posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 11:05 PM
Originally posted by ownbestenemy
The larger difference here is this isn't the NSA requesting to save information. This is law enforcement groups lobbying Congress to force, via
ECPA, cellphone carriers to keep and save that information. The average sheriff and its department doesn't have access to any supposed intercepted
and kept data held by the NSA..
First I want to make sure it is clear that I am NOT calling you a shill. I am iterating that the text of the article is disinformation. You and I
think this article presents a dilemma which is a Really Big Deal, but for different reasons.
It is true that the average law enforcement officer on a local or state level will not have that information on hand. My point was more that the
chiefs' association and ACLU are making it sound like this is a big issue. Then our government can swoop in and deny their request, thereby
confirming in every mindless American's head that they are really, truly protected by such government and have retained their right to privacy.
Regardless of whether or ot the messages are stored, a police officer in the course of his investigation will still require a grand jury summons
ordering the company to produce such data, if it exists, or face contempt of court charges. This is similar to the idea that an officer needs a
warrant to get the data.
The true problem is that law enforcement uses a different burden of proof than the state does securing a conviction. An officer requesting the grand
jury summons must only meet the "reasonable articulable suspicion" or "reasoable cause" level of proof. The state, generally, must prove bryond a
Officers do not arrest based on how a case will fare in court.
Should probable cause diminish in the course of the investigation, an arrest may not lawfully occur. Reasonable articulable suspicion, however, is a
much more nebulous definition and it will only depend on the police officer's ability to "sell" his request to a grand jury and his integrity.
Basically, an officer could, in theory, falsify info Oman affidavit and here would be the text messages. In that sense, I understand the article's