Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: prion
If you consider a court-ordered wiretap an intolerable intrusion on your rights....

BZZZZZZZZZT! Sorry, the correct answer was, "The ability to seize records held by third parties without warrant, notification, subpeona or probable cause does violate the fourth Amendment." But thank you for playing!

you need to take your anger several decades before the Patriot Act.

Oh, I never said the Patriot Act was the beginning of the police state. That's hard to trace exactly--Washington's provocation of the Whiskey Rebellion was a step over the line, as was the Louisiana Purchase... and of course Lincoln killed and buried federalism...

27 posted on 09/19/2005 9:02:23 AM PDT by Shalom Israel (Pray for the peace of Jerusalem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies ]


To: Shalom Israel
BZZZZZZZZZT! Sorry, the correct answer was, "The ability to seize records held by third parties without warrant, notification, subpeona or probable cause does violate the fourth Amendment." But thank you for playing!

Where does that appear in the Patriot Act? The most controversial section that I'm aware of is the one that allows law enforcement to delay notification that a search has been performed, with permission from a judge. The idea being to prevent tipping off co-conspirators. This has apparently been used in practice in law enforcement for years; the Act just codifies it. They have to get a court order first, and they have to 'fess up eventually.

Again, we might argue whether this goes too far, but it's not new.

28 posted on 09/19/2005 9:08:51 AM PDT by prion (Yes, as a matter of fact, I AM the spelling police)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson