What Are the Limits of Police Subterfuge?

[Underseer]

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.

Whoa.

Are you seriously suggesting that cops should get a warrant first?

I didn't know you were a fellow America-hater! Welcome to the criminal-loving side of this argument! I had no idea you were a fellow closet communist who hates cops and hates freedom. Many kudos to you, Derec. I didn't know you had it in you.

 

[Derec]

I didn't know you were a fellow America-hater! Welcome to the criminal-loving side of this argument! I had no idea you were a fellow closet communist who hates cops and hates freedom.

Do you ever get tired of the shtick?

 

[Underseer]

I didn't know you were a fellow America-hater! Welcome to the criminal-loving side of this argument! I had no idea you were a fellow closet communist who hates cops and hates freedom.

Do you ever get tired of the shtick?

When the shtick stops being relevant to actual arguments made by conservatives and libertarians, I will grow very weary of it indeed. Maybe if you rightists didn't use that argument so much, I wouldn't have any reason to use this shtick now.

 

[bilby]

Do you ever get tired of the shtick?

When the shtick stops being relevant to actual arguments made by conservatives and libertarians, I will grow very weary of it indeed. Maybe if you rightists didn't use that argument so much, I wouldn't have any reason to use this shtick now.

It can be a bit much when it is all shtick and no carrot though.

 

[ksen]

bilby

 

[bilby]

bilby

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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

Seconded.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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

Seconded.

 

[Nexus]

This actually happened, how do all of you feel about this scenario? Police suspect a man poisoned someone. They don't have enough probable cause for a warrant. However the man rents a room in his home so an undercover cop or an informant rents the room then allows a search since they have legal right to do so in their new residence?

 

[ksen]

That scenario isn't like what these agents did.

That said, if they don't have probable cause for a warrant then renting out the room under false pretenses doesn't then give them a right to search the house.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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.

No you are not. You have been extremely open to the Police using any sorts of manners for searches in the past.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

This actually happened, how do all of you feel about this scenario? Police suspect a man poisoned someone. They don't have enough probable cause for a warrant. However the man rents a room in his home so an undercover cop or an informant rents the room then allows a search since they have legal right to do so in their new residence?

I would say that this qualifies as an illegal search. They entered his home for the purpose of conducting a criminal investigation and did not get either a warrant for the search or his permission to conduct the search beforehand. There are always going to be sneaky ways to get into someone's house, but the clear intent of the law is to not allow the police to search your property without permission from either a court or yourself. This violates that intent.

 

[Nexus]

That said, if they don't have probable cause for a warrant then renting out the room under false pretenses doesn't then give them a right to search the house.

I'm torn on this one because in that case the guy was guilty. He was a retired chemist and used a very rare compound to poison the woman. Forensics was able to trace and match his exact lot of chemicals used to poison the victim so its not like they just planted some rat poison in his house. The reason he kept the poison or "murder weapon" in this case was because of his hubris. He thought it couldn't be detected. But they had done a more through tox screening when a chemist was a suspect in the mysterious death.

 

[Nexus]

I would say that this qualifies as an illegal search. They entered his home for the purpose of conducting a criminal investigation and did not get either a warrant for the search or his permission to conduct the search beforehand.

It was upheld by the courts. The reasoning was that he wasn't forced to rent his room. Police are allowed to use deception during investigations so the court didn't object to the reason they rented the room. Sorry I don't remember the specific case this was on a documentary I saw over twenty years ago.

 

[ksen]

That said, if they don't have probable cause for a warrant then renting out the room under false pretenses doesn't then give them a right to search the house.

I'm torn on this one because in that case the guy was guilty. He was a retired chemist and used a very rare compound to poison the woman. Forensics was able to trace and match his exact lot of chemicals used to poison the victim so its not like they just planted some rat poison in his house. The reason he kept the poison or "murder weapon" in this case was because of his hubris. He thought it couldn't be detected. But they had done a more through tox screening when a chemist was a suspect in the mysterious death.

I'm glad the guy was caught since he was guilty. But the police to a huge gamble that could have resulted in the evidence they needed to convict being ruled inadmissible.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I would say that this qualifies as an illegal search. They entered his home for the purpose of conducting a criminal investigation and did not get either a warrant for the search or his permission to conduct the search beforehand.

It was upheld by the courts. The reasoning was that he wasn't forced to rent his room. Police are allowed to use deception during investigations so the court didn't object to the reason they rented the room. Sorry I don't remember the specific case this was on a documentary I saw over twenty years ago.

Ya, I figured that the reason you mentioned it was because it was found to be legal. I disagree with that ruling. The fact that it's deceptive isn't relevant, what's relevant is that they found a way to search his home without a warrant or permission. That should not be allowed and technically legal workarounds which allow them to do so should be discouraged rather than encouraged.

 

[Nexus]

I think they gambled because they were at a dead end anyway. It was something like a year later when they were able to rent the room. I'm glad to hear you are happy he was caught despite disagreeing with the search. I get infuriated when people say that justice was served/not served when a court agrees with their position. Ultimately justice is served when the guilty are convicted and the innocent exonerated. The rest is just our preferred means of getting there.

 

[bilby]

That said, if they don't have probable cause for a warrant then renting out the room under false pretenses doesn't then give them a right to search the house.

I'm torn on this one because in that case the guy was guilty. He was a retired chemist and used a very rare compound to poison the woman. Forensics was able to trace and match his exact lot of chemicals used to poison the victim so its not like they just planted some rat poison in his house. The reason he kept the poison or "murder weapon" in this case was because of his hubris. He thought it couldn't be detected. But they had done a more through tox screening when a chemist was a suspect in the mysterious death.

The man's guilt cannot be used as any part of an argument for or against such practices, because by definition, it cannot be known that he is guilty prior to his conviction by a court.

Getting the right result by unlawful means does nothing to render those means lawful, nor to justify the breaking of the law in pursuit of that result.

 

[ksen]

I think they gambled because they were at a dead end anyway. It was something like a year later when they were able to rent the room. I'm glad to hear you are happy he was caught despite disagreeing with the search. I get infuriated when people say that justice was served/not served when a court agrees with their position. Ultimately justice is served when the guilty are convicted and the innocent exonerated. The rest is just our preferred means of getting there.

Well, justice was served in that a guilty guy went to jail. However, justice may not have been served if the means used to get that one conviction eroded our privacy rights away even further. There's a legal process for gaining information. That wasn't followed. And even though a bad guy went to jail it's still a bad tradeoff.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

No you are not. You have been extremely open to the Police using any sorts of manners for searches in the past.

I have always wanted a warrant for things the police can't see without intruding on your space.

I do not mind using automation to determine what would simply be impractical to determine by eyeball so long as it could be determined anyway. (For example, license plate readers.) "Nobody will see me" is not a guarantee of privacy. "Nobody can see me" is.