, and nothing will happen to them.

I'm not going to look for it now, but I remember a speech from Obama in relation to torture and he was basically saying that "he has the CIA's back," if the media or whoever tries to get those people responsible punished for it. It was from a few years ago, in this first term.

How is that a win? You've frustrated criminals for all of about 5 minutes. Further, you've alerted them to potential problem areas to avoid in the future.

Congratulations, you've just made a smarter criminal. It also doesn't help that the FBI is a public institution and is required to respond to FOIA requests.

The FBI does way more damage when it swings and misses than simply not doing anything at all.

And why should any government official care about your civil liberties? Because otherwise.... what?

Well, because otherwise you can:

1) not vote for them next time,

2) overthrow the government (happened quite often throughtout the 20th century in lots of E.U. and others countries. Governments can and do get thrown off mid-term by popular protest)

3) put politicians in jail (also happens)

4) eliminate their whole political party (e.g take it from 50%+ to less than 10% of the vote).

5) full blown revolution.

Against powerful private interests on the other hand, you can't do as much. Especially if they work together.

The time where any of those points could have a meaningful impact on the political status quo has long passed.

Even in extreme situations where governments are overthrown, foreign intelligence agencies have perfected their ability to totally manipulated the chaos to their benefit.

Which is why it is no surprise the leaders who end up taking power are pretty much always puppets for much more powerful external states. Leaving the general populous in even less of a position of power than pre-revolution.

>Even in extreme situations where governments are overthrown, foreign intelligence agencies have perfected their ability to totally manipulated the chaos to their benefit.

If not simply orchestrate the whole thing themselves, as the US and the UK did in Iran in 1953.

Or helped happen in Ukraine twice in the past decade.

"If it is inconvenient to get a warrant, then that's where your job ends."

Or your job entails dealing with some inconvenience. Not by breaking the law or violating rights, though.

This sort of thing is standard secret service wave blank paper to gain entry

http://www.jrn.com/newschannel5/news/newschannel-5-investiga...

I hadn't heard about that. That's awesome that the police chief is taking them on about this. It's becoming rare to hear about police chiefs doing the right thing when it comes to abuse of power.

I think that's selection bias creeping through. It's easy to remember the really negative events and less so the mundane, positive ones. Perceptions is reality and all that.

I'd think that the selection bias would make far it easier to remember the positive events in this situation. This event would not have made the news, and no one would have been aware of it except for the victim if the police chief hadn't raised an (apparently huge) stink. If it's difficult for the Nashville chief of police to get traction on an incident that happened within his jurisdiction, what chance do you have?

Not really. Negative and positive events do not balance each other out. If your local authorities go help kittens out of a tree, feed the homeless, then savagely beat minorities it is not a zero sum game. People in a position of power abusing their authority can jade entire communities against trusting them ever again.

Wow, the MNPD should be applauded for doing their job and following the rules, despite pressure from Federal Agents:

"In fact, the chief said that, as soon as officers arrived, they realized that the Secret Service agents did not have a legal basis to enter the man's house, and the man -- who had a legal permit to carry a gun -- had never actually threatened anyone."

I have a story similar to this, though it didn't involve the police actually searching my home.

In March of 2011, my St. Louis hosted an Occupy convention - which was mostly workshops/lectures and some very tame marches due to out-of-town folks. My roommates and I had been involved for a bit and some had given our address out when arrests were made.

This was prime-time for police intimidation (including of witnesses) and undercover agents. We were aggressively tailed by unmarked cars, had police writing down license-plates of those at our house, and had a constant police presence circling the block and down the alley.

Aside from very close friends being intensely beaten for participating in a march that was staying on the sidewalk (a scene that still haunts most of us) - the most corrupt thing that happened to us was when they worked with the local Electric company (Ameren UE) to have our electricity shut off.

We called the electric company to find out why it was shut off when the bill had been up-to-date and were told they were ordered to by the police due to the house being declared Condemned and us being labeled as squatters.

We had some pro-bono lawyers who advised me to threaten the electric company with legal action - which made their representatives quickly make up a legal excuse as to why our electric was shut off. I informed the landlord, who checked into it and found that it involved a Sergeant with the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department.

The conversation between then went something along the lines of: - Landlord: Why has the house been declared condemned and the electric shut off? - Police: This house has been involved with Occupy and often serves as a meeting place for it. - Landlord: Ok... Is it illegal to hold meetings in a house? - Police: Well... No... - Landlord: Then we shouldn't have a problem.

Probably helped that the landlord is a high-ranking official in the nearby Air Force base. Within 24 hours, our electric was reconnected.

My take-away from all of this, and the current events, is that the best course of action in dealing with aggressive and usually illegal police activities is to fight back with an even more aggressive legal campaign as well as establishing a very close and open relationship with all surrounding neighbors. Their fraternity acts as an organizational bully that constantly pushes what they can get away with until they sense actual danger to themselves/their jobs in terms of legal ramifications, etc.

My takeaway from your story is that the high connections your landlord probably had to draw upon was the reason you prevailed with the electricity company.

His point stands. Don't make it easy for them, this is wrong and they need to be made to understand that it's unacceptable for them to pull these kinds of stunts.

