Is FEOS the only one able to understand my question here? Am I not being clear enough in my question?AussieReaper wrote:
As I said, obtain more evidence, legally.FEOS wrote:
But, what I think lowing is getting at here, is that your only source for "probable cause" for your warrant is an illegal wiretap. You have no ability to get a warrant for these guys. What do you do?
The detectives have stuffed up royally if all the evidence they present to a prosecution team is illegally obtained.I'd just be repeating myself at this point. Get further evidence, legally.lowing wrote:
Point being, if you do not have the illegal gains as evidence in the first place, you have no suspicion to tap them in the second place. What are you going to use to get your warrant if you can not use the illegal gains?
Wire taping is not enough to convict anyone. A whole case must be built up with motive, probably cause, opportunity, intent, etc
If you think they are worth wire taping then it's not going to be too hard to find some evidence to grant you the legal case to use a tap.
Poll
Should illegally obtained evidence be allowed in court?
| Yes | 27% | 27% - 19 | ||||
| No | 72% | 72% - 51 | ||||
| Total: 70 | ||||||
Tricky, because they would presumably need the illegal wiretap info to justify a legal wiretap.lowing wrote:
What is your position that further investigation into criminal activity be conducted, including wire tapping. Not being able to use the wire tap in the murder charge, but using further surveillance as reasonable suspicion for future evidence.
In practice the Police would find a friendly Judge to allow a legal wiretap.
In the UK the Police can and do wiretap whoever they like without a warrant for 'information gathering' purposes.FEOS wrote:
I'd have to understand why the wiretap was in place to begin with, as well
I'm aware of a case where they tapped all the calls in and out of a bail hostel for years, no warrant, just trawling for dirt.
They tried to use it in court and made total asses of themselves - could have gone either way though, so they tried to fix the Judge, which backfired spectacularly.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2010-01-07 06:15:00)
Fuck Israel
Exactly, and this is the question posed to Aussie, but for some reason we are not connecting on this point.Dilbert_X wrote:
Tricky, because they would presumably need the illegal wiretap info to justify a legal wiretap.lowing wrote:
What is your position that further investigation into criminal activity be conducted, including wire tapping. Not being able to use the wire tap in the murder charge, but using further surveillance as reasonable suspicion for future evidence.In the UK the Police can and do wiretap whoever they like without a warrant for 'information gathering' purposes.FEOS wrote:
I'd have to understand why the wiretap was in place to begin with, as well
I'm aware of a case where they tapped all the calls in and out of a bail hostel for years, no warrant, just trawling for dirt.
Pull a Dexter on the bastards.FEOS wrote:
But, what I think lowing is getting at here, is that your only source for "probable cause" for your warrant is an illegal wiretap. You have no ability to get a warrant for these guys. What do you do?
Whoa... Can't believe these forums are still kicking.
My God, I love that show.Flecco wrote:
Pull a Dexter on the bastards.FEOS wrote:
But, what I think lowing is getting at here, is that your only source for "probable cause" for your warrant is an illegal wiretap. You have no ability to get a warrant for these guys. What do you do?
I voted no, and have the same question. I'd think a fed/cia/nsa would be more likely to operate at that level. I could give a shit if people were listening in on my phone conversations. My life is basically an open book. Should they though? No. Now if a police officer is sitting in a diner and overhears two patrons in a booth next to him... That's a different story.Dilbert_X wrote:
No, unless there is a VERY compelling reason.
Why would a policeman be listening to an illegal wiretap anyway?
The Police can gather all the evidence they like legally , its just often they are too lazy to do so, or the evidence is tainted or corrupted and definitely shouldn't be admitted.
The PACE rules are simple enough, its hard to understand why they don't just follow them.
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something. - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
lowing wrote:
My God, I love that show.Flecco wrote:
Pull a Dexter on the bastards.FEOS wrote:
But, what I think lowing is getting at here, is that your only source for "probable cause" for your warrant is an illegal wiretap. You have no ability to get a warrant for these guys. What do you do?
So do I. Have the first 3 seasons on DVD. Can't wait for the fourth to end up on DVD. I don't have cable.
