Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: roo_ster on August 05, 2013, 01:07:24 PM
-
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/05/us-dea-sod-idUSBRE97409R20130805
A secretive U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration unit is funneling information from intelligence intercepts, wiretaps, informants and a massive database of telephone records to authorities across the nation to help them launch criminal investigations of Americans.
Although these cases rarely involve national security issues, documents reviewed by Reuters show that law enforcement agents have been directed to conceal how such investigations truly begin - not only from defense lawyers but also sometimes from prosecutors and judges.
The undated documents show that federal agents are trained to "recreate" the investigative trail to effectively cover up where the information originated, a practice that some experts say violates a defendant's Constitutional right to a fair trial. If defendants don't know how an investigation began, they cannot know to ask to review potential sources of exculpatory evidence - information that could reveal entrapment, mistakes or biased witnesses.
The unit of the DEA that distributes the information is called the Special Operations Division, or SOD. Two dozen partner agencies comprise the unit, including the FBI, CIA, NSA, Internal Revenue Service and the Department of Homeland Security. It was created in 1994 to combat Latin American drug cartels and has grown from several dozen employees to several hundred.
Today, much of the SOD's work is classified, and officials asked that its precise location in Virginia not be revealed.
Huh, secret police and NSA data-hoovering against American citizens to enforce picayune criminal infractions. It's a two-fer.
"Remember that the utilization of SOD cannot be revealed or discussed in any investigative function," a document presented to agents reads. The document specifically directs agents to omit the SOD's involvement from investigative reports, affidavits, discussions with prosecutors and courtroom testimony. Agents are instructed to then use "normal investigative techniques to recreate the information provided by SOD."
A former federal agent in the northeastern United States who received such tips from SOD described the process. "You'd be told only, ‘Be at a certain truck stop at a certain time and look for a certain vehicle.' And so we'd alert the state police to find an excuse to stop that vehicle, and then have a drug dog search it," the agent said.
After an arrest was made, agents then pretended that their investigation began with the traffic stop, not with the SOD tip, the former agent said. The training document reviewed by Reuters refers to this process as "parallel construction."
Sometimes my son & daughter pretend they are honorable police officers, too.
"It's just like laundering money - you work it backwards to make it clean," said Finn Selander, a DEA agent from 1991 to 2008 and now a member of a group called Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, which advocates legalizing and regulating narcotics.
"You can't game the system," said former federal prosecutor Henry E. Hockeimer Jr. "You can't create this subterfuge. These are drug crimes, not national security cases. If you don't draw the line here, where do you draw it?"
Watcha got to hide, Henry?
One current federal prosecutor learned how agents were using SOD tips after a drug agent misled him, the prosecutor told Reuters. In a Florida drug case he was handling, the prosecutor said, a DEA agent told him the investigation of a U.S. citizen began with a tip from an informant. When the prosecutor pressed for more information, he said, a DEA supervisor intervened and revealed that the tip had actually come through the SOD and from an NSA intercept.
"I was pissed," the prosecutor said. "Lying about where the information came from is a bad start if you're trying to comply with the law because it can lead to all kinds of problems with discovery and candor to the court." The prosecutor never filed charges in the case because he lost confidence in the investigation, he said.
Only for the little people, Mr. Prosecutor.
Today, the SOD offers at least three services to federal, state and local law enforcement agents: coordinating international investigations such as the Bout case; distributing tips from overseas NSA intercepts, informants, foreign law enforcement partners and domestic wiretaps; and circulating tips from a massive database known as DICE.
"Overseas" NSA intercepts. Right. And here I thought Utah was a state in the union.
"It was an amazing tool," said one recently retired federal agent. "Our big fear was that it wouldn't stay secret."
Where's the fun in that? A secret police must be an open secret to get the desired response.
-
But, but, but, these are good government minions. They're only doing what they're told to do. Not all of them are bad. If you aren't doing anything wrong then you have nothing to worry about. [insert vapid apologist excuse here.]
