
Can Authorities Cut Off Utilities And Pose As Repairmen To Search A Home? - DickingAround
http://www.npr.org/2014/10/29/359725475/can-authorities-cut-off-utilities-and-pose-as-repairmen-to-search-a-home
======
Someone1234
> the FBI provided two blank CDs, claiming the recording devices malfunctioned

The levels of day-to-day corruption within the US judicial system are almost
comical at times, scary at others...

Between the police constantly getting away with committing crimes, prosecutors
essentially blackmailing innocent people into pleas, and judges often ignoring
the rule of law (with VERY shaky justifications), it seems like the entire
system is fubar.

The US system is just corrupt through and through. I see nothing redeeming
about it. The only people who seem to [sometimes] receive justice are the
rich, and while that is the case on other countries, in many of those
countries that is a "scandal" in the US it is "working as intended."

~~~
codescorrectly
My opinion is that the levels of corruption in the American justice system
have always been the same or are tending to decline in aggregate, similar to
violent crimes (I don't have any statistics for corruption). It just seems
that the opposite is happening because of the ubiquity and lack of cost
associated with mass communication. To put it another way, when corrupt
actions occur in a particular case, hundreds of thousands and possibly
millions of people hear about it. This didn't always used to happen,
especially when mass communication was centrally controlled by a few
broadcasting corporations.

~~~
unchocked
The Corruption Perceptions survey is a useful metric. The USA tends to hang
with Japan around the high teens in ranking year after year. Interestingly,
there is a wider variance in perceptions of American corruption than for other
countries.

~~~
ripb
>The Corruption Perceptions survey is a useful metric. The USA tends to hang
with Japan around the high teens in ranking year after year. Interestingly,
there is a wider variance in perceptions of American corruption than for other
countries

I think the perception of corruption is interesting, because overall the West
is far lower than elsewhere. Link for those interested:
[http://www.transparency.org/cpi2013/results](http://www.transparency.org/cpi2013/results)

While when you actually talk to people, corruption in the West is pretty
widely acknowledged and even outright accepted. For example, when the NSA
stories first broke the reaction on Reddit was largely a mix of:

"Duh, this is confirming what we already know"

and

"Well, it's not like other countries aren't doing it too" (even though, at
that time, only the NSA was being highlighted and there was little/no news
about their European, Canadian, Australian etc. counterparts.

What had been previously relegated by the mass populace as conspiracy theory
nonsense was very quickly accepted, and then very quickly relegated to
acceptance.

What this would lead me personally to believe, from just watching these things
unfold, watching the mass reaction to it and then talking with others about
it, is that we in the West widely acknowledge corruption here but out of a
combination of a feeling of powerlessness (what am I, Joe Bloggs, going to be
able to do about it), being removed from it (this doesn't affect I, Joe
Bloggs, all that much) and probably an inherent sense of nationalism (well,
it's probably much worse over there in that other country) we actively
downplay the level of corruption in our societies, and I believe that this
probably ends up being reflected in these surveys.

I've no doubt that the above is conjecture, but it's just what I've formed
from my own experiences. There is a very marked feeling of powerlessness
though, and the little action taken, even political action, over the things
that have been exposed in the West would solidify that opinion somewhat more.

------
Afforess
Normally these discussions get framed in terms of "rights" and how the FBI are
violating them, but the average person doesn't care a lot about their abstract
rights. It doesn't register. The real issue, and what bothers me, and I think
the FBI here don't "get", is that when they pull these stunts, they are
helping the real criminals. In court, when someone who is actually guilty of a
crime can show that the FBI did this sort of stunt, they can often appeal and
nullify the entire sentence. Criminals can end up going free because the law
enforcement felt it had a right to do whatever they wanted. When law
enforcement acts in disregard to the law, they are not only breaking it, but
aiding the real criminals escape justice.

~~~
smokeyj
I also don't think we should frame discussions in terms of crimes, criminals
and justice. It's more like corporately sponsored regulatory code, code
violators, and punishment if you're poor or a minority.

~~~
ertdfgcb
While I agree, poor minorities may be the most frequently punished, but they
are by no means the only ones.

------
gleenn
If it is true the FBI tried to cover their asses, heads should roll. This kind
of stuff is so despicable. If it is inconvenient to get a warrant, then that's
where your job ends.

My civil liberties should not be crumbling because of overzealous FBI agents
going after some silly illegal gambling.

