Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Jocassee on October 25, 2013, 11:47:30 AM
-
I have no idea what to make of this, other than it being a gross abuse of power.
http://dailycaller.com/2013/10/25/exclusive-feds-confiscate-investigative-reporters-confidential-files-during-raid/
Thoughts from APS?
Outraged over the seizure, Hudson is now speaking out. She said no subpoena for the notes was presented during the raid and argues the confiscation was outside of the search warrant’s parameter.
“They took my notes without my knowledge and without legal authority to do so,” Hudson said this week. “The search warrant they presented said nothing about walking out of here with a single sheet of paper.”
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/10/25/exclusive-feds-confiscate-investigative-reporters-confidential-files-during-raid/#ixzz2ikVxhYh7
-
The document notes that her husband, Paul Flanagan, was found guilty in 1986 to resisting arrest in Prince George’s County. The warrant called for police to search the residence they share and seize all weapons and ammunition because he is prohibited under the law from possessing firearms.
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/10/25/exclusive-feds-confiscate-investigative-reporters-confidential-files-during-raid/#ixzz2ikX9v1fU
I feel so much safer now.
-
This was a "National Security / Espionage" issue.
The reporter won't be prosecuted, because the case would fall apart due to improper wording on the warrant to take the documents.
But the government got what it wanted... information on who the next potential Snowden could be.
Yes, it was a blatant abuse of power. But they had guns and the will to use them, so they got what they wanted.
Reporters need to step-up their source collection and security. If they get anything in paper form that they need to archive, best just to scan it digitally and encrypt the doc, and destroy or hide the original. Don't keep confidential information in paper format at your home office. ;/
-
This was a "National Security / Espionage" issue.
The reporter won't be prosecuted, because the case would fall apart due to improper wording on the warrant to take the documents.
But the government got what it wanted... information on who the next potential Snowden could be.
Yes, it was a blatant abuse of power. But they had guns and the will to use them, so they got what they wanted.
Reporters need to step-up their source collection and security. If they get anything in paper form that they need to archive, best just to scan it digitally and encrypt the doc, and destroy or hide the original. Don't keep confidential information in paper format at your home office. ;/
Bingo. If you are a reporter that's not a government suckup, start paying attention to information security. Plenty of experts can advise. I'd sure as hell do so pro bono publico.
-
the reporter was never at risk of charges. her husband is hosed. and she would be wise to shush till his case is over.
the document seizure is legit
its funny how warrants work.
damn phone
-
the reporter was never at risk of charges. her husband is hosed. and she would be wise to shush till his case is over.
the document seizure is legit
its funny how warrants work.
damn phone
The document seizure is legit only if the warrant allows it. If the warrant was strictly for ammo and firearms, it's not legit. Warrants only apply to what's on them, and "in the open" material that is reasonably found while strictly looking for the material listed in the warrant. If the documents were sitting on the kitchen table, clearly spread out, of a blatantly criminal material, it'd be legit. If the were a stack of papers likely to be hiding ammo or guns, not legit. As you say, "its funny how warrants work."
-
The document seizure is legit only if the warrant allows it. If the warrant was strictly for ammo and firearms, it's not legit. Warrants only apply to what's on them, and "in the open" material that is reasonably found while strictly looking for the material listed in the warrant. If the documents were sitting on the kitchen table, clearly spread out, of a blatantly criminal material, it'd be legit. If the were a stack of papers likely to be hiding ammo or guns, not legit. As you say, "its funny how warrants work."
The one caveat I'd add to this, Rev, is if the woman had her confidential sources inside some sort of safe.
Safes are common places to store firearms and under that scenario it's a "legitimate" way for the government to compel the safe owner to open the safe, or else bring in a technician to force the safe open and destroy it. Once the safe is open and has been inspected for firearms, everything in the safe is "in the open" as you say, since it was encountered in the casual search for the firearms mentioned in the warrant.
Just one more reason to not keep physical documents and only retain digital copies in encrypted format.
-
In Soviet Amerikka, search warrant seizes YOU
-
Resisting arrest? That seems the be the standard charge for not being obsequious enough to the New Lords.
-
The Stasi will take whatever or whomever they please. Get used to it.
