4th Ammendment

[CdwJava]

Federal Law says you can do these things, it says it is governed by the 4th amendment of
But it say there are safegaurds in place(4th amendment) It does not matter if one person agrees, a telephone can be taped without a warrent, in public you do not need a warrent, but in the privicy of your home you need a warrent. to get a warrent you need to go through the process,(probable cause, I thought you people were Attorneys where somebody can learn something, my mistake. I thought you might know something about the 4th amendment sorry

Oh, the attorneys are here ... they might decide to respond ... they might not.

I just find it absolutely incredible that YOU would have discovered an exception to the law where others have not ... fascinating!

Keep reading.

- Carl

 

[weenor]

Carl are you an Attorney? Title 3 defines all electronic recordings a wiretap, weather it is a mick, telephone or anything mechinal, oral is still a wiretap, i have been filing many motions in the past with great sucess, i know what I am doing, i have met and seen some perty dumb attorneys in my life,
May i suggest you read the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Street Act of 1968 where you will see all Electronic Surveillance including oral is under the wiretaping laws.
Also you Should read and learn the provisions of th 4th ammendant of the constutition before you give anybody else advice

No need for the attitude, especially because you're WRONG. See, United States v. White, 401 U.S. 745 (1971) and its proginy. The Act you site does not apply the way you think it does, because in true wire tapping no party has consented to the recording. Bottom line, the police did not need a warrant or a probable cause hearing to have another (the snitch) tape your conversation when that other person consents. There is no reasonable expectation of privacy when criminal activity is contemplated and discussed. Whatever you've "filed" in the past you were stupid enough to discuss the commission of a crime with the possibility it was being recorded. Duh!

Say HI to big Bubba for me!!!

 

[tranquility]

In the cases I see, you give up your reasonable expectation of privacy when you invite someone else in (who latter relates what happened to the police). This is true in the 9th and (next door to you) 6th circuts. Perhaps it is not true in the 7th, but I have not done any research on the issue.

See: United States v. Bramble (9th circut 1966) 103 F.3rd 1475 or United States v. Yoon (6th circut 2005) 398 F.3rd 802.

What is the case you are relying on for finding there was a 4th amendment violation?

 

[StickyFingers]

[

QUOTE= box8]What is the name of your state? Indiana
Can a informent come into the privicy of your home, in your living room, where you have expect total privicy, wearing a wire then, transmitt your voice a block away where it is recorded without a probable cause hearing, or a warrent from a Judge? Does the 4th ammendant protect your right to privicy in your home?[/QOTE]

Yep...And why would you think that there was not probable cause?, Or a warrant?

a violation of Title 3 of the Omnibus Crime and Control and Safe Streets Act?

Which part of the the 'Act' do you think that you are categorized under?
Please quote directly from the 'Act'.

Never mind....posting late...I think the point has been made...and legal advice delivered.

 

[panzertanker]

I just find it absolutely incredible that YOU would have discovered an exception to the law where others have not ... fascinating!
- Carl

Especially when the poster cannot spell the simplest of words: Pretty!

BTW, what is "pro-sa-si"???
Did you mean to say "pro-se"???
Get your punctuation, spelling and grammar correct before you spout off that you have ANY clue to what you are doing...Blufftucky!

 

[AHA]

Maybe OP should stop committing crimes and saying things (that get recorded) he shouldn't, then he wouldn't have to fantasize about suing the cops every month!!

 

[tigger22472]

Has anyone else checked out the site the OP gave?
I'm bored! Let's just say the few words he misspelled here aren't the only ones he cannot spell.

 

[fairisfair]

Has anyone else checked out the site the OP gave?
I'm bored! Let's just say the few words he misspelled here aren't the only ones he cannot spell.

yes, I did, funny how there was no actual court documents, just his version of what happened

I am beginning to wonder if box8 is a cell number.

 

[tigger22472]

yes, I did, funny how there was no actual court documents, just his version of what happened

I am beginning to wonder if box8 is a cell number.

Hee hee...

 

[dlofto]

email

Arizona

hey box8 can you email.. I have a few questions and you seem pretty intelligent [email protected]

 

[tigger22472]

Arizona

hey box8 can you email.. I have a few questions and you seem pretty intelligent [email protected]

Oh my why can't we have the icons like yahoo... I want the little guy who throws himself on the ground laughing!!

 

[justalayman]

yes, I did, funny how there was no actual court documents, just his version of what happened

I am beginning to wonder if box8 is a cell number.

Actually I think the guy is a bit over the edge but he does have a fed court decision on his website where he did suvive a motion for summary judgment involving his suit against the cops around his area.

Dewayne Higdon v. Wells county Sherriff's Dept; Blufftom Police Dept.; et.al. 1:04-CV-064WCL

It's under "fed suit" or something like that on his website.

 

[magic55]

This guy is committing a crime and looking for an easy way out. Since this man isnt a police officer, but a private person who was let into your home, he records information and shares it with the police. Totally legal. Its the same as someone in your house taking a picture of you shooting someone and sending it to the police . All the same. They clearly have reasonable cause. You are comitting the crime. I hope you go to jail. You deserve to go.

 

[CdwJava]

Actually, I think he's arguing that since the man he invited inside wsa wearing a wire that transmitted the audio over a wireless device (i.e. a radio transmittor) that this constitutes an unlawful interception or transmission of a private communication and thus should be suppressed.

He's trying to apply the USC section (Title 18, 5210 et seq) without regard for additional sections and case law.

- Carl

 

[magic55]

Regardless this man should be in jail.