~~~
jobu
When you look at it from the perspective of the officers, this plan was a win-
win proposition. Even if it gets thrown out it court, they stopped the
allegedly illegal operation. When there is no consequence to the officers
themselves for their actions, then the ends will justify the means.

(It's unjust, unethical, and possibly illegal, but it's the same reason people
are still reading and discussing Machiavelli 500 years later.)

~~~
john_b
It's only win-win if no heads roll, as the parent proposed.

~~~
ripb
The odds of heads rolling, going by previous non-attempts at holding these
agencies responsible for their actions, seem to be low enough that they're
quite happy to engage this behaviour without fear.

And as for bringing about a change that would see future incidents causing
them to be held accountable? I think the average person, and therefore the
population, feels entirely powerless in that regard. I mean the US voted for a
supposedly liberal, progressive President who even has it on his campaign
website [1] that he would "Protect Whistleblowers", who has then gone on to
prosecute more whistleblowers than all other President's combined [2].

So it's no wonder why people feel powerless, and it's no wonder why any change
to these situations is certainly not coming in the visible future.

1\.
[http://change.gov/agenda/ethics_agenda/](http://change.gov/agenda/ethics_agenda/)

2\.
[http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/sep/05/obama-c...](http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/sep/05/obama-
campaign-brags-about-whistleblower-persecutions)

------
stevengg
This sort of thing is standard secret service wave blank paper to gain entry

[http://www.jrn.com/newschannel5/news/newschannel-5-investiga...](http://www.jrn.com/newschannel5/news/newschannel-5-investigates/Police-
Chief-Accuses-Secret-Service-Of-Misconduct-279207151.html)

~~~
mscman
I hadn't heard about that. That's awesome that the police chief is taking them
on about this. It's becoming rare to hear about police chiefs doing the right
thing when it comes to abuse of power.

~~~
bennyg
I think that's selection bias creeping through. It's easy to remember the
really negative events and less so the mundane, positive ones. Perceptions is
reality and all that.

~~~
pessimizer
I'd think that the selection bias would make far it easier to remember the
_positive_ events in this situation. This event would not have made the news,
and no one would have been aware of it except for the victim if the police
chief hadn't raised an (apparently huge) stink. If it's difficult for the
Nashville chief of police to get traction on an incident that happened within
his jurisdiction, what chance do you have?

------
SyncTheory13
I have a story similar to this, though it didn't involve the police actually
searching my home.

In March of 2011, my St. Louis hosted an Occupy convention - which was mostly
workshops/lectures and some very tame marches due to out-of-town folks. My
roommates and I had been involved for a bit and some had given our address out
when arrests were made.

This was prime-time for police intimidation (including of witnesses) and
undercover agents. We were aggressively tailed by unmarked cars, had police
writing down license-plates of those at our house, and had a constant police
presence circling the block and down the alley.

Aside from very close friends being intensely beaten for participating in a
march that was staying on the sidewalk (a scene that still haunts most of us)
- the most corrupt thing that happened to us was when they worked with the
local Electric company (Ameren UE) to have our electricity shut off.

We called the electric company to find out why it was shut off when the bill
had been up-to-date and were told they were ordered to by the police due to
the house being declared Condemned and us being labeled as squatters.

We had some pro-bono lawyers who advised me to threaten the electric company
with legal action - which made their representatives quickly make up a legal
excuse as to why our electric was shut off. I informed the landlord, who
checked into it and found that it involved a Sergeant with the St. Louis
Metropolitan Police Department.

The conversation between then went something along the lines of: \- Landlord:
Why has the house been declared condemned and the electric shut off? \-
Police: This house has been involved with Occupy and often serves as a meeting
place for it. \- Landlord: Ok... Is it illegal to hold meetings in a house? \-
Police: Well... No... \- Landlord: Then we shouldn't have a problem.

Probably helped that the landlord is a high-ranking official in the nearby Air
Force base. Within 24 hours, our electric was reconnected.

My take-away from all of this, and the current events, is that the best course
of action in dealing with aggressive and usually illegal police activities is
to fight back with an even more aggressive legal campaign as well as
establishing a very close and open relationship with all surrounding
neighbors. Their fraternity acts as an organizational bully that constantly
pushes what they can get away with until they sense actual danger to
themselves/their jobs in terms of legal ramifications, etc.