Whoa... Can't believe these forums are still kicking.
And you guys talk about the US trampling on civil liberties?! Even the PATRIOT Act doesn't allow for that. Wow.Dilbert_X wrote:
In the UK the Police can and do wiretap whoever they like without a warrant for 'information gathering' purposes.FEOS wrote:
I'd have to understand why the wiretap was in place to begin with, as well
I'm aware of a case where they tapped all the calls in and out of a bail hostel for years, no warrant, just trawling for dirt.
They tried to use it in court and made total asses of themselves - could have gone either way though, so they tried to fix the Judge, which backfired spectacularly.
Based on the way the conversation is going here, I would say no, can't be used. If the only evidence you have is that obtained by the illegal wiretap, it can't be used in court. However, if the illegal wiretap somehow leads to legitimate investigative work, you now have a dilemma: fruit of the poisonous tree.
I suppose it depends on just how heinous the crime is and how damning the evidence is.The doctrine is subject to three main exceptions. The tainted evidence is admissible if:
1. it was discovered in part as a result of an independent, untainted source;
2. it would inevitably have been discovered despite the tainted source; or
3. the chain of causation between the illegal action and the tainted evidence is too attenuated.
Don't know if there is a similar legal doctrine in other countries. Based on what Dilbert has said, I'm guessing not in the UK?
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
I have cable just no Showtime. Wating for seaosn 4 myself.Flecco wrote:
lowing wrote:
My God, I love that show.Flecco wrote:
Pull a Dexter on the bastards.
So do I. Have the first 3 seasons on DVD. Can't wait for the fourth to end up on DVD. I don't have cable.
It's on showtime RIGHT NOW. Here in Aus anyway.
Whoa... Can't believe these forums are still kicking.
Yup. I can not be bothered with Showtime, Cinimax or HBO etc... whatever they are showing has been out on DVD for months already, and if I wanted to see it, Iwould have long by then.Flecco wrote:
It's on showtime RIGHT NOW. Here in Aus anyway.
That and DVD's are just more convenient than TiVo or any of that sort of thing.lowing wrote:
Yup. I can not be bothered with Showtime, Cinimax or HBO etc... whatever they are showing has been out on DVD for months already, and if I wanted to see it, Iwould have long by then.Flecco wrote:
It's on showtime RIGHT NOW. Here in Aus anyway.
Whoa... Can't believe these forums are still kicking.
The illegal evidence can never be used in court but if that illegal evidence leads to further investigation they will prolly find better and legal evidence that makes the initial illegal obsolete in court ...FEOS wrote:
And you guys talk about the US trampling on civil liberties?! Even the PATRIOT Act doesn't allow for that. Wow.Dilbert_X wrote:
In the UK the Police can and do wiretap whoever they like without a warrant for 'information gathering' purposes.FEOS wrote:
I'd have to understand why the wiretap was in place to begin with, as well
I'm aware of a case where they tapped all the calls in and out of a bail hostel for years, no warrant, just trawling for dirt.
They tried to use it in court and made total asses of themselves - could have gone either way though, so they tried to fix the Judge, which backfired spectacularly.
Based on the way the conversation is going here, I would say no, can't be used. If the only evidence you have is that obtained by the illegal wiretap, it can't be used in court. However, if the illegal wiretap somehow leads to legitimate investigative work, you now have a dilemma: fruit of the poisonous tree.I suppose it depends on just how heinous the crime is and how damning the evidence is.The doctrine is subject to three main exceptions. The tainted evidence is admissible if:
1. it was discovered in part as a result of an independent, untainted source;
2. it would inevitably have been discovered despite the tainted source; or
3. the chain of causation between the illegal action and the tainted evidence is too attenuated.
Don't know if there is a similar legal doctrine in other countries. Based on what Dilbert has said, I'm guessing not in the UK?
In this particular scenario the illegal evidence will not be worth bringing to court even as a tainted source since a conversation about murder is just that ... a conversation ...