-
The undated documents show that federal agents are trained to "recreate" the investigative trail to effectively cover up where the information originated, a practice that some experts say violates a defendant's Constitutional right to a fair trial.
IANAL, but this sounds very much like suborning perjury to me . . . and it greatly undermines the credibility of all testimony offered by agents of that agency.
-
http://news.yahoo.com/exclusive-u-directs-agents-cover-program-used-investigate-091643729.html
Let's see, DEA uses illegally acquired evidence in trials, makes up where it came from to hide the illegal source.
I wonder how many druggies will get put out on the street because of this?
If I was a lawyer, I'd have $$$$$$$ signs flashing in my eyes.
Bastards.
-
Reading that article really gives you a feel for just how many manhours we are putting into the War on Drugs in this country. It is staggering.
What does it mean for a case if a tip came from an inadmissible or illegal source, but all the evidence was obtained separately through verifiable means? I guess it is hard to answer because they say they are essentially fabricating a false story to back up the original tip.
I guess an alternate scenario might be LEO's using helicopter mounted IR cameras to search for manijuana grow operations, then setting up separate investigations to collect independent evidence on the suspicious locations. I guess to be the same, they would have to make up a story about why they started the investigation on a particular spot.
-
Sounds to me like they are getting the original info from the IRS, NSA, CIA, etc. Information that was obtained illegally.
And Duplicate Topics Merged.
-
IANAL, but this sounds very much like suborning perjury to me . . . and it greatly undermines the credibility of all testimony offered by agents of that agency.
Not just suborning perjury, they are being TRAINED to do so. A really bad start to sell your credibility.
-
[censoredcensoredexpletivecensoreddeletedredactedexpletiveFARFEGNUGEN!]
You know, people either don't pay attention any more, or they just don't care. Crap like this should be seeing people gathering up torches and pitchforks...
And nothing [censored] happens.
-
[censoredcensoredexpletivecensoreddeletedredactedexpletiveFARFEGNUGEN!]
You know, people either don't pay attention any more, or they just don't care. Crap like this should be seeing people gathering up torches and pitchforks...
And nothing [censored] happens.
I have a couple of pitchforks =)
-
Crap like this has actually got me thinking of goin ex-pat. I really don't think it can be saved at this time and if I'm going to live in a banana republic I just as well go tropical.
-
Just build a boat to sail the world and name it Guajira. ;)
-
Crap like this has actually got me thinking of goin ex-pat. I really don't think it can be saved at this time and if I'm going to live in a banana republic I just as well go tropical.
They will still be spying on you there.
-
They will still be spying on you there.
That is his point. At least there he'll have good weather.
-
The KGB and the Stasi could have only dreamed of such a system.
-
What does it mean for a case if a tip came from an inadmissible or illegal source, but all the evidence was obtained separately through verifiable means? I guess it is hard to answer because they say they are essentially fabricating a false story to back up the original tip.
I'm wondering the same thing. The original information may have been illegally obtained, but it looks like local LEO's build a good case based on the original information. State will argue that the original information was the equivalent of a tip, and did nothing more than tell them where to investigate. Defense will argue the classic "fruit of a poisonous tree." I'd be interested to see where SCOTUS comes down on this one. The conservative group, led by Scalia, will have to settle an internal argument between backing the police against their usual instinct of protecting the individual against an overreaching government. The lib side will have to settle an internal argument between civil liberties versus backing the current (Democrat) administration and singing the party line.
I had a case about 10 years ago where local drug task force was tipped off by the feds about a meth shipment coming into the area. Even had the date they were to arrive, and the route they would be taking. Stop was based on a good traffic stop, caught on dash camera, and the driver was using falsified driver's license, so the vehicle was impounded, and a couple of kilos of meth was found in the car...inside the body of the car. When I learned of the tip, I met with the defense attorney to share the information. Only problem for the defense was the defendant was essentially a glorified mule, and the three "gentlemen" who escorted the defendant's sister in and out of court were probably there to make sure that information about the source of the drugs/tip never saw the light of day. An aside, the defendant didn't speak English, and the translator was caught altering her translation trying to help him and his case, because she'd fallen for him, and wanted him out so they could get together. He was still convicted, and she lost her job and translation certification with the state.