~~~
infinite8s
My takeaway from your story is that the high connections your landlord
probably had to draw upon was the reason you prevailed with the electricity
company.

~~~
click170
His point stands. Don't make it easy for them, this is wrong and they need to
be made to understand that it's unacceptable for them to pull these kinds of
stunts.

IMO he shouldn't have let it rest after the electricity was turned back on, he
should have pressed the matter by trying to contact the media about this and
by getting a written statement from the landlord regarding the events for
future reference, and should have written a blog post about it.

------
ObviousScience
These FBI agents are criminals, pure and simple.

Not that I think they'll be held accountable for their crimes, much like they
weren't for the other lies that they've brazenly told in court related to
parallel construction.

However, it's apparent that they don't actually care what the law is, and are
perfectly willing to violate it when they feel like they want something that
the law forbids them.

Disgusting.

------
kbart
Wow, I'm amazed this happens in modern USA. Such methods reminds of KGB in
Soviet Russia or Stasi in East Germany, where agents were often "employed" as
cleaners, housekeepers, electricians, doormen etc. Looks like the whole
warrant system is broken and often used only to cover up the "parallel
constructions", in other words, some kind of PR stuff.

------
click170
I once caught a pair of police officers trying to break into my home through
my 2nd story bedroom window (while I was sleeping) in the middle of the day.

I was home and caught them in the act, which was evidently unexpected because
one of them nearly fell off my roof when I asked them wtf they were doing.

They claimed they had received a 911 call from my home, despite the fact that
I was asleep and was home alone. After searching the home myself looking for a
possibly incapacitated relative (with them in toe, despite the fact that I had
not granted them access) and finding no-one, they left. I asked around, and
this apparently happens very frequently in my area.

If there's a 911 call and it is disconnected, that does sound like grounds to
at least attend to the residence. But breaking and entering when there aren't
signs anyone is even home? I have a hard time agreeing that this was called
for. I now live in an apartment building or I would block my windows from
opening wide enough for someone to enter through them.

~~~
Natsu
How did you confirm that they were actual police officers?

~~~
click170
Fair question.

They had police uniforms, complete with radios which were squawking
occasionally, they had a police cruiser complete with Toughbook, and it
appeared to me as though the older officer was training the younger one. All
in all, I'm not 100% sure, but I'm pretty certain.

~~~
Natsu
Sounds reasonable. My first thought would've been that these are impostors,
but that's a rather complete set of props.

------
jsaxton86
The worst case scenario for the FBI is that the evidence gets thrown out in
this one case. No one will lose their job. No one will get seriously punished.
As such, I fully expect the FBI and other law enforcement agencies to continue
to come up with creative ways to perform unreasonable searches without
probable cause.

~~~
kstrauser
No, the worst case is that people start suspecting innocent workmen of being
undercover cops and enacting street justice against them. Now a meth dealer
who's been awake for three days has a _legitimate_ reason to think that the
cable guy might be a cop.

This is why Doctors Without Borders gets pissed off when the CIA poses as
healthcare workers. This is why the Geneva Convention specifies that medical
personnel - and _only_ medical personnel - wear a red cross to identify them
as noncombatants. Someone at the FBI probably thought this was a grand idea,
while utility workers are now more likely to be victims of violent crime
because of it. Great job, guys.

~~~
rosser
Externalized costs are, like, totally someone else's problem, man.

------
Shivetya
No.

I have followed this story for a while and this is just insane what they did
without a warrant. So they effectively break the law to gain evidence? They
are allowed to sabotage another party's services and pose as their persons to
do such?

This is really just another in a long line of abuses the judicial system
foists onto people, mostly onto those who cannot afford legal representation.
Their mistake here was these people could. I am amazed they didn't try
forfeiture laws and declare the computing equipment as breaking the law,
without rights, and just taking it only "to discover" it was used for
nefarious purposes.

------
MatthiasP
When Law Enforcement Agencies ignore the very law they are supposed to enforce
they simply become a'put people into prisons' organization. This is the real
reason why you don't want them to have wide reaching powers, there is only a
fine line between LEA and criminal activity.

We will see if James Comey will shed as many tears about this as he is
spending on Apple's encryption.

~~~
coryfklein
> the very law they are supposed to enforce

It doesn't seem all that clear cut that they were breaking the law in this
case. What is illegal about them shutting off the internet and then posing as
repair men? Is there actually a law against that?