-
Looking at things in a favorable light to LE... During the course of a legitimate search warrant for unlawful firearms (supported by statements of neighbors, facebook posts ect) they came across some clearly marked government files under the label of confidential. That is a possible crime in progress. Had they been in a folder or had the FOIL request/answer cover, rubber banded to them ect, shame on the officers. Clearly associated handwritten material? Well, transcribed secrets from the docs would be appropriately bundled and their sitting down and trying to work it out there would be silly. My guess is the officers didn't know what they were dealing with and tried to sort things out quietly to avoid embarrassment if they were wrong. And of course asking the person would display a lack of infallibility and would do nothing to further prop up Authoritay. That is bad procedure; but I think more likely than secret government raids to ferret out embarrassing whistle blowers. Tho I would feel more confident in my assumption if, you know, the government wasn't already caught doing exactly that a couple of times and worse. [tinfoil]
-
Looking at things in a favorable light to LE... During the course of a legitimate search warrant for unlawful firearms (supported by statements of neighbors, facebook posts ect) they came across some clearly marked government files under the label of confidential. That is a possible crime in progress. Had they been in a folder or had the FOIL request/answer cover, rubber banded to them ect, shame on the officers. Clearly associated handwritten material? Well, transcribed secrets from the docs would be appropriately bundled and their sitting down and trying to work it out there would be silly. My guess is the officers didn't know what they were dealing with and tried to sort things out quietly to avoid embarrassment if they were wrong. And of course asking the person would display a lack of infallibility and would do nothing to further prop up Authoritay. That is bad procedure; but I think more likely than secret government raids to ferret out embarrassing whistle blowers. Tho I would feel more confident in my assumption if, you know, the government wasn't already caught doing exactly that a couple of times and worse. [tinfoil]
Sure, that's why they had a warrant for a 27 year old "crime" :angel: :police:
-
this is the question I really wanted answered. does a conviction for resisting arrest make it illegal to own firearms in Maryland?
-
I have no idea what to make of this, other than it being a gross abuse of power.
http://dailycaller.com/2013/10/25/exclusive-feds-confiscate-investigative-reporters-confidential-files-during-raid/
Thoughts from APS?
Encryption, offsite backup.
-
The document seizure is legit only if the warrant allows it. If the warrant was strictly for ammo and firearms, it's not legit. Warrants only apply to what's on them, and "in the open" material that is reasonably found while strictly looking for the material listed in the warrant. If the documents were sitting on the kitchen table, clearly spread out, of a blatantly criminal material, it'd be legit. If the were a stack of papers likely to be hiding ammo or guns, not legit. As you say, "its funny how warrants work."
No
If the warrant was for stolen cars or bicycles then looking in a drawer or box would be a bozo nono
Looking for guns? Stumble across what appears to be evidence of criminal activity? Bingo
Been on both ends of that one. They raided us looking for stolen bikes. Found narcotics in a nitestand. Thrown outa court. Raided for dope found guns of dubious lineage go directly to jail
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
-
Sure, that's why they had a warrant for a 27 year old "crime" :angel: :police:
They have evidence of crimes a loot fresher than that. In fact reporter brings it up with her "if he wasn't supposed to be around guns they shoulda busted him then."
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
-
If the warrant says "Firearms and ammunition" then a file of papers is NOT firearms and ammo. However, the damage has been done and the .gov what it wanted, the names of leakers, by doing an end around.
Just a further erosion of the Bill of Rights, nothing to see here, peasant. Move along.
-
If the warrant says "Firearms and ammunition" then a file of papers is NOT firearms and ammo. However, the damage has been done and the .gov what it wanted, the names of leakers, by doing an end around.
Just a further erosion of the Bill of Rights, nothing to see here, peasant. Move along.
I wonder if the papers were the real target of the raid, and the firearms warrant was just a ruse.
-
If the warrant says "Firearms and ammunition" then a file of papers is NOT firearms and ammo. However, the damage has been done and the .gov what it wanted, the names of leakers, by doing an end around.
Just a further erosion of the Bill of Rights, nothing to see here, peasant. Move along.
If it is your belief that police coming across evidence of additional crimes while conducting their search cannot act on it you are mistaken. So long as their search did not stray from the parameters in the warrant. An example would be searching a garage if warrant specified the house
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
-
Here's how it was taught to me back in law school. If police are executing a warrant, they can lawfully search anywhrre the item could reasonably be found. If in the course of that search they find something which is obviously contraband or evidence of friminal activity, it can also be seized even if not specifically listed in the warrant. In my own experience, while police were executing a warrant on a meth lab, there was a credit card laying on a table. Bad news for the meth cooks, it was the cop's mother-in-law's card, and her home was burglarized two days earlier. I don't know about the OP, though. Tough call. It's why I had my guys photograph everything they found as they found it, to help the suppression hearing issues.
-
Thats the way it played out in courts in md dc and va for me as well.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
-
Didn't I read somewhere about being "secure in your papers" ???
It was a really old document. Probably not relevant any more.
-
They have evidence of crimes a loot fresher than that. In fact reporter brings it up with her "if he wasn't supposed to be around guns they shoulda busted him then."
