To: sam_paine
"Moussaoui was detained by the Immigration and Naturalization Service on charges of violating the terms of his visa. Local FBI investigators in Minneapolis immediately viewed Moussaoui as a terrorist suspect and sought authorization for a special counterintelligence surveillance warrant to search the hard drive of his home computer. This was rejected by higher-level officials in Washington, who claimed there was insufficient evidence to meet the legal requirements for the warrant."
42 posted on
07/23/2003 8:59:34 AM PDT by
Rome2000
(Convicted felons for Kerry)
To: Rome2000
I agree that the FBI failed to get enough evidence to convince a judge that there was reason to seize his HDD.
You do realize, though, that even under the Patriot Act, they still would've had to convince the judge for a warrant!!! They merely would've been able to go in and snoop his HDD without notification!! Patriot doesn't solve that problem.
Try again!
44 posted on
07/23/2003 9:12:53 AM PDT by
sam_paine
(X .................................)
To: Rome2000
From post #45:
The first reported case involving the review of a sneak and peek warrant was United States v. Freitas.6 In Freitas, DEA agents obtained eight warrants to search numerous sites used in a large-scale methamphetamine operation. Before those warrants were executed, agents applied for and obtained a sneak and peek warrant for one of those locations to "determine the status of the suspected clandestine methamphetamine laboratory."7
Yep, they're only using this provision to fight terrorism...
47 posted on
07/23/2003 9:49:14 AM PDT by
dirtboy
(Not enough words in FR taglines to adequately describe the dimensions of Hillary's thunderous thighs)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson