[P-40]

One of my concerns is bad guys getting off because of a violation of the 4th amendment.

I'm sure that the defense attorneys will use that reasoning, as they should, but I just don't see it going anywhere post-Patriot Act.

[Cboldt]

One of my concerns is bad guys getting off because of a violation of the 4th amendment.

I'm sure that the defense attorneys will use that reasoning, as they should, but I just don't see it going anywhere post-Patriot Act.

Probably true that most of the "interesting" discussion is academic, in that enough evidence and probable cause will exist independently from any "outside the 4th" material.

But absent a fact pattern and legal justification for surveillance, there is no way to reach a reasoned opinion - and that's pretty much where the situation lies. All the conclusions relating to how and why a court would rule on the NSA Terrorist Surveillance Program are based on guesswork and assumptions.

I don't think the Patriot Act has much, if anything to do with it - FWIW. I think that post 9/11, the government is more likely able to impose on the individual, with the Court, being part of the government, upholding the legitimacy of the incursion. It's for our own good, after all.

[MikeA]

I'm sure that the defense attorneys will use that reasoning, as they should, but I just don't see it going anywhere post-Patriot Act.

---

Plus, it is really tough to build an argument of the wiretapping being an "unreasonable" search or seizure when you're receiving phone calls from known Al Qaeda agents abroad. To me that falls well within the bounds of a probable cause argument.