IMO he shouldn't have let it rest after the electricity was turned back on, he should have pressed the matter by trying to contact the media about this and by getting a written statement from the landlord regarding the events for future reference, and should have written a blog post about it.

These FBI agents are criminals, pure and simple.

Not that I think they'll be held accountable for their crimes, much like they weren't for the other lies that they've brazenly told in court related to parallel construction.

However, it's apparent that they don't actually care what the law is, and are perfectly willing to violate it when they feel like they want something that the law forbids them.

Disgusting.

Wow, I'm amazed this happens in modern USA. Such methods reminds of KGB in Soviet Russia or Stasi in East Germany, where agents were often "employed" as cleaners, housekeepers, electricians, doormen etc. Looks like the whole warrant system is broken and often used only to cover up the "parallel constructions", in other words, some kind of PR stuff.

I once caught a pair of police officers trying to break into my home through my 2nd story bedroom window (while I was sleeping) in the middle of the day.

I was home and caught them in the act, which was evidently unexpected because one of them nearly fell off my roof when I asked them wtf they were doing.

They claimed they had received a 911 call from my home, despite the fact that I was asleep and was home alone. After searching the home myself looking for a possibly incapacitated relative (with them in toe, despite the fact that I had not granted them access) and finding no-one, they left. I asked around, and this apparently happens very frequently in my area.

If there's a 911 call and it is disconnected, that does sound like grounds to at least attend to the residence. But breaking and entering when there aren't signs anyone is even home? I have a hard time agreeing that this was called for. I now live in an apartment building or I would block my windows from opening wide enough for someone to enter through them.

> break into my home through my 2nd story bedroom window

It's even more telling they were trying to break in secretly.

If they were genuinely concerned someone desperately needed medical attention, where were the paramedics, and why didn't they loudly bash on the front door, announce themselves then smash it down loudly in front of everyone?

How did you confirm that they were actual police officers?

Fair question.

They had police uniforms, complete with radios which were squawking occasionally, they had a police cruiser complete with Toughbook, and it appeared to me as though the older officer was training the younger one. All in all, I'm not 100% sure, but I'm pretty certain.

Sounds reasonable. My first thought would've been that these are impostors, but that's a rather complete set of props.

The worst case scenario for the FBI is that the evidence gets thrown out in this one case. No one will lose their job. No one will get seriously punished. As such, I fully expect the FBI and other law enforcement agencies to continue to come up with creative ways to perform unreasonable searches without probable cause.

No, the worst case is that people start suspecting innocent workmen of being undercover cops and enacting street justice against them. Now a meth dealer who's been awake for three days has a legitimate reason to think that the cable guy might be a cop.

This is why Doctors Without Borders gets pissed off when the CIA poses as healthcare workers. This is why the Geneva Convention specifies that medical personnel - and only medical personnel - wear a red cross to identify them as noncombatants. Someone at the FBI probably thought this was a grand idea, while utility workers are now more likely to be victims of violent crime because of it. Great job, guys.

Externalized costs are, like, totally someone else's problem, man.

No.

I have followed this story for a while and this is just insane what they did without a warrant. So they effectively break the law to gain evidence? They are allowed to sabotage another party's services and pose as their persons to do such?

This is really just another in a long line of abuses the judicial system foists onto people, mostly onto those who cannot afford legal representation. Their mistake here was these people could. I am amazed they didn't try forfeiture laws and declare the computing equipment as breaking the law, without rights, and just taking it only "to discover" it was used for nefarious purposes.

When Law Enforcement Agencies ignore the very law they are supposed to enforce they simply become a'put people into prisons' organization. This is the real reason why you don't want them to have wide reaching powers, there is only a fine line between LEA and criminal activity.

We will see if James Comey will shed as many tears about this as he is spending on Apple's encryption.

> the very law they are supposed to enforce

It doesn't seem all that clear cut that they were breaking the law in this case. What is illegal about them shutting off the internet and then posing as repair men? Is there actually a law against that?

>What is illegal about them shutting off the internet and then posing as repair men? Is there actually a law against that?

What do you think would happen if you tried that on the home (or office) of a law enforcement officer? I think you'd end up arrested and charged with something if you got caught; maybe destruction of properly, maybe fraud, maybe home invasion?

> maybe destruction of properly, maybe fraud, maybe home invasion

In this case, there was no destruction of property, just disconnection of internet service. As for fraud, I'm not aware of any fraud-related laws that apply. And it can't be home invasion if you invite me in.

What's illegal about me coming to your home cutting off your internet wires? Same thing.

This case is different. The police apparently had the hotel's permission to shut off the internet. Same thing as if you went to my ISP and asked them to shut off my internet and they said "yes". That's not illegal.

This still doesn't top the fact cops all over this country on a regular basis, stop anyone and seize their property and cash without any charge of criminal wrongdoing, just because it would be too expensive for people to sue them to get it back.

That little gem should be running on the corner of the front page of every newspaper and television news program every week forever until someone is finally horrified.

> That little gem should be running on the corner of the front page of every newspaper and television news program every week forever until someone is finally horrified.