~~~
patmcc
>What is illegal about them shutting off the internet and then posing as
repair men? Is there actually a law against that?

What do you think would happen if you tried that on the home (or office) of a
law enforcement officer? I think you'd end up arrested and charged with
something if you got caught; maybe destruction of properly, maybe fraud, maybe
home invasion?

~~~
coryfklein
> maybe destruction of properly, maybe fraud, maybe home invasion

In this case, there was no destruction of property, just disconnection of
internet service. As for fraud, I'm not aware of any fraud-related laws that
apply. And it can't be home invasion if you invite me in.

------
ck2
This still doesn't top the fact cops all over this country on a regular basis,
stop anyone and seize their property and cash without any charge of criminal
wrongdoing, just because it would be too expensive for people to sue them to
get it back.

That little gem should be running on the corner of the front page of every
newspaper and television news program every week forever until someone is
finally horrified.

~~~
morganvachon
> That little gem should be running on the corner of the front page of every
> newspaper and television news program every week forever until someone is
> finally horrified.

No, it needs to be the headline or top story, period. Running it in the corner
every week relegates it to insignificance in pretty much anyone's eyes. Just
as with the Snowden revelations, the constant bombardment of news stories will
lead to information fatigue. People just won't care, and while they won't
consciously accept it, their subconscious will add it to the ever-growing
avalanche of shit they deal with on a daily basis. They will be come numb to
it.

------
jeffdavis
One thing also disturbing is that it doesn't say what they actually saw
inside, and apparently that wasn't recorded.

This goes to show that, even if they _don 't_ see anything to justify a search
warrant, merely letting them in allows them to _say_ they saw something in
order to obtain a warrant.

Similarly, if you speak with police without a lawyer present, the policeman
can _say_ that you confessed to them (or said something that damages your
case, at least), regardless of whether it's true.

~~~
grecy
> _Similarly, if you speak with police without a lawyer present, the policeman
> can say that you confessed to them (or said something that damages your
> case, at least), regardless of whether it 's true._

I've always found that one really interesting. Let's say they arrest me, put
me in a room and try to interrogate me for a few hours before a lawyer shows
up. Even if the only words out of my mouth the entire time are "I would like
to speak to a lawyer please", what stops the Police from saying I said
something else entirely?

~~~
Loughla
I know the answer to this. In 2014, the thing that keeps the police from
saying anything else is a recording of the entire situation. Recording is
standard practice in most interrogation situations. I say most, not all.

Story Time; I was interviewed for a crime I was tangentially related to (my
employer at the time was robbed while I was on the clock, they were
investigating any possible connections on my side). I kept repeating, "I would
like to speak to my lawyer please." Once my lawyer came, he advised me to just
be honest and tell them that there was no connection. I was just uncomfortable
about talking to a cop behind closed doors and was 17.

When asked what we talked about, the cops response was something along the
lines of, "nothing, the little asshole just kept saying lawyer. Check the
tapes."

It was then that I realized the power of video.

~~~
fnordfnordfnord
The FBI recently changed its long-standing policy of not recording
interrogations.

------
crazypyro
This comes just after the allegations that the FBI used the Seattle Times
email format to trick a bomb threat suspect into clicking on a link that
installed spyware.

If this plus the FBI impersonating respected Press members doesn't cause some
kind of shake-up, I think we are doomed at every solving the problem of the
law enforcement overreach.

~~~
anigbrowl
That was legit, by contrast. In this case, if the butler had acceded to the
initial request (to come inside to 'check the network') that would have been
totally legitimate too. There's nothing legally wrong with tricking people, or
undercover police work would be impossible.

~~~
crazypyro
Except it undermines the power of the press and, in my opinion, the freedom of
the press, which is a constitutionally granted right. It creates a situation
where people are scared of speaking to the press and can create situations
where the press cannot get sources because of the fear of impersonation. So
yeah, its good police work, except for that small little thing called the
United States Constitution. This is all too often the reasoning that is used
to take away our liberty.

~~~
anigbrowl
I don't think it's unconstitutional at all. I gave the example the other day
of where you have a suspect's phone number but no location. So you call and
say 'I'm from Your_local_newspaper and we're offering 2 weeks of free delivery
to new subscribers, would you like to receive the paper for 2 weeks free sir?'
If the person say yes and you confirm the address, then deliver copies of the
paper there and stake it out to see if your suspect appears to pick it up,
there's no problem there.

