From: lee.noon@mgmtsys.com (Lee Noon)
Date: Sat, 11 Feb 95 07:48:51 PST
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Not necessarily crypt
Message-ID: <90.84391.1@mgmtsys.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


  
in message-ID: 
<Pine.LNX.3.91.950209105922.8309A-100000@chewy.wookie.net> 
slowdog@wookie.net wrote:

SG>On Thu, 9 Feb 1995, Robert Rothenburg Walking-Owl wrote:

SG>> 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 t
  >> Amendment was worded exactly as the Fourht Amendment in the Bill 'o Rights
  >> Apparently many a congressman/woman has egg on their face...

SG>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.

     Almost all right.  The Dems did acknowledge it was the fourth 
amendment, they drummed on that fact during the debate.  What they 
failed to explain was that the amendment was not offered TO the bill 
but IN PLACE OF the bill.  Even the Republicans failed to properly 
explain this, instead saying it would "gut the bill."
     This bill is not new, people.  It codifies what has been the 
practice in two federal district courts for several years.  The boogie 
man raised most often it the "confidential informant."  The use of a 
bogus CI is illegal.  It is still illegal under this bill.
     The major problem with this bill is it does not add the penalty to 
law enforcement officers for "bad faith actions." This was proposed by 
the republicans last year and ignored by the democrats.  Tis year the 
republicans had the power to push it through and they ignored it.  
Shows how really different they are.
     The "bad faith actions" provision would have made a LEO who 
knowingly generated a search warrant, searched without one without 
probable cause, liable for criminal charges at the federal level.  In 
other words when cop A uses cop B as his evidence for a warrant, and 
cop B lies, cop B goes to jail.  If cop A knew it was a lie, cop A goes 
to jail.  If it results in a shoot out like Waco and lives are lost, he 
goes to jail on murder one charges.  This carries the death penalty for 
a federal offense.  Naturally the one outfit which opposed this the 
most was the BATF, who violates this provision as the preferred way to 
do business.
     It is now up to the senate.  Hopefully Senator Byrd can stop 
taking about his dog long enough to bring these points to the fore.

Lee

                              Lee Noon (lee.noon@mgmtsys.com)

 * 1st 2.00b #3833 * A government can't give back anything it hasn't taken first.