No, it needs to be the headline or top story, period. Running it in the corner every week relegates it to insignificance in pretty much anyone's eyes. Just as with the Snowden revelations, the constant bombardment of news stories will lead to information fatigue. People just won't care, and while they won't consciously accept it, their subconscious will add it to the ever-growing avalanche of shit they deal with on a daily basis. They will be come numb to it.

One thing also disturbing is that it doesn't say what they actually saw inside, and apparently that wasn't recorded.

This goes to show that, even if they don't see anything to justify a search warrant, merely letting them in allows them to say they saw something in order to obtain a warrant.

Similarly, if you speak with police without a lawyer present, the policeman can say that you confessed to them (or said something that damages your case, at least), regardless of whether it's true.

> Similarly, if you speak with police without a lawyer present, the policeman can say that you confessed to them (or said something that damages your case, at least), regardless of whether it's true.

I've always found that one really interesting. Let's say they arrest me, put me in a room and try to interrogate me for a few hours before a lawyer shows up. Even if the only words out of my mouth the entire time are "I would like to speak to a lawyer please", what stops the Police from saying I said something else entirely?

> Let's say they arrest me, put me in a room and try to interrogate me for a few hours before a lawyer shows up. Even if the only words out of my mouth the entire time are "I would like to speak to a lawyer please", what stops the Police from saying I said something else entirely?

Their conscience about committing perjury. Nothing else.

But it's a bit more nuanced than that, because even if each one of the people in the room (aside from you) are willing to commit perjury, each one has to be convinced that each of the others is also willing to commit perjury.

Right. An outright fabrication from pure silence is less likely than a creative "misinterpretation".

I know the answer to this. In 2014, the thing that keeps the police from saying anything else is a recording of the entire situation. Recording is standard practice in most interrogation situations. I say most, not all.

Story Time; I was interviewed for a crime I was tangentially related to (my employer at the time was robbed while I was on the clock, they were investigating any possible connections on my side). I kept repeating, "I would like to speak to my lawyer please." Once my lawyer came, he advised me to just be honest and tell them that there was no connection. I was just uncomfortable about talking to a cop behind closed doors and was 17.

When asked what we talked about, the cops response was something along the lines of, "nothing, the little asshole just kept saying lawyer. Check the tapes."

It was then that I realized the power of video.

The FBI recently changed its long-standing policy of not recording interrogations.

This comes just after the allegations that the FBI used the Seattle Times email format to trick a bomb threat suspect into clicking on a link that installed spyware.

If this plus the FBI impersonating respected Press members doesn't cause some kind of shake-up, I think we are doomed at every solving the problem of the law enforcement overreach.

That was legit, by contrast. In this case, if the butler had acceded to the initial request (to come inside to 'check the network') that would have been totally legitimate too. There's nothing legally wrong with tricking people, or undercover police work would be impossible.

Except it undermines the power of the press and, in my opinion, the freedom of the press, which is a constitutionally granted right. It creates a situation where people are scared of speaking to the press and can create situations where the press cannot get sources because of the fear of impersonation. So yeah, its good police work, except for that small little thing called the United States Constitution. This is all too often the reasoning that is used to take away our liberty.

I don't think it's unconstitutional at all. I gave the example the other day of where you have a suspect's phone number but no location. So you call and say 'I'm from Your_local_newspaper and we're offering 2 weeks of free delivery to new subscribers, would you like to receive the paper for 2 weeks free sir?' If the person say yes and you confirm the address, then deliver copies of the paper there and stake it out to see if your suspect appears to pick it up, there's no problem there.

I do not at all agree that this undermines the power of the press; one individual was sent a spoofed link that appeared to go to a newspaper story but didn't. This fact was in the public domain (accessible on the EFF's website) for 3 years before anyone chose to make a fuss about it. I certainly wouldn't feel inhibited about speaking to the press as a result of knowing about this.

It's not one incident that makes it scary. Its the fact that the FBI thinks its okay to continuously deteriorate long-standing constitutional protections because they know it'll help them catch more criminals. You know what also catches more criminals? Collecting every single American's technology information for the purpose of back-searching it in the event of a situation. The impersonating of press (which I completely disagree with your characterization of the event) is apparently standard protocol. By giving them the ability to steal their email format and letterhead style, they essentially have the ability to impersonate the press. Granted, in the publicized case, they only used it to act as a link to a news report about the suspect they were attempting to place malware on, but I don't think it is too far-fetched to see this line continuously move closer towards impersonation and further away from the clearly legal line.

FBI is now an "organized crime" cartel. It is the Mafia.

This is not unlike the corruption at high levels in places like Russia, China etc. There, they have a grey zone between law enforcement and criminal organizations. Think of it as "regulatory capture" but in respect to law enforcement. Here there isn't as much of a grey zone (yet?), it is more isolated, but the acting above the law bit is the same.

You can look at it as both being a bad thin in an of itself but also a signal (proxy) for deeper and more serious issues coming down the pipeline.

The one thing that FBI has is better technology and resources than any of those other criminal organizations. So any corruption no matter how small will be amplified many times over.

The FBI has been breaking the law and been guided by a machiavellian attitude for decades now. They are simply above the law and no oversight has ever been applied to this agency. Has there ever been a FBI agent sent to jail for subverting the legal system and breaking laws? Absolutely not.

The Federal Government has even thrown its weight around to protect agents when they're charged at the state level.