-
This is the tip of the iceberg IMO. Or maybe the camels nose. The data files being collected on people is ,as one guy put it, the most valuable thing on earth. And it will be desired for every State purpose imaginable. By the time they are done, they are going to be using it for everything from issuing traffic tickets to destroying political opposition.
We will need a new Miranda warning- "Everything you have ever said, written, or done can and will be used against you."
-
they are going to be using it for everything from issuing traffic tickets to destroying political opposition.
You can count on that.
-
Any agent found to have fabricated evidence just nullified any conviction of his or her entire career. Even the greenest, most stupid public defender should be able to get any DEA conviction overturned.
-
I'm wondering the same thing. The original information may have been illegally obtained, but it looks like local LEO's build a good case based on the original information. State will argue that the original information was the equivalent of a tip, and did nothing more than tell them where to investigate. Defense will argue the classic "fruit of a poisonous tree." I'd be interested to see where SCOTUS comes down on this one. The conservative group, led by Scalia, will have to settle an internal argument between backing the police against their usual instinct of protecting the individual against an overreaching government. The lib side will have to settle an internal argument between civil liberties versus backing the current (Democrat) administration and singing the party line.
Question should be easy for the defense.
"Have you ever knowingly created a false, 'alternative' or misleading trail of evidence, per DEA regulations?"
"Have you ever committed perjury, or omitted relevant information, during a trail?"
"Have you ever provided false information on 'tips', 'informants', or 'sources' "?
"Have you ever failed to provide evidence, to include covering up SOD involvement, to defense or prosecutors?"
"Have you provided knowledge to prosecutors and defense attorneys when evidence was illegally obtained, to include illegal warrantless wiretapping?"
Once an agent answers Yes to any, should be easy for a defense attorney to say "Agent Shmucettelli admitted to lying under oath, fabricating evidence, etc in the Scumbag A case. My client Scumbag B claims to be innocent as new fallen snow, and that Agent Shmucettelli is lying in his case as well."
-
Any agent found to have fabricated evidence just nullified any conviction of his or her entire career. Even the greenest, most stupid public defender should be able to get any DEA conviction overturned.
Jose Guerena who?
Its all well and good unless the 'defendent' doesn't get his day in court.
-
The dark, cynical part of me accepts the inevitability of a SCOTUS ruling in favor of the Stasi on this issue in the next year or two. =|
The light-hearted, optimistic part of me got shivved by some cynical jerk. :P
-
Been thinking about this today, and it crossed my mind that the type of case that reaches SCOTUS will probably impact the way this issue, and following cases, get handled. If it's a case where DEA got information, altered it per the policy, and then passed the altered information on, and that information was acted upon with no further/independent investigation, I can't see it surviving a review by SCOTUS, if it even makes it that far. What I think will happen, for better or worse, is that it will be a case where the tainted information will be used as the basis for starting or targeting an investigation. The further information will be something that, on its own, would be legally obtained and admissible. Defense files to suppress the evidence. That suppression will become the issue, and the argument will come down to (1) illegally obtained and/or falsified information from the DEA necessitates suppression of all evidence vs. (2) that information only served to point officers where to investigate, and all other evidence was obtained not due to the DEA information, but the investigation properly conducted by the officers, so it should be admissible.
And here's where I worry about the way the case gets presented. If it comes down as I described, on the suppression issue, you may get 5 votes to say that illegally obtained or altered evidence used by law enforcement as only an indicator of who/where to investigate does not render all evidence subsequently and legally obtained inadmissible. That would be a very bad precedent, and would likely encourage further misconduct at the start of investigations, and would likely create situations where cases are "reverse engineered" to find some legal evidence to bootstrap a case based entirely on the illegal/false evidence.
