Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Manarius
Lee, you and I both know that probable cause is different than saying "Oh, I think he's a terrorist, so let's search his house." - because that's how the Patriot Act works when it comes to search and seizure. If I'm a FBI agent, and I think you're a terrorist, I can search your house and use whatever I find (hell, it doesn't even have to be specific like a real warrant) in a criminal case against you. Then, I'm "supposed" to go back and get a warrant up to 90 days afterwards. That doesn't seem to fair to me.
Just an example: A friend of mine's house was trashed during the night. The police came do the door and knocked it down (because he wasn't fast enough down to the door to open it for him) and they started searching his house for stuff. So, finally he gets downstairs and he's like "WTF are you doing in my house!?" and they're like "We're looking for stuff from (insert name here)'s house." My friend was in shock; "Well, that's the guy next door!!" So, the police trashed his house on a hunch....and they get the wrong house. Thank you Patriot Act for your warrant-less search and seizure. There's a reason we have the warrant system - to prevent stupid things like that from happening.
|
I will tell you honestly that I have read the Patriot Act and cannot tell much by reading it. Now if I had a complete set of law books so I could actually see which code as been changed, modified, expanded etc----I might be able to tell something. Until then I am dependent on someone elses educated and unbiased explanation of the net effect of the changes. Cases like you just cited happened many times before passage of the Patriot Act, so I am not sure of the relevance of your example.
So, I guess the bottom line is that I won't get into any lengthy argument of the Act since I am not the expert on it. One thing that is clear by reading the Act is the provision that legally lets information be passed amongst Law Enforcement and Intelligence Agencies which was definitely a problem in the past----even in relation to 9/11. That is definitely one provision that I agree with and think the wall that existed prior to the Act impeded investigations to preclude catastrophic events such as 9/11. It is very interesting to note that one of the attorneys that interpreted the wall policy procedures and wrote the policy guidance during the Clinton years---actually sat on the 9/11 Commission. Talk about fox in the hen house.
Lee