What Are the Limits of Police Subterfuge?

[ksen]

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/12/what-are-the-limits-of-police-subterfuge/383815/

The next time you call for assistance because the Internet service in your home is not working, the 'technician' who comes to your door may actually be an undercover government agent. He will have secretly disconnected the service, knowing that you will naturally call for help and—when he shows up at your door, impersonating a technician—let him in. He will walk through each room of your house, claiming to diagnose the problem. Actually, he will be videotaping everything (and everyone) inside. He will have no reason to suspect you have broken the law, much less probable cause to obtain a search warrant. But that makes no difference, because by letting him in, you will have 'consented' to an intrusive search of your home.

This chilling scenario is the first paragraph of a motion to suppress evidence gathered by the police in exactly this manner, from a hotel room. Unbelievably, this isn't a story from some totalitarian government on the other side of an ocean. This happened in the United States, and by the FBI. Eventually—I'm sure there will be appeals—higher U.S. courts will decide whether this sort of practice is legal. If it is, the county will slide even further into a society where the police have even more unchecked power than they already possess.

Law enforcement is getting totally out of control. Hopefully the courts knock this tactic down but for some reason I'm feeling that this is an automatic win for privacy.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

This does seem to be an illegal end run around the 4th amendment. While you did invite them in, you did so not knowing that they're the police and they created the situation which led to the invite. It's going too far.

That being said, if I were a vampire, I would totally steal this move to get around the restriction of needing to be invited into someone's house. They'd be really happy about how lucky they are that a technician can come by right away, even though it's nighttime and then boom, they find themselves getting eaten. Heh. Stupid humans.

 

[fromderinside]

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/12/what-are-the-limits-of-police-subterfuge/383815/

This chilling scenario is the first paragraph of a motion to suppress evidence gathered by the police in exactly this manner, from a hotel room. Unbelievably, this isn't a story from some totalitarian government on the other side of an ocean. This happened in the United States, and by the FBI. Eventually—I'm sure there will be appeals—higher U.S. courts will decide whether this sort of practice is legal. If it is, the county will slide even further into a society where the police have even more unchecked power than they already possess.

Law enforcement is getting totally out of control. Hopefully the courts knock this tactic down but for some reason I'm feeling that this is an automatic win for privacy.

The party apparently chose to connect through a federally regulated internet provider. What's the problem?

 

[ksen]

wat

 

[Bronzeage]

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/12/what-are-the-limits-of-police-subterfuge/383815/

This chilling scenario is the first paragraph of a motion to suppress evidence gathered by the police in exactly this manner, from a hotel room. Unbelievably, this isn't a story from some totalitarian government on the other side of an ocean. This happened in the United States, and by the FBI. Eventually—I'm sure there will be appeals—higher U.S. courts will decide whether this sort of practice is legal. If it is, the county will slide even further into a society where the police have even more unchecked power than they already possess.

Law enforcement is getting totally out of control. Hopefully the courts knock this tactic down but for some reason I'm feeling that this is an automatic win for privacy.

If this tactic is not approved by a judge, and a warrant issued in the usual procedure, it's no different than any other illegal search. Any police department which uses this method risks having all evidence suppressed.

 

[NobleSavage]

Did they try parallel construction first?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/12/what-are-the-limits-of-police-subterfuge/383815/



Law enforcement is getting totally out of control. Hopefully the courts knock this tactic down but for some reason I'm feeling that this is an automatic win for privacy.

If this tactic is not approved by a judge, and a warrant issued in the usual procedure, it's no different than any other illegal search. Any police department which uses this method risks having all evidence suppressed.

Assuming the appellate court judge isn't a clone of Loren.

 

[PyramidHead]

Reality check: the people who need technicians to come to their house and fix their internet are usually thugs or terrorist combatant children. [/moderatelibertarian]

 

[Nexus]

The party apparently chose to connect through a federally regulated internet provider. What's the problem?

Having a federally regulated provider doesn't mean you consent to secret warrant-less searches. The cops can't tap your phone without a warrant either if they cut your line and repair it after you call for service.

Now I have heard of law enforcement using this type of tactic after getting a warrant. For example, organized crime targets. If they want to bug a location without tipping off the suspects I have no problem with this after they get the warrant.

 

[Bronzeage]

If this tactic is not approved by a judge, and a warrant issued in the usual procedure, it's no different than any other illegal search. Any police department which uses this method risks having all evidence suppressed.

Assuming the appellate court judge isn't a clone of Loren.

We also assume they actually intend to prosecute someone. When someone works so hard to get something they can't use in public, what do they intend to do with it?

 

[Sarpedon]

A standard procedure is to find something that leads to something else, and then have an 'anonymous tip' called in. In that way, the connection to the illegal search is concealed.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If this tactic is not approved by a judge, and a warrant issued in the usual procedure, it's no different than any other illegal search. Any police department which uses this method risks having all evidence suppressed.

Assuming the appellate court judge isn't a clone of Loren.

Sorry, but the cops were in the wrong here. I'm strongly opposed to the various end-runs around the Constitution that have become popular in recent years.

 

[Bronzeage]

A standard procedure is to find something that leads to something else, and then have an 'anonymous tip' called in. In that way, the connection to the illegal search is concealed.

The problem here is the sabotage of the suspect's internet connection. This is the act which requires a warrant.

If a person meets an undercover policeman and invites him into his home, where the officer witnesses illegal activity, that would be admissible in court.

 

[Nexus]

It just occurred to me that with all the laws regarding computer hacking and unauthorized network access etc, it might be highly illegal to sabotage someone's internet connection. The local police may be in violation of federal laws.

 

[Derec]

It just occurred to me that with all the laws regarding computer hacking and unauthorized network access etc, it might be highly illegal to sabotage someone's internet connection. The local police may be in violation of federal laws.

I do not think that would apply as the network/internet access belonged to the hotel and they were the ones who turned it off.

 

[Underseer]

It just occurred to me that with all the laws regarding computer hacking and unauthorized network access etc, it might be highly illegal to sabotage someone's internet connection. The local police may be in violation of federal laws.

I do not think that would apply as the network/internet access belonged to the hotel and they were the ones who turned it off.

Well of course you don't agree that there should be limits on the state's subterfuge against the people. After all, you believe in small government and personal responsibility.

 

[bilby]

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/12/what-are-the-limits-of-police-subterfuge/383815/

This chilling scenario is the first paragraph of a motion to suppress evidence gathered by the police in exactly this manner, from a hotel room. Unbelievably, this isn't a story from some totalitarian government on the other side of an ocean. This happened in the United States, and by the FBI. Eventually—I'm sure there will be appeals—higher U.S. courts will decide whether this sort of practice is legal. If it is, the county will slide even further into a society where the police have even more unchecked power than they already possess.

Actually, from where I am sitting, this is very much a story from some totalitarian government on the other side of an ocean.

 

[ksen]

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/12/what-are-the-limits-of-police-subterfuge/383815/

Actually, from where I am sitting, this is very much a story from some totalitarian government on the other side of an ocean.

 

[ZiprHead]

I think being that the cops lied to get the warrant should be enough to get the evidence suppressed but IANAL and all...

 

[Derec]

Well of course you don't agree that there should be limits on the state's subterfuge against the people. After all, you believe in small government and personal responsibility.

Did I say that? No. They should have gotten a warrant.
I merely made a point that unlike a situation with a private home, this was a hotel room where the hotel owned the internet access.