14 expanded posts ยท every known parent and child
Hi all, A friend advises me that today House Bill 666 passed. This supposedly would allow police officers to use evidence collected illegaly if they 'believed' that it was collected in good faith. Any word on it? Thanks.
On Wed, 8 Feb 1995, root wrote: > Hi all, > > A friend advises me that today House Bill 666 passed. This supposedly would > allow police officers to use evidence collected illegaly if they 'believed' > that it was collected in good faith. This sounds like a spoof. Look at the number. Ben.
> On Wed, 8 Feb 1995, root wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > A friend advises me that today House Bill 666 passed. This supposedly would > > allow police officers to use evidence collected illegaly if they 'believed' > > that it was collected in good faith. > > This sounds like a spoof. Look at the number. I heard yesterday that someone in the House of Representatives proposed an amendment to the new crime bill which was soundly defeated it. Turns out the Amendment was worded exactly as the Fourht Amendment in the Bill 'o Rights. Apparently many a congressman/woman has egg on their face... > > Ben. > > Rob
On Thu, 9 Feb 1995, Robert Rothenburg Walking-Owl wrote: > > On Wed, 8 Feb 1995, root wrote: > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > A friend advises me that today House Bill 666 passed. This supposedly would > > > allow police officers to use evidence collected illegaly if they 'believed' > > > that it was collected in good faith. > > > > This sounds like a spoof. Look at the number. I regret that my previous hope was dead wrong. There's front page story on it in today's NYT. Hopefully for those of you that are NYT challenged, maybe John Young will make it available as per his usual gracious self. Shit! Ben.
On Thu, 9 Feb 1995, Robert Rothenburg Walking-Owl wrote: > I heard yesterday that someone in the House of Representatives proposed an > amendment to the new crime bill which was soundly defeated it. Turns out the > Amendment was worded exactly as the Fourht Amendment in the Bill 'o Rights. > Apparently many a congressman/woman has egg on their face... Yes indeed, in response to the H666 bill. The Dems placed up for vote the text of the 4th Amendment without attributing it to be such. It was defeated. Dems then immediately took to the floor of the House accusing the Repubs of tryingto dismantle the Constitution. - dog
> On Thu, 9 Feb 1995, Robert Rothenburg Walking-Owl wrote: > > I heard yesterday that someone in the House of Representatives proposed > > an amendment to the new crime bill which was soundly defeated it. Turns > > out the Amendment was worded exactly as the Fourht Amendment in the Bill > > 'o Rights. Apparently many a congressman/woman has egg on their face... > Yes indeed, in response to the H666 bill. The Dems placed up for vote the > text of the 4th Amendment without attributing it to be such. It was > defeated. Dems then immediately took to the floor of the House accusing > the Repubs of tryingto dismantle the Constitution. so is there a list of names of the people who voted against it? I use the term "people" very loosely. actually though, both the democrats and the republicans consider parts of the constitution to be obsolete. they just differ amongst themselves as to which part. I wish someone would find the elixir of youth and feed it to barry goldwater. josh
> > Yes indeed, in response to the H666 bill. The Dems placed up for vote the > > text of the 4th Amendment without attributing it to be such. It was > > defeated. Dems then immediately took to the floor of the House accusing > > the Repubs of tryingto dismantle the Constitution. > > so is there a list of names of the people who voted against it? I use > the term "people" very loosely. A list of what congresspersons voted for/against various bills (even previous ones like Cantwell and DT) would be useful. A lot of groups do that. > > josh > Rob
Ben originally said the following...
>
> On Wed, 8 Feb 1995, root wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > A friend advises me that today House Bill 666 passed. This supposedly would
> > allow police officers to use evidence collected illegaly if they 'believed'
> > that it was collected in good faith.
>
> This sounds like a spoof. Look at the number.
Nope... wish it was... but I saw it pass on C-SPAN. Boy was I
pissed.