When Idaho attempted to indict Lon Horiuchi for shooting Vicki Weaver, the DOJ sent lawyers make sure that their man was shielded.

My story is only tangentially related, but pretty absurd. TL;DR - an FBI agent came to our house undercover as a FedEx driver, ready to serve a warrant as soon as we accepted a package.

When I was 16 I became an "eBay trade assistant" - basically people who didn't know how to sell stuff on eBay would pay me a 15% commission to sell their stuff for them. The work was really trivial, but a lot of the people I sold stuff for were 70+ years old and had some great antiques. It was easy money for a 16-year-old.

One day a guy contacted me and said, "Hey, I have a GPS from my work that I don't need, and I want you to sell it for me." I looked up the GPS; it retailed at about $1500, and was selling for around $1,000 on eBay. I would literally copy/paste the official product description and earn $150 - a no-brainer. I told him to ship me the GPS.

A few days later, as my mom was about to take me to pick up my car from the mechanic, a FedEx guy came to our garage door. He asked if there was a "Scott Smith" that lived at our house (I don't remember the exact name). We said there wasn't. He said, "Oh, well I have a GPS here for Scott Smith." I said we were expecting a GPS, but that wasn't my name. My mom got nervous and turned down the package.

A few minutes later, as we were driving to the mechanic, my mom got pulled over by an unmarked car. It was a little strange to see an unmarked car in our small town, but oh well, my mom was speeding (as everybody always is in that town). I put my iPod headphones in and didn't think twice about it. The officer asked her to step out of the car (again, I didn't know enough to think twice). After about 10 minutes of them standing there and talking I finally pulled my headphones out and heard "stolen credit card" and "GPS" in the same sentence. I put together what had happened pretty quickly, and explained it to the officer. The officer made a circling motion in the air with his finger, and four of five other unmarked cars that had parked discreetly behind us on the street drove off in various directions.

Turns out I was being used as a "fence" for one of the largest credit card thieves in America, as he was testing the waters of using trade assistants to sell on eBay. My next-door-neighbor (and a good friend of the family), who was a police officer, later told me that they had been setting up this sting for weeks. He recognized the address as being close to him, but we lived next door to a trailer park that had been notorious for crime of all varieties, so he didn't realize it was actually our house they were targeting.

Turns out the FedEx guy was an undercover FBI agent, and they had a warrant to strip our house down to the studs if we had accepted the package. In the end, we just explained what happened, and I had to turn my beloved Hotmail account over to the FBI. They said they would have me testify in court if they ever caught the guy/girl responsible, and I've never heard anything. So either they never caught him/her or my testimony was unnecessary given the email transcripts.

My mom loved to tell that story to girls I brought home for the first time. In retrospect it was probably a good litmus test to know if they'd be able to put up with me.

I don't see what's absurd about that - establishing probable cause and then doing a search with a warrant is exactly how things are supposed to work. I think it only seems weird to you because you were the least knowledgeable person about what was going on - the Feds knew there was a stolen goods ring in operation, the thieves knew you were a potential dupe who just wanted an easy buck, whereas you were young and inexperienced enough not to find anything odd about someone asking for your help in selling (what was then) a very high-tech item with a price to match.

You don't see any problem with Federal agents lying about who they are to further their own goals?

Why is it illegal for me to lie about who I am, but not the other way around?

I didn't know it was illegal to lie about who you are. There's lots of exceptions like "impersonating a police officer" and "identity theft", but I'm pretty sure it's not illegal for me to lie about who I am to a girl at a party to further my goals.

Also, the "Federal" part might be spooking you. How about police officers? Do you object to undercover officers?

> but I'm pretty sure it's not illegal for me to lie about who I am to a girl at a party to further my goals.

Right. I was talking mostly about lying to the authorities. Why can they lie to us, but we can't lie to them?

> How about police officers? Do you object to undercover officers?

That's a good question - I don't understand how it works well enough. If my spouse is having a heart attack and I call 911, can an undercover cop pretending to be a paramedic come into my house and then can a search warrant then be granted based on what he saw in my house, even though I thought he was a paramedic not a cop?

> Why can they lie to us, but we can't lie to them?

While giving false statements (any statements!) to federal officers is illegal, it's not illegal otherwise. If you're arrested for selling drugs, claim you're not selling drugs, and then are convicted - the claim that you're not selling drugs is not a crime. You can't lie in court, but the authorities nominally can't either.

I think the fact that lying to a federal officer is a crime is absurd. However, only a small percentage of the population comes in contact with federal agents so the impact is lower.

>can an undercover cop pretending to be a paramedic come into my house

I think most states have laws making it a crime to impersonate an emergency responder, and generally courts won't admit evidence that is obtained illegally (fruit of a poisoned tree and all that). However, the fact that the person is a cop makes no difference. It's the same as if anyone showed up at your door claiming to be a paramedic.

>Why can they lie to us, but we can't lie to them?

Same reason they can arrest you and you can't arrest them.

One of the jobs of the police is to investigate crimes. Deceit, when used properly, is one tool in the toolbox for good and effective police/detective work. I mean the typical "good cop, bad cop" interrogation technique can be considered deceitful.

