I just read an article the the judge the is tring the Microsoft monoply case is on the (FIAS ??)court. This court reviews the legal aspect of "secret" warrents. This court has found many abuses of warrants and violations on citizens rights. As Crispin stated that they only have the right to look for "the person" and any other crimes HAVE to be overlooked and NEVER recorded then maybe. Giving up freedom and privacy for security would make the founding father rotate in their graves. Shaun Tao, Greg wrote: > Hello, > > This is only partially off-topic. While it is not a computer-related > matter, our group has a lot of law enforcement and criminal prosecution > experience, so I figure this is about as good a place as any to float this > idea. Let me know what you think of it... > > > MOTIVATION > Maybe some good can come out of the deaths of Ashley Pond and Miranda > Gaddis, the 2 Oregon City girls whose bodies have been found on the property > previously occupied by Ward Weaver. I have long believed that too often our > laws or the courts' interpretation of the laws does not allow for common > sense measures that could increase public safety while not infringing on our > Constitutional rights. > > PROBLEM STATEMENT > When responding to abductions/disappearances, law enforcement is hindered by > the stringent requirements for getting search warrants. Today, law > enforcement needs to convince a judge that probable cause for search exists. > It's something along the lines that you have to explain why you think the > person who is the target of the warrant is somehow involved, what you are > going to search, and what you expect to find. > > PROPOSAL > Change the law to allow quicker and more flexible searches of people and > property in cases where a person's life may be at risk (e.g. abduction or > disappearance of a child). This change in the law would in effect create a > standing search warrant to look for a missing person at any location of > interest to law enforcement. Law enforcement would be authorized to search > any part of the property where a human body could be hidden (e.g. crawl > space), using reasonable search tools and methods (e.g. dogs trained to > locate human beings or bodies based on a scent provided to them prior to the > commencement of the search). In the case of e-mail, law enforcement would > be authorized to request from the victim's ISP access to email and relevant > logs going back as far as needed for the purpose of aiding in the > identification of potential persons of interest and material witnesses. > > WOULD A CHANGE IN THE LAW LIKE THIS HAVE SAVED LIVES IN THE OREGON CITY > CASE? > Who knows. Hindsight is 20/20, but the proposed change would have provided > the opportunity to search the residences and vehicles of all persons with > whom Ashley Pond was known to associate. Crimes of this nature have been > shown time and time again to involve persons known to the victim, usually > within close proximity. It is possible that early action might have > prevented her murder, or resulted in the apprehension of the perpetrator > shortly after the fact, thus preventing the murder of Miranda Gaddis. This > is all speculation, but it is based on common sense. > > RATIONALE FOR THE PROPOSAL - WHY THE BENEFITS OUTWEIGH THE COSTS > This proposal is based on common sense. If a house is burning down, firemen > don't ask permission to enter and save lives. They just enter and save > lives, cutting through walls if necessary. If we as a society want to get > serious about protecting our children and getting criminals off the street, > we need to get past the over-simplification of the 4th Amendment to the > Constitution. We don't, after all, consider firemen in violation of civil > rights when they rush into a burning building to save lives. Likewise, law > enforcement must be liberated to be able to conduct reasonable searches of > places of interest in a timely manner when life is on the line and minutes > count. While there are usually no raging fires in cases of abductions, > there is always a group of individuals that the victim knew, some of which > may be of more interest than others due to things like past accusations of > inappropriate sexual contact. Though personal associations are more subtle > than a burning building, they are nevertheless most always connected to > abductions that result in murder. > > > I welcome your feedback, including any tips about how to get this idea > refined and submitted for consideration by the US Justice Department, the > Oregon State Legislature, or the Oregon voters. > > Thanks, > > Greg Tao > greg.tao@private > Disclaimer: These are my personal views and opinions, not the views and > opinions of my employer. >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon Aug 26 2002 - 18:44:01 PDT