I do not at all agree that this undermines the power of the press; one
individual was sent a spoofed link that appeared to go to a newspaper story
but didn't. This fact was in the public domain (accessible on the EFF's
website) for 3 years before anyone chose to make a fuss about it. I certainly
wouldn't feel inhibited about speaking to the press as a result of knowing
about this.

~~~
crazypyro
It's not one incident that makes it scary. Its the fact that the FBI thinks
its okay to continuously deteriorate long-standing constitutional protections
because they know it'll help them catch more criminals. You know what also
catches more criminals? Collecting every single American's technology
information for the purpose of back-searching it in the event of a situation.
The impersonating of press (which I completely disagree with your
characterization of the event) is apparently standard protocol. By giving them
the ability to steal their email format and letterhead style, they essentially
have the ability to impersonate the press. Granted, in the publicized case,
they only used it to act as a link to a news report about the suspect they
were attempting to place malware on, but I don't think it is too far-fetched
to see this line continuously move closer towards impersonation and further
away from the clearly legal line.

------
rdtsc
FBI is now an "organized crime" cartel. It is the Mafia.

This is not unlike the corruption at high levels in places like Russia, China
etc. There, they have a grey zone between law enforcement and criminal
organizations. Think of it as "regulatory capture" but in respect to law
enforcement. Here there isn't as much of a grey zone (yet?), it is more
isolated, but the acting above the law bit is the same.

You can look at it as both being a bad thin in an of itself but also a signal
(proxy) for deeper and more serious issues coming down the pipeline.

The one thing that FBI has is better technology and resources than any of
those other criminal organizations. So any corruption no matter how small will
be amplified many times over.

------
aburan28
The FBI has been breaking the law and been guided by a machiavellian attitude
for decades now. They are simply above the law and no oversight has ever been
applied to this agency. Has there ever been a FBI agent sent to jail for
subverting the legal system and breaking laws? Absolutely not.

~~~
LordKano
The Federal Government has even thrown its weight around to protect agents
when they're charged at the state level.

When Idaho attempted to indict Lon Horiuchi for shooting Vicki Weaver, the DOJ
sent lawyers make sure that their man was shielded.

------
austenallred
My story is only tangentially related, but pretty absurd. TL;DR - an FBI agent
came to our house undercover as a FedEx driver, ready to serve a warrant as
soon as we accepted a package.

When I was 16 I became an "eBay trade assistant" \- basically people who
didn't know how to sell stuff on eBay would pay me a 15% commission to sell
their stuff for them. The work was really trivial, but a lot of the people I
sold stuff for were 70+ years old and had some great antiques. It was easy
money for a 16-year-old.

One day a guy contacted me and said, "Hey, I have a GPS from my work that I
don't need, and I want you to sell it for me." I looked up the GPS; it
retailed at about $1500, and was selling for around $1,000 on eBay. I would
literally copy/paste the official product description and earn $150 - a no-
brainer. I told him to ship me the GPS.

A few days later, as my mom was about to take me to pick up my car from the
mechanic, a FedEx guy came to our garage door. He asked if there was a "Scott
Smith" that lived at our house (I don't remember the exact name). We said
there wasn't. He said, "Oh, well I have a GPS here for Scott Smith." I said we
were expecting a GPS, but that wasn't my name. My mom got nervous and turned
down the package.

A few minutes later, as we were driving to the mechanic, my mom got pulled
over by an unmarked car. It was a little strange to see an unmarked car in our
small town, but oh well, my mom was speeding (as everybody always is in that
town). I put my iPod headphones in and didn't think twice about it. The
officer asked her to step out of the car (again, I didn't know enough to think
twice). After about 10 minutes of them standing there and talking I finally
pulled my headphones out and heard "stolen credit card" and "GPS" in the same
sentence. I put together what had happened pretty quickly, and explained it to
the officer. The officer made a circling motion in the air with his finger,
and four of five other unmarked cars that had parked discreetly behind us on
the street drove off in various directions.

Turns out I was being used as a "fence" for one of the largest credit card
thieves in America, as he was testing the waters of using trade assistants to
sell on eBay. My next-door-neighbor (and a good friend of the family), who was
a police officer, later told me that they had been setting up this sting for
weeks. He recognized the address as being close to him, but we lived next door
to a trailer park that had been notorious for crime of all varieties, so he
didn't realize it was actually our house they were targeting.

