For prior first hand knowledge, what the ACLU is asking for is usually deemed investigation technique. By law investigative techniques are not subject to discovery although the information obtained from using techniques are discoverable and must be share with all parties directly involved subject to a courts protective orders.
This doesn’t fall under discovery as it’s not a trial with evidence at issue.
Rather it’s, as noted, a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit intended to reveal whether FBI is lawfully conducting its searches.
It is a fishing expedition on the part of the ACLU. They seem to be
trying to use FOIA to gain knowledge of investigation techniques. Good
luck with that use of FOIA to obtain information that not even revealed
in a criminal case. Investigative techniques and confidential
resources/sources are not subject to a FOIA request or a subpoenas not
even in a criminal case which has the highest level of discovery in
American Courts.
No, you're talking about international espionage, not domestic espionage on American citizens. There are no protections on "investigative techniques" there -- except where the bad cops can hide it.
Your comment is way off base. You need either consent, a probation/parole search conditional waiver, a search warrant signed by a judge or very limited exigence circumstances as defined by SCOTUS to obtain any information from device in the U.S. otherwise the information obtained from the device is not admissible thus “a fruit from a poison tree” and a complete waste of time and resources. In the movies law enforcement can search what they want but in the real world there are personal, criminal and civil liabilities associated with ignoring the rules governing search and seizure!
Your comment is way off base. I was replying to one stating that no one is permitted to reveal the "Investigative techniques" of domestic investigative and policing agencies and they are above Freedom of Information act laws. i pointed out that their methods and techniques are not protected like those of the CIA are.
As I have stated before from first hand experience, YES they are! You do not have to believe it but that the way it is! The ACLU is seeking publicity and trying to use the media attention that comes from their suit to obtain something that they are not allowed to obtain via FOIA or any other legal process.
For prior first hand knowledge, what the ACLU is asking for is usually deemed investigation technique. By law investigative techniques are not subject to discovery although the information obtained from using techniques are discoverable and must be share with all parties directly involved subject to a courts protective orders.
This doesn’t fall under discovery as it’s not a trial with evidence at issue.
Rather it’s, as noted, a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit intended to reveal whether FBI is lawfully conducting its searches.
It is a fishing expedition on the part of the ACLU. They seem to be
trying to use FOIA to gain knowledge of investigation techniques. Good
luck with that use of FOIA to obtain information that not even revealed
in a criminal case. Investigative techniques and confidential
resources/sources are not subject to a FOIA request or a subpoenas not
even in a criminal case which has the highest level of discovery in
American Courts.
No, you're talking about international espionage, not domestic espionage on American citizens. There are no protections on "investigative techniques" there -- except where the bad cops can hide it.
Your comment is way off base. You need either consent, a probation/parole search conditional waiver, a search warrant signed by a judge or very limited exigence circumstances as defined by SCOTUS to obtain any information from device in the U.S. otherwise the information obtained from the device is not admissible thus “a fruit from a poison tree” and a complete waste of time and resources. In the movies law enforcement can search what they want but in the real world there are personal, criminal and civil liabilities associated with ignoring the rules governing search and seizure!
Your comment is way off base. I was replying to one stating that no one is permitted to reveal the "Investigative techniques" of domestic investigative and policing agencies and they are above Freedom of Information act laws. i pointed out that their methods and techniques are not protected like those of the CIA are.
As I have stated before from first hand experience, YES they are! You do not have to believe it but that the way it is! The ACLU is seeking publicity and trying to use the media attention that comes from their suit to obtain something that they are not allowed to obtain via FOIA or any other legal process.
North Korea and other dictatorships usually don't honor those kinds of FOIA requests.
But, democracies make it a point to (try to) maintain open, honest policing in order to protect the lives and liberties of its citizens. Admittedly, though, they don't always live up to those ideals, ideologies and aspirations. That's why we need organizations like the ACLU. Those opposed to the principles and ideals of freedom and democracy disparage them, but then freedom and democracy are either defended or they die.
In an earlier post I wrote “…they (law enforcement) should ask the owner to unlock it. Should they refuse, they should then lose the iPhone, which should then be completely wiped of all data (in my opinion law enforcement should then be free to sell the iPhone as used, but that’s just my opinion).”
We are doing a lot of analogizing here; I take it the above is why you stated that LE can’t burn your house to the ground and then sell the land? (I’m trying to figure out why you say this.)
If that is the case, I’d have to agree—yet this is supposedly an orderly society. Refusing to comply with a lawful request is frustrating to me, and that’s just how it came out (i.e., my comment).
That’s fine, but consider that the agreed upon solution—that the offender be imprisoned (I guess until they comply?) is actually more severe than what I said. However I do agree with the agreed upon solution as well.
In an earlier post I wrote “…they (law enforcement) should ask the owner to unlock it. Should they refuse, they should then lose the iPhone, which should then be completely wiped of all data (in my opinion law enforcement should then be free to sell the iPhone as used, but that’s just my opinion).”
We are doing a lot of analogizing here; I take it the above is why you stated that LE can’t burn your house to the ground and then sell the land? (I’m trying to figure out why you say this.)
If that is the case, I’d have to agree—yet this is supposedly an orderly society. Refusing to comply with a lawful request is frustrating to me, and that’s just how it came out (i.e., my comment).
That’s fine, but consider that the agreed upon solution—that the offender be imprisoned (I guess until they comply?) is actually more severe than what I said. However I do agree with the agreed upon solution as well.
Barring some imminent danger, searching your property is only lawful IF they have a legal search warrant to do so. Having a badge does not give them cart-blanche. They have to obey the same laws they're charged with enforcing.
Comments
In an earlier post I wrote “…they (law enforcement) should ask the owner to unlock it. Should they refuse, they should then lose the iPhone, which should then be completely wiped of all data (in my opinion law enforcement should then be free to sell the iPhone as used, but that’s just my opinion).”
We are doing a lot of analogizing here; I take it the above is why you stated that LE can’t burn your house to the ground and then sell the land? (I’m trying to figure out why you say this.)
If that is the case, I’d have to agree—yet this is supposedly an orderly society. Refusing to comply with a lawful request is frustrating to me, and that’s just how it came out (i.e., my comment).
That’s fine, but consider that the agreed upon solution—that the offender be imprisoned (I guess until they comply?) is actually more severe than what I said. However I do agree with the agreed upon solution as well.