Community > Politics, Current News & Events

Topic: Top court rejects ACLU domestic spying lawsuit
cutelildevilsmom Joined Sat 04/07/07 Posts: 8862	Tue 02/19/08 12:53 PM
k...sooooo...how many people here have had their phone tapped and how many of your friends have ? like they would tell us..duh.

soxfan94 Joined Mon 05/28/07 Posts: 3384	Tue 02/19/08 12:53 PM
yes they would it is not in plane view it was behind a door that they opened without permission maybe you should read up on it Quit being so contentious you two. If you invited them into your house that is legal for them to enter. Furthermore, anything within plain sight, or incidentally discoverable, is fair game. Opening up any door which is not already open is considered a violation without a warrant and evidence found this way will get thrown out of court. If a door is partially open, this is a gray area and generally decided on a case by case basis.

northrn_yanke Joined Sun 01/13/08 Posts: 851	Tue 02/19/08 01:00 PM
like they would tell us..duh. then duh I guess no one suffered any damages...no lawsuit.

Turtlepoet78 Joined Sat 11/24/07 Posts: 1423	Tue 02/19/08 01:10 PM
No. Actually it would fall under "Plain sight." Hiding in a cabinet is not plain sight, if they had entered the cabinet with permission then you would be right, but in this scenerio they illegaly entered the cabinet. That is illegal search & seizure;^]

soxfan94 Joined Mon 05/28/07 Posts: 3384	Tue 02/19/08 01:14 PM
No. Actually it would fall under "Plain sight." Hiding in a cabinet is not plain sight, if they had entered the cabinet with permission then you would be right, but in this scenerio they illegaly entered the cabinet. That is illegal search & seizure;^] If you invited them into your house that is legal for them to enter. Furthermore, anything within plain sight, or incidentally discoverable, is fair game. Opening up any door which is not already open is considered a violation without a warrant and evidence found this way will get thrown out of court. If a door is partially open, this is a gray area and generally decided on a case by case basis. !!!!!!!

Lindyy Joined Tue 01/01/08 Posts: 2699	Tue 02/19/08 01:15 PM
i dunno but the periscope that came out of my toilet this morning sure did violate me.. CLDMom: I can't believe you said that! I can't help it, you made me laugh, even if we disagree on this. Lindyy

Turtlepoet78 Joined Sat 11/24/07 Posts: 1423	Tue 02/19/08 01:17 PM
No. Actually it would fall under "Plain sight." Hiding in a cabinet is not plain sight, if they had entered the cabinet with permission then you would be right, but in this scenerio they illegaly entered the cabinet. That is illegal search & seizure;^] If you invited them into your house that is legal for them to enter. Furthermore, anything within plain sight, or incidentally discoverable, is fair game. Opening up any door which is not already open is considered a violation without a warrant and evidence found this way will get thrown out of court. If a door is partially open, this is a gray area and generally decided on a case by case basis. !!!!!!! Again, consent to enter does not give consent to search, an illegal search that results in an illegal seizure is illegal. I've actualy had friends in simmilar situations beating the charge for just those reasons;^]

Lindyy Joined Tue 01/01/08 Posts: 2699	Tue 02/19/08 01:20 PM
k...sooooo...how many people here have had their phone tapped and how many of your friends have ? like they would tell us..duh. CLDMom: Hush, this is getting good! Lindyy

soxfan94 Joined Mon 05/28/07 Posts: 3384	Tue 02/19/08 01:22 PM
No. Actually it would fall under "Plain sight." Hiding in a cabinet is not plain sight, if they had entered the cabinet with permission then you would be right, but in this scenerio they illegaly entered the cabinet. That is illegal search & seizure;^] If you invited them into your house that is legal for them to enter. Furthermore, anything within plain sight, or incidentally discoverable, is fair game. Opening up any door which is not already open is considered a violation without a warrant and evidence found this way will get thrown out of court. If a door is partially open, this is a gray area and generally decided on a case by case basis. !!!!!!! Again, consent to enter does not give consent to search, an illegal search that results in an illegal seizure is illegal. I've actualy had friends in simmilar situations beating the charge for just those reasons;^] Lol, are you reading what I wrote? I am agreeing that consent to enter does not give consent to search. Anything in plain sight is admissible because there was no "search" involved. If it was behind a closed door, there is searching and it IS NOT ADMISSIBLE. (Trying to help make your point here...)