Turns out the FedEx guy was an undercover FBI agent, and they had a warrant to
strip our house down to the studs if we had accepted the package. In the end,
we just explained what happened, and I had to turn my beloved Hotmail account
over to the FBI. They said they would have me testify in court if they ever
caught the guy/girl responsible, and I've never heard anything. So either they
never caught him/her or my testimony was unnecessary given the email
transcripts.

My mom _loved_ to tell that story to girls I brought home for the first time.
In retrospect it was probably a good litmus test to know if they'd be able to
put up with me.

~~~
anigbrowl
I don't see what's absurd about that - establishing probable cause and then
doing a search with a warrant is exactly how things are supposed to work. I
think it only seems weird to you because you were the least knowledgeable
person about what was going on - the Feds knew there was a stolen goods ring
in operation, the thieves knew you were a potential dupe who just wanted an
easy buck, whereas you were young and inexperienced enough not to find
anything odd about someone asking for your help in selling (what was then) a
very high-tech item with a price to match.

~~~
grecy
You don't see any problem with Federal agents lying about who they are to
further their own goals?

Why is it illegal for me to lie about who I am, but not the other way around?

~~~
sliverstorm
I didn't know it was illegal to lie about who you are. There's lots of
exceptions like "impersonating a police officer" and "identity theft", but I'm
pretty sure it's not illegal for me to lie about who I am to a girl at a party
to further my goals.

Also, the "Federal" part might be spooking you. How about police officers? Do
you object to undercover officers?

~~~
grecy
> _but I 'm pretty sure it's not illegal for me to lie about who I am to a
> girl at a party to further my goals._

Right. I was talking mostly about lying to the authorities. Why can they lie
to us, but we can't lie to them?

> _How about police officers? Do you object to undercover officers?_

That's a good question - I don't understand how it works well enough. If my
spouse is having a heart attack and I call 911, can an undercover cop
pretending to be a paramedic come into my house and then can a search warrant
then be granted based on what he saw in my house, even though I thought he was
a paramedic not a cop?

~~~
aeturnum
> Why can they lie to us, but we can't lie to them?

While giving false statements (any statements!) to federal officers is
illegal, it's not illegal otherwise. If you're arrested for selling drugs,
claim you're not selling drugs, and then are convicted - the claim that you're
not selling drugs is not a crime. You can't lie in court, but the authorities
nominally can't either.

I think the fact that lying to a federal officer is a crime is absurd.
However, only a small percentage of the population comes in contact with
federal agents so the impact is lower.

>can an undercover cop pretending to be a paramedic come into my house

I think most states have laws making it a crime to impersonate an emergency
responder, and generally courts won't admit evidence that is obtained
illegally (fruit of a poisoned tree and all that). However, the fact that the
person is a cop makes no difference. It's the same as if anyone showed up at
your door claiming to be a paramedic.

------
carsongross
I suppose that would depend on if I am allowed to invite repairmen into my
home under the pretense that I have a broken utility and then shoot them for
trespassing.

~~~
anigbrowl
Given that it's not legal to shoot people for trespassing unless you have a
reasonable expectation of harm, I suggest you don't test this theory. Trespass
is a crime, but your response has to be proportionate to the harm you
anticipate; so if someone is forcing their way into your house it's OK to
shoot at them, but if they're just making a nuisance of themselves then you
could march them off or call the police if you weren't able to do so.

Last month, for example, a Michigan man was sentenced to 17 years for shooting
a drunk woman who came to his porch and banged on his door after crashing her
vehicle. While it was reasonable for him to be nervous, the jury felt that
fell far short of a justification for shooting the unwanted visitor:
[http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/04/us/theodore-wafer-
sentence...](http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/04/us/theodore-wafer-sentenced-in-
killing-of-renisha-mcbride.html?_r=0)

~~~
owenmarshall
> Given that it's not legal to shoot people for trespassing unless you have a
> reasonable expectation of harm

That's actually quite dependent on state law.

Take California's: "Any person using force intended or likely to cause death
or great bodily injury within his or her residence shall be presumed to have
held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily injury to
self, family, or a member of the household when that force is used against
another person, not a member of the family or household, who unlawfully and
forcibly enters or has unlawfully and forcibly entered the residence and the
person using the force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and
forcible entry occurred."