They must use deceit (and other tactics) within the confines of due process of law to protect the accused as well as the public at large. Courts use the term "shocks the conscience" for the type of deceit that, well, shocks the conscience, and that type of deceit isn't allowed. There isn't an exact line drawn in the sand over when legitimate police work turns into "shocks the conscience" behavior because it can be somewhat subjective at times. However, a clear example would be a police officer pretending to be the suspect's court appointed attorney in order to gain evidence. See also: Rochin v. California[1]

If police posed as paramedics in order to enter your house, that definitely would pass the "shock the conscience test" thus violate due process of law. Doubly so if they somehow purposely injured you or your spouse to get you to call.

Furthermore, police don't need to obtain a search warrant if they have probable cause. The plain view doctrine[2] would likely apply as long as the officer was lawfully in your home (you invited her in for tea) and all your murder weapons covered in blood were laid out on the coffee table. I'm being hyperbolic, but you get the point. The officer also doesn't need a warrant if you consent to a search. Your consent can be taken away at any time though.

This is a really really great overview on the topic - http://policelink.monster.com/training/articles/1911-lying-t...

And here[3] are two recent cases out of New York (these are state court, not federal, but I still think they are good examples of the concept)

>In a unanimous ruling, the New York State Court of Appeals tossed out the 2009 conviction of Adrian Thomas for the murder of his infant son, finding that Troy, N.Y., police had overstepped their prerogative to use artifice when they told Mr. Thomas that his son, who was brain-dead, was alive and could be saved with his confession, among numerous other falsehoods.

>In another decision on Thursday, the court also upheld a lower court’s ruling to overturn the conviction of Paul Aveni for criminally negligent homicide in his girlfriend’s heroin overdose death. The court agreed with the earlier ruling that police had coerced Mr. Aveni into confessing, telling him that his girlfriend was still alive, but could die if he did not tell them what drugs he had given her, so that she could receive proper treatment.

It is all a delicate balancing act to try to keep the system fair to everyone.

And FYI, I am under no illusion that there are no corrupt police, things always are perfect, etc., etc. I just am trying to give an overview of the concepts, the implementation is not perfect.

[1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rochin_v._California

[2]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plain_view_doctrine

[3]http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2014/0221/How-much-can-police-l...

FYI its a felony to lie to an FBI agent. Don't say anything to them.

If they're lying to me about who they are, how can I even know if I'm talking to an FBI agent?

If you don't know you're talking to an FBI agent then there's no legal culpability. The poster above you is wrong; it's a felony to knowingly and willfully make false statements to an investigator. So if you don't know who you're talking to you have no obligation to be truthful, likewise it's no crime to make a non-factual statement through simple error rather than to deceive. For example if you tell an FBI agent that your spouse is at work but unknown to you your spouse has left the workplace and gone shopping, that's not your problem.

>You don't see any problem with Federal agents lying about who they are to further their own goals?

Not really. Undercover and sting operations are older than the sun. I'm not sure how police would effectively solve crimes without that tool in the toolbox.

Probably caused should be established, the police should not be establishing probable cause.

eg. If you witness someone selling stolen goods, search them, don't sell them stolen goods and then search them.

But they're not. Acceptance of packages not addressed to you but to someone you've never heard of would have been the action establishing probable cause. 'Lead us not into temptation but deliver us from evil' is a standard for God, not the police. I am OK with law enforcement employing bait that is intended to be active to criminals; what they're not allowed to do is induce people to commit criminal acts who were not otherwise inclined to do so.

But they didn't accept the package yet were still detained...

Though to be honest the whole story doesn't make sense.

I don't think they were detained. That has a specific meaning of not being free to leave, where it seems here as if the police merely asked questions. The police don't need permission to ask you anything, although you're not obliged to answer either. However, we'll never know exactly how this went down legally speaking, since the top poster avers that he had his headphones on for the first several minutes of the interview.

What do you think being pulled over is?

In the specific example of a traffic stop, I believe you are considered to have been detained. You are correct that merely asking someone questions isn't the same.

See http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=1789 and http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=1798

The whole series is a good read for people who like to debate or worry over these issues.

There's nothing wrong with accepting packages not addressed to you, especially from FedEx, what you're thinking of is 'opening someone's USPS mail' which most definitely is illegal.

If it was illegal to sign for a package addressed to someone else how come FedEx will let just about anyone sign for a package, even when you say they aren't home.

So in essence, you're saying it's ok for police to use evidence of doing nothing wrong as evidence of a crime?

> There's nothing wrong with accepting packages not addressed to you

Only if there's also nothing wrong with having someone "strip our house down to the studs if we had accepted the package".

There's a big difference between signing for someone who's not home and signing for someone that you know for a fact not to live there. It's not a criminal offense, but the standard for probable cause is one of suspicion rather than proof of criminality.

Well, to be precise, "reasonable suspicion" is a weaker standard than the "probable cause" required for a warrant. In either case, there needs to be suspicion of something specific, not just "this seems shady".

That said, you are certainly correct that "probable cause" is less than proof, and knowing nothing about the case it seems plausible that "this guy is accepting packages for people he doesn't know" firmed up some link in their reasoning and made the difference between lacking and having probable cause.

