[hobbes1]

Well, OK. Lets adress the "Ransom Demand" argument, simply, in defernce to you, If that was to hold any water, the Tap would not have been surreptitious, now would it?


As to the other, Because we "think' something may be going on, is not a valid reason to tap someones phone...that's called a fishing expedition....something Conservatives generally disagree with...

[RGSpincich]

If that was to hold any water, the Tap would not have been surreptitious, now would it?

Yes it would. This is the same guy who required the police to get search warrants before letting them into the house to search for clues in his wife's disappearance. Catching kidnappers need not come with the cooperation of the next of kin as it is the people of California who want the kidnappers apprehended.

Because we "think' something may be going on

You are not accurate in paraphrasing my second reason. His own words stating that he knew who did it hardly qualifies as a fishing expedition. The next of kin tells his secret girlfriend that he knows who is responsible for his wife's disappearance and you call that fishing? (And the police have it on tape...from Amber's willing phone tap)

[Devil_Anse]

If you're saying that the state can never have a good reason to apply to a judge/magistrate for a warrant, and tap someone's phone, why don't you get to work with Congress and have the federal laws changed on the grounds that they are unconstitutional? The state laws will then have to fall in behind.