~~~
anigbrowl
True, and actually the criminal status of trespass varies as well - it's
usually a misdemeanor but is sometimes a felony, so my original comment was a
bit vague. But the bit you quote encapsulates what I was saying about force.

People have got away with shooting others for merely approaching a dwelling
(eg
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Yoshihiro_Hattori](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Yoshihiro_Hattori))
but attitudes about this seem to be shifting, so if you do feel impelled to
shoot someone I would suggest calling the police immediately rather than
relying on presumptive justifications.

~~~
owenmarshall
> but attitudes about this seem to be shifting

Quite thankfully so.

I don't disagree really with anything you said -- just wanted to note that
state laws aren't consistent on this, and in many cases aren't fully clear at
a glance.

------
at-fates-hands
I'm all for rooting out criminals, but someone needs to start telling these
people you need to do it within the guidelines of the law.

The funny thing is they could've easily written up a warrant and had it signed
by a judge in the span of an hour and then properly searched the room.
Instead, In their haste, they violated several local laws including the fourth
amendment, which most judges don't look kindly on.

Not a good day for law enforcement.

~~~
conorgil145
I heard the story on the radio this morning and believe I recall hearing that
the agents only suspected certain illegal activities were taking place in the
room and did not yet have enough information to actually get a warrant. This
tactic was employed to enter the room, survey the environment, and gather
information that they then used as the basis of a warrant. Also, they did not
mention in the warrant request specifically how they obtained the information
(by cutting services and entering the room via that approach).

I am not making an opinion on the matter either way, just adding context that
I heard from the story.

~~~
morganvachon
Sounds like fruit of the poisoned tree to me. Their probable cause was
obtained in an unlawful manner. A police officer (federal or not) cannot enter
a premises under bad faith to gather evidence. Any evidence obtained in that
manner can't be used against the defendant, nor can it be used to get a
warrant.

I worked in law enforcement alongside detectives for 14 years, and they were
always very careful about probable cause and evidence gathering, because they
knew the risks to the case they were building if they didn't do everything on
the up and up.

Why the FBI wants to risk blowing what is obviously a very important case
using illegal evidence gathering techniques is puzzling. The fact that the
Justice Department is apparently in on it is even more mind-blowing.

~~~
anigbrowl
Tengentially related, you'll probably find this case interesting - the police
didn't break the law but it's one of those corder cases that's ethically very
troubling:
[http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?q=mcgacken&hl=en&as_s...](http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?q=mcgacken&hl=en&as_sdt=2006&case=10492252643531776814&scilh=0)

I don't mean to suggest that the police officer here was unethical; it's a
structural fault in the law itself.

~~~
morganvachon
This is something that happens a lot in television and movies (Cop 1: "Did you
hear screaming behind the door?" Cop 2: "No I....oh yeah, _someone must be in
DANGER!_ " Cops kick in door and see evidence for their case), but not so much
in reality.

I too find it troubling that the Supreme Court upheld the government's
position that it was a valid search.

~~~
anigbrowl
I actually think the search was valid (and remember McGacken consented, which
was a public-spirited action). What bothers me is that in establishing that a
potentially serious crime had not taken place, a victimless one resulted in a
pirson term. McGacken did the morally right thing in allowing the police
officer to verify that nobody was in danger, and while I can't really fault
the police officer for doing his job, I wish he had looked the other way.