How is the possibility of having someone "strip our house down to the studs if we had accepted the package" not absurd?

Well, I doubt the search warrant said that. I think they guy is taking a lot of liberties with this statement.

Search warrants do not say "strip down the house to the studs." That language was just pure hyperbole.

They also didn't break down your door in riot gear and throw a flash bang grenade in your two year old's crib.

The police investigated your role in a crime in the most not inconvenient way possible for your family. So where's the absurdity in that?

Thoroughly enjoyed reading the anecdote (more than the original article). You should be a writer.

Haha, this was right below your comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8529151.

> One day a guy contacted me and said, "Hey, I have a GPS from my work that I don't need, and I want you to sell it for me." I looked up the GPS; it retailed at about $1500, and was selling for around $1,000 on eBay. I would literally copy/paste the official product description and earn $150 - a no-brainer. I told him to ship me the GPS.

This would have tripped me up--I would want to know why he was selling a work GPS that, presumably, did not belong to him.

He said he worked for the company that distributes them, so they get them as gifts and he didn't really want it. I heard stuff that all the time - "My work/wife/boss gave me X but I don't want it" so it didn't register as weird.

That makes a lot more sense.

I suppose that would depend on if I am allowed to invite repairmen into my home under the pretense that I have a broken utility and then shoot them for trespassing.

Given that it's not legal to shoot people for trespassing unless you have a reasonable expectation of harm, I suggest you don't test this theory. Trespass is a crime, but your response has to be proportionate to the harm you anticipate; so if someone is forcing their way into your house it's OK to shoot at them, but if they're just making a nuisance of themselves then you could march them off or call the police if you weren't able to do so.

Last month, for example, a Michigan man was sentenced to 17 years for shooting a drunk woman who came to his porch and banged on his door after crashing her vehicle. While it was reasonable for him to be nervous, the jury felt that fell far short of a justification for shooting the unwanted visitor: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/04/us/theodore-wafer-sentence...

> Given that it's not legal to shoot people for trespassing unless you have a reasonable expectation of harm

That's actually quite dependent on state law.

Take California's: "Any person using force intended or likely to cause death or great bodily injury within his or her residence shall be presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily injury to self, family, or a member of the household when that force is used against another person, not a member of the family or household, who unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and forcibly entered the residence and the person using the force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred."

Though this seems to be a deceptive, not "forcible", entry at the most extreme, even if unlawful.

True, and actually the criminal status of trespass varies as well - it's usually a misdemeanor but is sometimes a felony, so my original comment was a bit vague. But the bit you quote encapsulates what I was saying about force.

People have got away with shooting others for merely approaching a dwelling (eg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Yoshihiro_Hattori) but attitudes about this seem to be shifting, so if you do feel impelled to shoot someone I would suggest calling the police immediately rather than relying on presumptive justifications.

> but attitudes about this seem to be shifting

Quite thankfully so.

I don't disagree really with anything you said -- just wanted to note that state laws aren't consistent on this, and in many cases aren't fully clear at a glance.

I'm all for rooting out criminals, but someone needs to start telling these people you need to do it within the guidelines of the law.

The funny thing is they could've easily written up a warrant and had it signed by a judge in the span of an hour and then properly searched the room. Instead, In their haste, they violated several local laws including the fourth amendment, which most judges don't look kindly on.

Not a good day for law enforcement.

> The funny thing is they could've easily written up a warrant and had it signed by a judge in the span of an hour

I think that may be part of the problem. If you start viewing warrants as rubber stamps, then you start thinking that the warrant is a foregone conclusion (and therefore just "unnecessary paperwork/bureaucratic nonsense" and an impediment to "getting things done").

I heard the story on the radio this morning and believe I recall hearing that the agents only suspected certain illegal activities were taking place in the room and did not yet have enough information to actually get a warrant. This tactic was employed to enter the room, survey the environment, and gather information that they then used as the basis of a warrant. Also, they did not mention in the warrant request specifically how they obtained the information (by cutting services and entering the room via that approach).

I am not making an opinion on the matter either way, just adding context that I heard from the story.

Sounds like fruit of the poisoned tree to me. Their probable cause was obtained in an unlawful manner. A police officer (federal or not) cannot enter a premises under bad faith to gather evidence. Any evidence obtained in that manner can't be used against the defendant, nor can it be used to get a warrant.

I worked in law enforcement alongside detectives for 14 years, and they were always very careful about probable cause and evidence gathering, because they knew the risks to the case they were building if they didn't do everything on the up and up.

Why the FBI wants to risk blowing what is obviously a very important case using illegal evidence gathering techniques is puzzling. The fact that the Justice Department is apparently in on it is even more mind-blowing.

Tengentially related, you'll probably find this case interesting - the police didn't break the law but it's one of those corder cases that's ethically very troubling: http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?q=mcgacken&hl=en&as_s...

I don't mean to suggest that the police officer here was unethical; it's a structural fault in the law itself.

This is something that happens a lot in television and movies (Cop 1: "Did you hear screaming behind the door?" Cop 2: "No I....oh yeah, someone must be in DANGER!" Cops kick in door and see evidence for their case), but not so much in reality.

I too find it troubling that the Supreme Court upheld the government's position that it was a valid search.