Turtlepoet78 Joined Sat 11/24/07 Posts: 1423	Tue 02/19/08 01:23 PM
My bad, it was confusing with all the talk of consent to enter..lol. Is good to know the law;^]

wiley Joined Thu 12/13/07 Posts: 19738	Tue 02/19/08 01:26 PM
Wow. Guess I missed this part. (without asking) Forget what I said.

Turtlepoet78 Joined Sat 11/24/07 Posts: 1423	Tue 02/19/08 01:27 PM
Wow. Guess I missed this part. (without asking) Forget what I said. lol.. happens to the best of us;^]

soxfan94 Joined Mon 05/28/07 Posts: 3384	Tue 02/19/08 01:31 PM
My bad, it was confusing with all the talk of consent to enter..lol. Is good to know the law;^] Haha no worries, just wanted to be clear.

franshade Joined Tue 07/24/07 Posts: 24704	Tue 02/19/08 01:32 PM
impressed interesting informative conversation

wiley Joined Thu 12/13/07 Posts: 19738	Tue 02/19/08 01:39 PM
using some of this logic they can come to your house search it then leave but because they found something illegal that they did not know about it is ok as long as they do not use the search in court but because they found it they start an investigation in regards to the find and in the course of said investigation they put together a case strong enough to convict you which would never have been put together if not for the illegal search Nope. Falls under getting a warrant. And again, that would be in a criminal investigation. The NSA isn't a criminal branch. They aren't law enforcement. They're military. They're part of the Dept of Defense. If the "wiretaps" had been done by the FBI for the purposes of prosecution, then they would violate the 4th. no they did not start the investigation till after the find reread it I did. they start an investigation in regards to the find makes it a violation. prove that is why they started the invetigation More than likely you wouldn't need to. They would probably try to use Inevitable Discovery. Inevitable Discovery. Improperly seized evidence may be admitted under the inevitable discovery doctrine if the evidence would have been ultimately or inevitably discovered by lawful means. The government must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the evidence would have been discovered. Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 (1984). Mere speculation that the evidence could have been discovered is not sufficient; the question is whether the evidence would have been discovered. United States v. Allen, 159 F.3d 832 (4th Cir. 1998).

soxfan94 Joined Mon 05/28/07 Posts: 3384	Tue 02/19/08 01:48 PM
Are you talking about inevitable discovery in the wiretap case, or the theoretical "coke in the cabinet" case? Either way, it fails. For the wiretaps, nothing has been discovered as yet, so inevitable discovery is a moot point. With the coke, the discovery of it cannot in any way be said to have been "inevitable" based on a cop casually entering the home on a tangential matter (the neighbor's incident). Preponderance of evidence would never be met there.

wiley Joined Thu 12/13/07 Posts: 19738	Tue 02/19/08 01:49 PM Edited by wiley on Tue 02/19/08 01:53 PM
Are you talking about inevitable discovery in the wiretap case, or the theoretical "coke in the cabinet" case? Either way, it fails. For the wiretaps, nothing has been discovered as yet, so inevitable discovery is a moot point. With the coke, the discovery of it cannot in any way be said to have been "inevitable" based on a cop casually entering the home on a tangential matter (the neighbor's incident). Preponderance of evidence would never be met there. I was responding to his other scenario which I quoted. They do an illegal search then get a warrant and come back later. Which either way, I already said it would be a violation since the first search was illegal.

soxfan94 Joined Mon 05/28/07 Posts: 3384	Tue 02/19/08 01:52 PM
I was responding to his other scenario which I quoted. They do an illegal search then get a warrant and come back later. Oh ok, my bad. I'll have to go back and check that later, time to bolt from work.

northrn_yanke Joined Sun 01/13/08 Posts: 851	Tue 02/19/08 01:53 PM
Preponderance of evidence would never be met there. I'm not sure what you mean with that...

soxfan94 Joined Mon 05/28/07 Posts: 3384	Tue 02/19/08 01:57 PM
Preponderance of evidence would never be met there. I'm not sure what you mean with that... Preponderance of the evidence simply means that there must be enough evidence to convince a judge and/or jury that it is simply more likely than not that something happened. As opposed to "clear and convincing evidence" in civil trials ("beyond a reasonable doubt" in criminal trials) which requires proof that it is substantially more likely than not. With regards to his specific scenario, I was confusing which situation he was speaking of, so I'm not sure yet if it applies there.