Looks like it's time to make a 2048 bit PGP key. *8)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Morgan <mac5tgm@hibbs.vcu.edu> | "I dunno Brain, me and Pipi
Mail me for PGP Key: 0xE0D222A9 | Longstocking? I mean what would
Key Fingerprint : 2430 BAA4 1EE4 AA2F | the children look like?" - Pinki
3B76 3516 3DEF 5529 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------On Wed, 8 Feb 1995, Ben wrote: > On Wed, 8 Feb 1995, root wrote: > > A friend advises me that today House Bill 666 passed. This supposedly would > > allow police officers to use evidence collected illegaly if they 'believed' > > that it was collected in good faith. > This sounds like a spoof. Look at the number. Unfortunately, it is not. World Wide Web yourself over to http://thomas.loc.gov/ and search for hr 666...you will find it. "A Bill to control crime by exclusionary rule reform..." maybe if "control" means "aiding and abetting" -Thomas
root writes: > A friend advises me that today House Bill 666 passed. This supposedly would > allow police officers to use evidence collected illegaly if they 'believed' > that it was collected in good faith. Ben writes: # This sounds like a spoof. Look at the number. No, it's for real. This is the `Exclusionary Rule Reform Act of 1995', HR 666. It was introduced Jan. 25 by a Rep. McCollum, referred to the Judiciary Cmte., and on Feb. 2 was "committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union and ordered to be printed", whatever that means. Here's an excerpt of the main idea: "Evidence [...] shall not be excluded [...] on the ground that the search or seizure was in violation of the fourth amendment [...] if the search or seizure was carried out in circumstances justifying an objectively reasonable belief that it was in conformity with the fourth amendment. The fact that evidence was obtained pursuant to and within the scope of a warrant constitutes prima facie evidence of the existence of such circumstances." So I suppose this opens the possibility that, if a judge grants a search warrant that allows broader police powers than the 4th Amendment would, then the police have free reign to use those broader powers. This is all via http://thomas.loc.gov/home/c104query.html. -L. Futplex McCarthy
On Wed, 8 Feb 1995, L. McCarthy wrote: > Date: Wed, 8 Feb 1995 21:31:42 -0500 (EST) > From: L. McCarthy <lmccarth@ducie.cs.umass.edu> > To: Cypherpunks Mailing List <cypherpunks@toad.com> > Subject: Re: Not necessarily crypto but scary anyway... > > root writes: > > A friend advises me that today House Bill 666 passed. This supposedly would > > allow police officers to use evidence collected illegaly if they 'believed' > > that it was collected in good faith. > > Ben writes: > # This sounds like a spoof. Look at the number. > > No, it's for real. This is the `Exclusionary Rule Reform Act of 1995', HR 666. > It was introduced Jan. 25 by a Rep. McCollum, referred to the Judiciary Cmte., > and on Feb. 2 was "committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State > of the Union and ordered to be printed", whatever that means. > > Here's an excerpt of the main idea: > > "Evidence [...] shall not be excluded [...] on the ground that the search or > seizure was in violation of the fourth amendment [...] if the search or > seizure was carried out in circumstances justifying an objectively reasonable > belief that it was in conformity with the fourth amendment. The fact that > evidence was obtained pursuant to and within the scope of a warrant > constitutes prima facie evidence of the existence of such circumstances." > > So I suppose this opens the possibility that, if a judge grants a search > warrant that allows broader police powers than the 4th Amendment would, then > the police have free reign to use those broader powers. Precisely. Again, if the judge issues the warrant, the damage is done, exclusion is pointless. The concept that police should be expected to know the law is apparently, silly. I suppose you don't want police "second guessing" judges, but personally I wouldn't mind the implications. The review process allows the warrant to be overturned and the evidence excluded if the issuing judge's basis for signing the warrant is "clearly erronious" (from memory.) Where there is good faith involved by all the parties however.... > This is all via http://thomas.loc.gov/home/c104query.html. > > -L. Futplex McCarthy > -- 073BB885A786F666 nemo repente fuit turpissimus - potestas scientiae in usu est 6E6D4506F6EDBC17 quaere verum ad infinitum, loquitur sub rosa - wichtig!
On Wed, 8 Feb 1995, Ben wrote: > Date: Wed, 8 Feb 1995 20:44:27 -0500 (EST) > From: Ben <samman@CS.YALE.EDU> > To: root <root@einstein.ssz.com> > Cc: cypherpunks@toad.com > Subject: Re: Not necessarily crypto but scary anyway... > > On Wed, 8 Feb 1995, root wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > A friend advises me that today House Bill 666 passed. This supposedly would > > allow police officers to use evidence collected illegaly if they 'believed' > > that it was collected in good faith. > > This sounds like a spoof. Look at the number. This would amuse me, as the spoofer would have, in trying to come up with an intimidating law that would result in public outrage, instead hit upon the current doctrine. Truth stranger than fiction? I do seem, however, to recall some mention of legislative clairification of the doctrine, so I suspect it to be legitimate. > > Ben. > > -uni- (Dark) -- 073BB885A786F666 nemo repente fuit turpissimus - potestas scientiae in usu est 6E6D4506F6EDBC17 quaere verum ad infinitum, loquitur sub rosa - wichtig!
On Wed, 8 Feb 1995, root wrote: > Date: Wed, 8 Feb 1995 19:23:31 -0600 (CST) > From: root <root@einstein.ssz.com> > To: cypherpunks@toad.com > Subject: Not necessarily crypto but scary anyway... > > Hi all, > > A friend advises me that today House Bill 666 passed. This supposedly would > allow police officers to use evidence collected illegaly if they 'believed' > that it was collected in good faith. > > Any word on it? > > Thanks. > As I understand the bill,(Though I didn't know it was up for passge...) this is merely a restatement of the current judicial doctrine which prevents officers acting in good faith from being hindered by an illegally issued warrant. In essence the concept is that the 4th ammendment is intended to deter police misconduct by kicking out evidence gathered illegally. Once a judge issues a warrant, and assuming it is issued illegally, but with no knowledge by the officers who execute the search, there is no longer any deterant value in supressing the evidence and as such it would be "counterproductive" to bar it from presentment. This isn't really passage of "new" law, but legislative clairification of current judicial doctrine. If there is enough interest, I would be happy to post cites to the key cases establishing the "good faith" exception to exclusion. -uni- (Dark) -- 073BB885A786F666 nemo repente fuit turpissimus - potestas scientiae in usu est 6E6D4506F6EDBC17 quaere verum ad infinitum, loquitur sub rosa - wichtig!
Yes, it passed. You can get a copy from thomas.loc.gov. The Senate still has to pass it (but certainly will). I think the Senate version is S3. Brad Dolan On Wed, 8 Feb 1995, root wrote: > Hi all, > > A friend advises me that today House Bill 666 passed. This supposedly would > allow police officers to use evidence collected illegaly if they 'believed' > that it was collected in good faith. > > Any word on it? > > Thanks. > > >