I actually think the search was valid (and remember McGacken consented, which was a public-spirited action). What bothers me is that in establishing that a potentially serious crime had not taken place, a victimless one resulted in a pirson term. McGacken did the morally right thing in allowing the police officer to verify that nobody was in danger, and while I can't really fault the police officer for doing his job, I wish he had looked the other way.

What really bothers me about it is that I can't articulate a clear legal principle about when prima facie evidence of a crime should be thrown out for moral reasons. You could say that if you're investigating one crime then discovering another one incidentally shouldn't count, but what if the police officer had been investigating a report of illegal marijuana production and had discovered the rape in progress? Of course we'd want that to be prosecutable. We could wish that the war on drugs were over and nobody would be prosecuted for Marijuana, but I can think of other petty crimes that would substitute equally well, eg if McGacken was a petty thief or something. It's a really tricky case to me. I'm surprised nobody has examined it in a law review article.

It seems like we could establish some hierarchy (in fact, we already have one implicit in maximum or minimum sentence lengths, though I don't know if that is the right one to use). When an officer asks to engage in a search, he can then state "I am investigating X, we will ignore anything less serious."

If something is seen, it seems like it would be hard to prevent the officer from making a mental note to look into that guy later. We could grant immunity, but that could also get weird. I think just narrowly excluding the evidence uncovered in the search would still probably be an improvement, though (probably...).

This article skimps on the details. I seriously think that there is something that is missing here. I hope so as well.

Some federal judges turn a blind-eye to such tactics because doing so puts people they think are guilty behind bars. Other incentives wouldn't be surprising, a la Kids for Cash.

I hope this turns out to be compliant with Betteridge's law, and I think it will. In a different thread yesterday I pointed out that deception is a reasonable and legally acceptable aspect of law enforcement, but that stops where the penal code starts. Cutting off communications services to the building as a pretext to gain entry seems like a clear violation of law, and (IMHO/NAL) should render all the evidence gained pusuant to the search warrant inadmissible as 'fruit of the poisonous tree,' because the probable cause offered for issuance of the warrant was defective.

This is so fucking crooked that only the government could make an argument that its legal.

As hard as it is to believe, in all my encounters with the police over the past few years, they have been courteous and professional, and, as far as I can tell, completely honest. Go figure.

This is a tricky situation. Can this be done or not depends mainly on the gravity of the crime being investigated. If it's about someone's life in danger, I can get behind such a move by FBI, but to get evidence against gambling I don't think such an extreme move is necessary.

How certain do you need to be that someone's life is in danger? This is why we have a judicial process to get warrants.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exigent_circumstance_in_United_...

This will be tossed out at the district magistrate prior to trial due to Fourth Amendment violations. The amendment does exist, and still has quite a bit of force of law in traditional criminal prosecutions.

The only legally relevant part of this story isn't discussed in the article: did the occupants of the hotel room consent to have the agents enter the room, or didn't they? This is the only thing that will matter in court. If they did, then it doesn't matter that the cops employed a ruse. The police use ruses and tricks all the time. You could argue that it wasn't within their rights to sever the internet connection in the first place, but you'd have to contend with several arguments there, such as internet being or not being a utility, or the operators of the hotel having the unilateral right to cut it off if they wanted to.

If they conducted a de facto search of the room then they broke the law, no matter what they called it. They could have dressed as plumbers, maids or pizza delivery men - that doesn't change the fact that they conducted a search without a warrant.

It's the cutting off of a service to serve as a pretext that's problematic. If they dress up as pizza delivery men and are invited inside, even without a warrant, that's perfectly OK - the law is not meant to protect criminals from their own stupidity.

I wouldn't say that's okay.

If they want to actually deliver some pizza, perhaps. But the standards of deception should be very high for law enforcement.

Consider any undercover operation - they're always pretending to be a 'pizza man' of some kind.

The rules are in place to prevent entrapment, which is the solicitation of an illegal act. Cutting off your power - while mean and objectionable, doesn't seem to be covered under entrapment.

Are you at least getting your pizza?

http://koin.com/2014/09/22/portland-police-protect-and-serve...

I think cutting off the power (or network connectivity or water or whatever) without permission or lawful non-enforcement-related-purpose might itself be criminal, and could easily be argued as a form of coercion.

An undercover cop is actually doing the thing. They are not undercover as a guy in a pizza costume with no pizza.

Am I mistaken?

Well why would you invite a pizza delivery guy in without any pizza? Actually now that I think about it I don't ever recall inviting a pizza delivery guy into a dwelling as opposed to paying at the door, so that wasn't a very good example. But I thought your objection was 'not really a pizza delivery person' as opposed to 'not actually carrying pizza'. It sounds like you would be OK with it as long as you got lunch out of it :-)

I am far more okay with an agent with the skills to address the problem showing up and fixing a naturally occurring problem, than I am with an agent pretending to fix a problem they created. Of course it's easier to find an agent with the skills to address "no pizza" than "no internet". And "more okay" doesn't mean "okay" - I've not thought sufficiently deeply to confidently say which side of the line that falls on, but I'm at least a little leery of it.

Well the point is I am much more comfortable with the idea of them infiltrating something than with the idea of them being total impostors.