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
Hudson told TheDC that the couple had a run-in with the Maryland State Police about six years ago. “A neighbor complained on New Years Eve about one of us shooting a gun off the pier here,” she said. “We live right on the bay.”
Hudson said the police gave them a slap on the wrist then.
Without knowing the details, that doesn't sound like a conviction.
But none of this answers the most important question...does a conviction for Resisting Arrest make you a prohibited person in MD??
Alternatively...if he posted pics of an AK-47 on FB...I won't say they deserve what they're getting but they should have expected it.
-
Sorry, Jo, but I know nothing of MD law, and I'm not able to access the work network this evening to look it up.
-
I wonder if the papers were the real target of the raid, and the firearms warrant was just a ruse.
This, and
Here's how it was taught to me back in law school. If police are executing a warrant, they can lawfully search anywhrre the item could reasonably be found. If in the course of that search they find something which is obviously contraband or evidence of friminal activity, it can also be seized even if not specifically listed in the warrant. In my own experience, while police were executing a warrant on a meth lab, there was a credit card laying on a table. Bad news for the meth cooks, it was the cop's mother-in-law's card, and her home was burglarized two days earlier. I don't know about the OP, though. Tough call. It's why I had my guys photograph everything they found as they found it, to help the suppression hearing issues.
How do DC beat cops and SWAT officers, serving a fairly mundane warrant for contraband guns and ammo... even know what classified/confidential/sensitive government information looks like?
Dollars to donuts that the files were wrapped in a nondescript manilla envelope or other container that was otherwise "not a gun" or "not a box of ammo." Once it's clearly not the subject of the warrant, what latitude does law enforcement have to DIG to find out if some random envelope contains a plot to assassinate the president, or evidence that the Chief Justice of SCOTUS is a pedophile?
These officers were SENT here with the intent to take the information in question.
And these tactics won't end until K-pots end up on the ground, and a judge in his right mind commends the defender rather than sentencing him.
-
This, and
How do DC beat cops and SWAT officers, serving a fairly mundane warrant for contraband guns and ammo... even know what classified/confidential/sensitive government information looks like?
They normally say " [Agency Name] For Official Use Only" or "Sensitive" or some such in large colored letters. It's not that hard to tell. If they saw the header page without the FOIA request attached it would look suspicious.
-
They normally say " [Agency Name] For Official Use Only" or "Sensitive" or some such in large colored letters. It's not that hard to tell. If they saw the header page without the FOIA request attached it would look suspicious.
yup and in one of the articles thats exactly what is described in the affadavit.
did the reporter not look at post raid paperwork?
the documents she "didn't know were missing" were on the receipt.
damn phone
-
Just one more reason to not keep physical documents and only retain digital copies in encrypted format.
Been paying attention to the news about the NSA recently? Encryption isn't going to save you if they have a zero day exploit into your system.
physical copies are actually better in this case. Just be sure you encode/use pseudonyms for any personally identifiable information for your sources.
-
Been paying attention to the news about the NSA recently? Encryption isn't going to save you if they have a zero day exploit into your system.
physical copies are actually better in this case. Just be sure you encode/use pseudonyms for any personally identifiable information for your sources.
Encrypt the computer enough that they'll take it to the lab. Thermite and a RFID trigger in your laptop an antenna built into your front door. Laptop outgates the house.....fwoosh.
>:D >:D
(this might end up with added charges depending on how fast the guy taking the laptop drops it but they won't have your data.)
-
Ah, yes. General Warrants make a return to the present. Seems such warrants were a major irritant to the colonists and a precipitant of the revolution. A Start Page search of general warrants show a lot of activity with the concept here and now.
https://www.eff.org/files/filenode/att/generalwarrantsmemo.pdf is of particular interest due to its brevity and source. The nut Over the past few years our government has argued that the modern exigencies of national security have changed the rules of the game and that the niceties of judicial process simply no longer apply. Madison likely would have rejected this argument, but he wouldn’t have been surprised by it. “Perhaps it is a universal truth,” Madison wrote in a 1798 letter to Thomas Jefferson, “that loss of liberty at home is to be charged against provisions against danger, real or pretended, from abroad.”
-
thanks i learned sumthin today
i don't believe this was a general warrant.
i wonder if thet realize how far up the creek he is and are looking for any legal crevice to hide in
damn phone
-
Ah, yes. General Warrants make a return to the present. Seems such warrants were a major irritant to the colonists and a precipitant of the revolution. A Start Page search of general warrants show a lot of activity with the concept here and now.
https://www.eff.org/files/filenode/att/generalwarrantsmemo.pdf is of particular interest due to its brevity and source. The nut
I had always heard of those referred to as "Writs of Assistance." Abominable, no matter the name attached to this particular dung pile.