

FBI conducts search by disrupting Internet service, posing as repairmen [pdf] - benburwell
https://ia902603.us.archive.org/1/items/gov.uscourts.nvd.102542/gov.uscourts.nvd.102542.474.0.pdf

======
late2part
It's unfortunate that our law enforcement agents disregard the law. It's good
that the judicial branch is enforcing our constitution, but saying the
evidence is inadmissible is not good enough. The law enforcement agents should
be held punitively accountable. Civil rights are violated, and law enforcement
should be penalized for these violations.

~~~
adekok
Unfortunate? It's a direct attack on the legal system. It's worse than the
average person breaking the law. Because that's expected... that's why we have
police.

When the police (who should know better) break the law, they should be
charged. After all, that's what happens to normal people.

Instead, the people in the legal system too often get a pass. _Because_
they're in the legal system.

It's a kind of inverted thinking I don't understand. Other than an "us" vs
"them" mentality. Where "us" are the people in the system who are somehow
worth more than "them". The peasants who have the law enforced on them. With
often lethal force.

~~~
justincormack
They have the power, thats what it is about.

~~~
Liquix
Agreed. No one has the power to fire a police officer except other police
officers or higher ups. The people of the democracy do not decide who is in
power when it comes to law enforcement. I would like to see a checks and
balances system or the ability to impeach anyone with any sort of legal power.

------
justizin
"He interviewed hotel employees who had been inside villa 8888 and had seen a
number of computers, monitors, and chairs set up in a configuration that
resembled a boiler room bookie operation."

I love how real world legal documents read like old crime novels. The imagery
cast upon a villa at Caesar's by being compared to a boiler room is top notch.
:)

------
ZeroCoin
I read through the entire affidavit when it originally came out as I have an
interest in online gambling... but I couldn't figure out what exactly the FBI
was after these asian gamblers for... the only thing it said was that they had
multiple tvs and internet connections going into one suite and when the FBI
saw what they were doing, it looked like they were only betting on World Cup
matches over the internet.

There has to be more to it... I know online gambling is illegal in the USA,
but why get the FBI involved because some foreigners are betting big online?

~~~
markman3200
Another article here reads like they were taking bets, rather than just making
them: [http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/judge-fbis-ruse-catch-
po...](http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/judge-fbis-ruse-catch-poker-champ-
vegas-hotel-room-went-n343721)

------
grecy
Is it legal for them to intentionally disrupt internet service like that?

It doesn't sound right they can just stop you from getting a service you're
paying for whenever they want.

------
liquidise
I will never understand how someone can simultaneously break and enforce the
law.

~~~
deafeningblow
Power corrupts.

------
benburwell
Most of this would not have happened if the ISP had acted responsibly and
required court orders to comply with the FBI requests.

------
anon3_
This is lawful and common in law enforcement agencies throughout the world.
It's called "pretexting".

Look up the PDF for "Lying and Confessing" by Christopher Slobogin.

------
hatty
TL;DR?

~~~
ChuckMcM
Basically the judge agreed with the defendant that the FBI breaking the
internet and then pretending to be repair techs sent in to fix it was an
illegal search and thus anything they saw during their visit was in admissible
(suppressed).

As there were a couple of instances of that they have to file a few more
motions to suppress the rest of the FBI evidence but basically it looks like
the judge will come down on their side.

In general I am glad that the judge decided that way, it should never be
acceptable for law enforcement to go snooping around without a warrant.
However, I've also noted in such cases that when the government loses like
this they often put pressure on the property owners to avoid such losses in
the future, and so I would not be surprised if Cesar's and other hotel chains
will start including in their room contract, language clauses that allow them
to grant access to the rooms to third parties with "reasonable need".

~~~
nullc
> language clauses that allow them to grant access to the rooms to third
> parties with "reasonable need"

It's already almost certainly there. Its also there in virtually all rental
agreements; the existing caselaw (cited in this decision) supports the
position that using the managements authority to access for 'need' as a
pretext for a search is unlawful.

~~~
JoshTriplett
> Its also there in virtually all rental agreements; the existing caselaw
> (cited in this decision) supports the position that using the managements
> authority to access for 'need' as a pretext for a search is unlawful.

Does that same caselaw imply that if police want to search an apartment
without a warrant, and a landlord lets them in, but the tenant did not grant
permission, the search was illegal? I was under the impression that that was
permitted, which is a downside of living in an apartment/rental.

~~~
maxerickson
Tenant's rights laws usually ban the landlord from entering the apartment
without notice (except in the case of an emergency). So they presumably don't
have a right to enter that they can extend to the police.

A few searches say that the landlord cannot consent to the search. A sample
result:

[http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/landlord-give-
consent...](http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/landlord-give-consent-to-
search-my-apartment.html)