Not entirely comfortable, though.

Wrong. There are specific rules in place about when the cops can deceive a suspect and when they must affirm their intent to search. This[1] breaks it down nicely, but in short, a law enforcement officer, even "undercover", cannot use illegal means to obtain evidence without poisoning the entire chain:

"Most Americans understand that police officers sometimes need a warrant to search for information believed to be related to criminal activity. They may also be aware that, according to the exclusionary rule, evidence gained in an illegal search cannot be used to convict someone of a crime. However, in many circumstances the police do not need a warrant for a search, or for the evidence gained from a search, to be legal and used in court.

In each of the situations below, a police officer does not need a search warrant to conduct a search.

- If an individual voluntarily consents (agrees to) a search, no warrant is needed. The key question in this kind of search is what counts as a voluntary agreement? In order for a consent search to be legal, the individual must be in control of the area to be searched and cannot have been pressured or tricked into agreeing to the search.

- A police officer that spots something in plain view does not need a search warrant to seize the object. In order for a plain view search to be legal, the officer must be in a place he has the right to be in and the object he seizes must be plainly visible in this location.

- If a suspect has been legally arrested, the police may search the defendant and the area within the defendant's immediate control. In a search incident to arrest no warrant is necessary as long as a spatial relationship exists between the defendant and the object.

- Following an arrest, the police may make a protective sweep search if they reasonably believe that a dangerous accomplice may be hiding in an area near where the defendant was arrested. To do so, police are allowed to walk through a residence and complete a "cursory visual inspection" without a warrant. If evidence of or related to a criminal activity is in plain view during the search, the evidence may be legally seized.

- If the police stop a car based on probable cause, they can search for objects related to the reason for the stop without obtaining a warrant. During a car search, the police are also allowed to frisk the subject for weapons, even without a warrant if they have reasonable suspicion that the suspects may be involved in illegal activities."

[1] http://www.streetlaw.org/en/Page/342/When_is_a_Search_Warran...

Can you cite anything to support this? I find it hard to believe that a court would completely ignore the basis on which consent was given. For example:

"The Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution require that a consent to a search not be coerced, by explicit or implicit means, by implied threat or covert force. For, no matter how subtly the coercion was applied, the resulting "consent" would be no more than a pretext for the unjustified police intrusion against which the Fourth Amendment is directed" [1]

...which seems to indicate that the same notion of "fruit of the poisonous" tree as regards evidence applies equally to consent to search.

[1] Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (U.S. 1973)

I don't have the cite on me but there's a 1970 case in California where the cops knocked on the door, the occupant of the house told them to come in, they came in and arrested everybody (no warrant). Court found for the people.

Anyway I'm not even saying that the FBI will definitely prevail here. I am saying that the whole thing will hinge on the question of consent. Your rebuttal seems spurious because you cannot have been coerced by someone if you thought they were the cable repairman. That's incompatible with the rest of the defense.

I had a weird conversation with a cop last year - basically, they responded very late to a domestic disturbance, that being, one of the people staying in my spare room until they got their shit together decided to attack me. The other person called the cops while I calmed the first person down, which fortunately happened before the cops showed up.

I answer the door, and am asked if everything is okay, and so on. I probably look very shaken because I had to disarm someone not 5 minutes earlier, so they insist on coming in. What I told them is that they put me in a bind, because on one hand, I was told that it is customary in the US to refuse entry to law enforcement unless you specifically called them, on the other hand, I have taken a vow of hospitality, so they are welcome to a warm meal, but would they mind having it served on the porch?

They saw some Jehova's Witness literature on a table behind me and figured I was some religious crazy, said they're not allowed to accept food on duty but thanks anyway, and left.

All this because the person who tried to stab me is transgendered, and I didn't think spending any time in a jail would have been safe for her.

Sorry for the irrelevant story, I just had to let it out.

>I don't have the cite on me but there's a 1970 case in California where the cops knocked on the door, the occupant of the house told them to come in, they came in and arrested everybody (no warrant).

What does that have to do with anything? It isn't relevant here.

>I am saying that the whole thing will hinge on the question of consent.

No it won't. I posted this above, but this is a good overview - http://policelink.monster.com/training/articles/1911-lying-t...

>[In] Frazier v. Cupp, 394 U.S. 731, 1969 the Supreme Court ruled that [the] use of trickery and deceit can be permissible (depending on the totality of circumstances) provided that it does not shock the conscience of the court or community.

It isn't about consent but if the FBI's trickery could/did "shock the conscience of the court or community."

Take it from someone who worked for the police: What they did is illegal, period. Cops don't do this kind of thing because once it comes out (and it inevitably does) it destroys their case against the defendant.

You may be thinking of cops lying to a suspect during an interrogation, which they are allowed to do, but at that point the suspect has the opportunity to invoke his Miranda rights/5th amendment right to not incriminate himself, as he is being detained and questioned and knows the cops are who they say they are. When initially confronted by cops disguised as service workers asking for entry to his house, he has no way to know that they are cops and therefore cannot legally consent to any evidence gathering.

Well, they obviously can.

Whether or not they should, OTOH...

No, they can't. This is an incendiary set of facts - but most certainly won't be upheld in any reasonable court.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com