-
And here's where I worry about the way the case gets presented. If it comes down as I described, on the suppression issue, you may get 5 votes to say that illegally obtained or altered evidence used by law enforcement as only an indicator of who/where to investigate does not render all evidence subsequently and legally obtained inadmissible. That would be a very bad precedent, and would likely encourage further misconduct at the start of investigations, and would likely create situations where cases are "reverse engineered" to find some legal evidence to bootstrap a case based entirely on the illegal/false evidence.
The impression I got from the article was that the various agencies involved weren't actually conducting "good" investigations, turning up "clean" (non-poisonous) evidence as part of following up on a "tip," but rather were conducting phony, paper investigations so as to create a false trail leading to the same evidence they already had as a result of the "tip." I would like to hope that such a scheme would not survive SCOTUS scrutiny.
-
[censoredcensoredexpletivecensoreddeletedredactedexpletiveFARFEGNUGEN!]
You know, people either don't pay attention any more, or they just don't care. Crap like this should be seeing people gathering up torches and pitchforks...
And nothing [censored] happens.
Of course not. Most people know at this point that governments lie about EVERYTHING. It in the nature of the beast.
-
Like Chris, I can see a SCOTUS ruling as having the potential to be used very selectively. For instance, in my home state of Virginia, sodomy, including oral sex, is a crime. Of course they never devote the resources to an investigation because there is no voter demand for such nonsense. But if the crime were to, say, be incidentally mentioned in a phone call, and the guilty party just happened to be a political opponent of the current administration, would it still be legal for them to use that info to create a case with a different back story?
-
Like Chris, I can see a SCOTUS ruling as having the potential to be used very selectively. For instance, in my home state of Virginia, sodomy, including oral sex, is a crime. Of course they never devote the resources to an investigation because there is no voter demand for such nonsense. But if the crime were to, say, be incidentally mentioned in a phone call, and the guilty party just happened to be a political opponent of the current administration, would it still be legal for them to use that info to create a case with a different back story?
Your example conflates state law with federal law enforcement officers.
Feds don't enforce state laws.
-
Your example conflates state law with federal law enforcement officers.
Feds don't enforce state laws.
No, but if you read the story the feds were passing the illegally obtained information to state agencies.
-
Question should be easy for the defense.
"Have you ever knowingly created a false, 'alternative' or misleading trail of evidence, per DEA regulations?"
"Have you ever committed perjury, or omitted relevant information, during a trail?"
"Have you ever provided false information on 'tips', 'informants', or 'sources' "?
"Have you ever failed to provide evidence, to include covering up SOD involvement, to defense or prosecutors?"
"Have you provided knowledge to prosecutors and defense attorneys when evidence was illegally obtained, to include illegal warrantless wiretapping?"
Once an agent answers Yes to any, should be easy for a defense attorney to say "Agent Shmucettelli admitted to lying under oath, fabricating evidence, etc in the Scumbag A case. My client Scumbag B claims to be innocent as new fallen snow, and that Agent Shmucettelli is lying in his case as well."
But, but... aren't the police allowed to lie? So what's the big deal?
-
The database will be used to turn the courts also. Remember Roberts curious last minute reversal on Zerocare?
-
I wasn't sure what opinion I had on this, but I think I agree with Chris in that this would essentially encourage police and investigators to use illegal evidence at will and then come back and white wash things to hide the fact or to fool the court into allowing the evidence. Sets a bad precedent.
-
"Ve haff our vays."
-
But we were told by the government defenders right here in these very forums that the NSA is not sharing information with law enforcement - because the NSA said they're not.
When will we wake up - and I mean us here who supposedly have our guards up?
Didn't I see a sig here quoting someone else here about how when you think someone can't be any more stupid they prove you wrong? When we think the government could do no worse to us, they prove us wrong. There's very little, or possibly nothing, that I would not believe bad about what our government will do to its own people.
-
But we were told by the government defenders right here in these very forums that the NSA is not sharing information with law enforcement - because the NSA said they're not.
When will we wake up - and I mean us here who supposedly have our guards up?