What really bothers me about it is that I can't articulate a clear legal
principle about when _prima facie_ evidence of a crime should be thrown out
for moral reasons. You could say that if you're investigating one crime then
discovering another one incidentally shouldn't count, but what if the police
officer had been investigating a report of illegal marijuana production and
had discovered the rape in progress? Of course we'd want that to be
prosecutable. We could wish that the war on drugs were over and nobody would
be prosecuted for Marijuana, but I can think of other petty crimes that would
substitute equally well, eg if McGacken was a petty thief or something. It's a
really tricky case to me. I'm surprised nobody has examined it in a law review
article.

~~~
dllthomas
It seems like we could establish some hierarchy (in fact, we already have one
implicit in maximum or minimum sentence lengths, though I don't know if that
is the right one to use). When an officer asks to engage in a search, he can
then state "I am investigating X, we will ignore anything less serious."

If something is seen, it seems like it would be hard to prevent the officer
from making a mental note to look into that guy later. We could grant
immunity, but that could also get weird. I think just narrowly excluding the
evidence uncovered in the search would still probably be an improvement,
though (probably...).

------
anigbrowl
I hope this turns out to be compliant with Betteridge's law, and I think it
will. In a different thread yesterday I pointed out that deception is a
reasonable and legally acceptable aspect of law enforcement, but that stops
where the penal code starts. Cutting off communications services to the
building as a pretext to gain entry seems like a clear violation of law, and
(IMHO/NAL) should render all the evidence gained pusuant to the search warrant
inadmissible as 'fruit of the poisonous tree,' because the probable cause
offered for issuance of the warrant was defective.

------
a2tech
This is so fucking crooked that only the government could make an argument
that its legal.

------
mbrutsch
As hard as it is to believe, in all my encounters with the police over the
past few years, they have been courteous and professional, and, as far as I
can tell, completely honest. Go figure.

------
sidcool
This is a tricky situation. Can this be done or not depends mainly on the
gravity of the crime being investigated. If it's about someone's life in
danger, I can get behind such a move by FBI, but to get evidence against
gambling I don't think such an extreme move is necessary.

~~~
zevyoura
How certain do you need to be that someone's life is in danger? This is why we
have a judicial process to get warrants.

~~~
dllthomas
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exigent_circumstance_in_United_...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exigent_circumstance_in_United_States_law)

------
s_q_b
This will be tossed out at the district magistrate prior to trial due to
Fourth Amendment violations. The amendment does exist, and still has quite a
bit of force of law in traditional criminal prosecutions.

------
thrownaway2424
The only legally relevant part of this story isn't discussed in the article:
did the occupants of the hotel room consent to have the agents enter the room,
or didn't they? This is the only thing that will matter in court. If they did,
then it doesn't matter that the cops employed a ruse. The police use ruses and
tricks all the time. You could argue that it wasn't within their rights to
sever the internet connection in the first place, but you'd have to contend
with several arguments there, such as internet being or not being a utility,
or the operators of the hotel having the unilateral right to cut it off if
they wanted to.

~~~
john_b
Can you cite anything to support this? I find it hard to believe that a court
would completely ignore the basis on which consent was given. For example:

 _" The Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution
require that a consent to a search not be coerced, by explicit or implicit
means, by implied threat or covert force. For, no matter how subtly the
coercion was applied, the resulting "consent" would be no more than a pretext
for the unjustified police intrusion against which the Fourth Amendment is
directed"_ [1]

...which seems to indicate that the same notion of "fruit of the poisonous"
tree as regards evidence applies equally to consent to search.

[1] Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (U.S. 1973)

~~~
thrownaway2424
I don't have the cite on me but there's a 1970 case in California where the
cops knocked on the door, the occupant of the house told them to come in, they
came in and arrested everybody (no warrant). Court found for the people.

Anyway I'm not even saying that the FBI will definitely prevail here. I am
saying that the whole thing will hinge on the question of consent. Your
rebuttal seems spurious because you cannot have been coerced by someone if you
thought they were the cable repairman. That's incompatible with the rest of
the defense.

~~~
spiritplumber
I had a weird conversation with a cop last year - basically, they responded
very late to a domestic disturbance, that being, one of the people staying in
my spare room until they got their shit together decided to attack me. The
other person called the cops while I calmed the first person down, which
fortunately happened before the cops showed up.

I answer the door, and am asked if everything is okay, and so on. I probably
look very shaken because I had to disarm someone not 5 minutes earlier, so
they insist on coming in. What I told them is that they put me in a bind,
because on one hand, I was told that it is customary in the US to refuse entry
to law enforcement unless you specifically called them, on the other hand, I
have taken a vow of hospitality, so they are welcome to a warm meal, but would
they mind having it served on the porch?

They saw some Jehova's Witness literature on a table behind me and figured I
was some religious crazy, said they're not allowed to accept food on duty but
thanks anyway, and left.

All this because the person who tried to stab me is transgendered, and I
didn't think spending any time in a jail would have been safe for her.

Sorry for the irrelevant story, I just had to let it out.

------
dragonwriter
Well, they obviously can.

Whether or not they _should_ , OTOH...

------
krambs
No, they can't. This is an incendiary set of facts - but most certainly won't
be upheld in any reasonable court.