Hope that clears things up for you lowing
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
but if not the illegal evidence, what shall be used to search for evidence in an attempt to put these 2 under survailiance. You need probable cause, and if you can not use illegal gains, you have nothing to support your probable cause.Varegg wrote:
The illegal evidence can never be used in court but if that illegal evidence leads to further investigation they will prolly find better and legal evidence that makes the initial illegal obsolete in court ...FEOS wrote:
And you guys talk about the US trampling on civil liberties?! Even the PATRIOT Act doesn't allow for that. Wow.Dilbert_X wrote:
In the UK the Police can and do wiretap whoever they like without a warrant for 'information gathering' purposes.
I'm aware of a case where they tapped all the calls in and out of a bail hostel for years, no warrant, just trawling for dirt.
They tried to use it in court and made total asses of themselves - could have gone either way though, so they tried to fix the Judge, which backfired spectacularly.
Based on the way the conversation is going here, I would say no, can't be used. If the only evidence you have is that obtained by the illegal wiretap, it can't be used in court. However, if the illegal wiretap somehow leads to legitimate investigative work, you now have a dilemma: fruit of the poisonous tree.I suppose it depends on just how heinous the crime is and how damning the evidence is.The doctrine is subject to three main exceptions. The tainted evidence is admissible if:
1. it was discovered in part as a result of an independent, untainted source;
2. it would inevitably have been discovered despite the tainted source; or
3. the chain of causation between the illegal action and the tainted evidence is too attenuated.
Don't know if there is a similar legal doctrine in other countries. Based on what Dilbert has said, I'm guessing not in the UK?
In this particular scenario the illegal evidence will not be worth bringing to court even as a tainted source since a conversation about murder is just that ... a conversation ...
Hope that clears things up for you lowing
Because if you do, everyone will be screaming "fuckin' Patriot Act"!!
I really hope I am being clear here, I can't think of another way of saying it.
Last edited by lowing (2010-01-07 07:00:53)
I think what you're alluding to is that why not wire tap everyone, since if they are innocent they have nothing to hide.lowing wrote:
I really hope I am being clear here, I can't think of another way of saying it.
Nooooooooooooooooooooooooo.AussieReaper wrote:
I think what you're alluding to is that why not wire tap everyone, since if they are innocent they have nothing to hide.lowing wrote:
I really hope I am being clear here, I can't think of another way of saying it.
Not even close.
If anybody is still at a loss as to what lowing and FEOS mean here it is...
The police have no reasonable grounds to apply for warrants to search or detain the suspects, search or confiscate property, tap or otherwise intercept communications covertly. In this case, the only evidence they have was obtained illegally, so it cannot be used to apply for warrants. Their suspicion is based entirely upon the illegally obtained evidence. Leaving them restricted to tailing and observation, as far as I know, in most countries. Hope I got that right.
I imagine warrants to search a residential premises aren't that hard to obtain though.
The police have no reasonable grounds to apply for warrants to search or detain the suspects, search or confiscate property, tap or otherwise intercept communications covertly. In this case, the only evidence they have was obtained illegally, so it cannot be used to apply for warrants. Their suspicion is based entirely upon the illegally obtained evidence. Leaving them restricted to tailing and observation, as far as I know, in most countries. Hope I got that right.
I imagine warrants to search a residential premises aren't that hard to obtain though.
Last edited by Flecco (2010-01-07 07:06:38)
Whoa... Can't believe these forums are still kicking.
Well then what is your problem with finding genuine evidence, presenting it to a district attorney and getting a legal warrant before you start a wire tap?lowing wrote:
Nooooooooooooooooooooooooo.AussieReaper wrote:
I think what you're alluding to is that why not wire tap everyone, since if they are innocent they have nothing to hide.lowing wrote:
I really hope I am being clear here, I can't think of another way of saying it.
Not even close.
because you NEED a jumping off point. You need a reason to go find evidence, and if you take away the illegal wire tap, then you have no legal reason to go find evidence or conduct surveillance.AussieReaper wrote:
Well then what is your problem with finding genuine evidence, presenting it to a district attorney and getting a legal warrant before you start a wire tap?lowing wrote:
Nooooooooooooooooooooooooo.AussieReaper wrote:
I think what you're alluding to is that why not wire tap everyone, since if they are innocent they have nothing to hide.