Didn't I see a sig here quoting someone else here about how when you think someone can't be any more stupid they prove you wrong? When we think the government could do no worse to us, they prove us wrong. There's very little, or possibly nothing, that I would not believe bad about what our government will do to its own people.
Just because gov't denies it doesn't make it true. Now, every denial gov't has made in this area has thus far been shown false and the "wild conspiracy theory accusation" true.
Still doesn't mean they've got mind rays and we should all break out the tinfoil hats.
-
Fed.gov is more limited by capability than intention. If they had the ability to do X awful thing they would, but thankfully they're fat and lazy and stupid and corrupt, on the whole. It's the few small pieces that are less incompetent that are scary.
-
But we were told by the government defenders right here in these very forums that the NSA is not sharing information with law enforcement - because the NSA said they're not.
When will we wake up - and I mean us here who supposedly have our guards up?
Didn't I see a sig here quoting someone else here about how when you think someone can't be any more stupid they prove you wrong? When we think the government could do no worse to us, they prove us wrong. There's very little, or possibly nothing, that I would not believe bad about what our government will do to its own people.
The left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing.
Sometimes the left directs the right and the right goes along. Sometimes the right directs the left and the left goes along.
I can't wait for the day when all of the Fitzes and Stetsons and Bens stop working for FedGuv because they're disgusted by their own complicity in the system that exists. Sure, it'll take time for all of them to find different jobs. It won't be overnight. But that's the "shrug" that needs to happen to right this Ship of State.
Voting won't fix it. Either in the ballot box or from the rooftops.
Two things will fix it: Starving it by denying it taxes, and starving it by denying it competent manpower to implement its inanities.
Maybe both methods of starving it go hand in hand.
But without starving it, the inane evil stupidity of it all will continue, because government is a perpetual motion machine of inane, stupid, evil ideas born from the faulty assumption of ownership of the product of others, and justified theft.
-
All the competent folks quitting won't starve fed.gov, it'll just make it less efficient.
-
All the competent folks quitting won't starve fed.gov, it'll just make it less efficient.
Is it possible that a large organization becomes more efficient? It's always the guy who knows what's going on that is complaining about the stupid stuff, leaking illegal programs, innovating new ways that aren't in the book, etc. If everyone left just drones along...
-
But we were told by the government defenders right here in these very forums that the NSA is not sharing information with law enforcement - because the NSA said they're not.
When will we wake up - and I mean us here who supposedly have our guards up?
Didn't I see a sig here quoting someone else here about how when you think someone can't be any more stupid they prove you wrong? When we think the government could do no worse to us, they prove us wrong. There's very little, or possibly nothing, that I would not believe bad about what our government will do to its own people.
Obama also said they weren't spying on Americans when that is certainlyi not true.
-
Fed.gov is more limited by capability than intention. If they had the ability to do X awful thing they would, but thankfully they're fat and lazy and stupid and corrupt, on the whole. It's the few small pieces that are less incompetent that are scary.
Like most industries, Government does well what it cares most about doing. Just because we see terribly stupid and even deadly failures by government, don't mistake that for the norm. Those things government does really badly are things that they only pretend to care about. Child welfare and protection, education, border protection - these are not things the government cares about doing well. In fact, for many of these, there is specific intent to do them badly.
Although government fails miserably in protecting you, there is one thing that the government does extremely well: protecting government. They do well at protecting government from threat. And they have made it clear that it is folks like us here that they see as the biggest threat to government. They will do a great job of watching we, the people.
-
Fed.gov is more limited by capability than intention. If they had the ability to do X awful thing they would, but thankfully they're fat and lazy and stupid and corrupt, on the whole. It's the few small pieces that are less incompetent that are scary.
I've been a governtment employee of one kind or another since I was a 16 year old lifeguard at the city pool. I can say without hesitation that you smacked that nail square. The best workers are the ones with minimal authority, but work hard for lower wages, and don't play the politics game, so they don't get promoted. The ones who climb the ladder and gain authority are lazy and motivated only by a desire to gain more authority, more pay, and climd even higher. That's why I generally don't fear .gov as much as I worry about the Government.