Not even close.
Then what is the reason to place an illegal wire tap?lowing wrote:
because you NEED a jumping off point. You need a reason to go find evidence, and if you take away the illegal wire tap, then you have no legal reason to go find evidence or conduct surveillance.AussieReaper wrote:
Well then what is your problem with finding genuine evidence, presenting it to a district attorney and getting a legal warrant before you start a wire tap?lowing wrote:
Nooooooooooooooooooooooooo.
Not even close.
Or any wire tap if you have no evidence these guys have done anything at all?
As I said, what you're alluding to is wiretap everyone and hope something turns up. Because without evidence of any kind that would allow for a wire tap, you have no reason to use a wire tap.
Understand?
The "jumping off point" as you call it is the illegal wire tap in this case, you can conduct much investigation without a warrant ... stake outs etc etc, good old police work ... you don't need a warrant for that ...lowing wrote:
because you NEED a jumping off point. You need a reason to go find evidence, and if you take away the illegal wire tap, then you have no legal reason to go find evidence or conduct surveillance.AussieReaper wrote:
Well then what is your problem with finding genuine evidence, presenting it to a district attorney and getting a legal warrant before you start a wire tap?lowing wrote:
Nooooooooooooooooooooooooo.
Not even close.
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
I asked that question on my very post in this thread.AussieReaper wrote:
Then what is the reason to place an illegal wire tap?lowing wrote:
because you NEED a jumping off point. You need a reason to go find evidence, and if you take away the illegal wire tap, then you have no legal reason to go find evidence or conduct surveillance.AussieReaper wrote:
Well then what is your problem with finding genuine evidence, presenting it to a district attorney and getting a legal warrant before you start a wire tap?
Or any wire tap if you have no evidence these guys have done anything at all?
As I said, what you're alluding to is wiretap everyone and hope something turns up. Because without evidence of any kind that would allow for a wire tap, you have no reason to use a wire tap.
Understand?
I agree, the wire tap is illegal and can not be used. this is why I posed the question to you. What now? we have no evidence and nothing for probable cause, do we now ignore these 2 people? If we don't, and we place them under survailance, what do we use for probable cause to do so? Since I agree, we can not just simply start tapping people.
but you need a reason, probable cause to spy on people. That cause has been stripped away as illegal. Am I right or wrong on this?Varegg wrote:
The "jumping off point" as you call it is the illegal wire tap in this case, you can conduct much investigation without a warrant ... stake outs etc etc, good old police work ... you don't need a warrant for that ...lowing wrote:
because you NEED a jumping off point. You need a reason to go find evidence, and if you take away the illegal wire tap, then you have no legal reason to go find evidence or conduct surveillance.AussieReaper wrote:
Well then what is your problem with finding genuine evidence, presenting it to a district attorney and getting a legal warrant before you start a wire tap?
What I think lowing is trying to say is that because your wiretap has been declared illegal, you can't go and find evidence legally to get justification for a wiretap, because now that your wiretap has been declared illegal, you have no justification for gathering such evidence.
I think... it's a rather circular and confusing situation.
I think... it's a rather circular and confusing situation.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
Okidoki ...lowing wrote:
but you need a reason, probable cause to spy on people. That cause has been stripped away as illegal. Am I right or wrong on this?Varegg wrote:
The "jumping off point" as you call it is the illegal wire tap in this case, you can conduct much investigation without a warrant ... stake outs etc etc, good old police work ... you don't need a warrant for that ...lowing wrote:
because you NEED a jumping off point. You need a reason to go find evidence, and if you take away the illegal wire tap, then you have no legal reason to go find evidence or conduct surveillance.
The difference here lowing is that you can't use the wire tap in court, that doesn't mean you on basis of the wire tap can't investigate further and obtain new legally investigated evidence that again may lead to a legally obtained wire tap ...
The police do not have to get a warrant to investigate people ...
Wait behind the line ..............................................................