Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

IDemo

(16,926 posts)
Sun Oct 27, 2013, 09:27 AM Oct 2013

Federal Prosecutors, in a Policy Shift, Cite Warrantless Wiretaps as Evidence

WASHINGTON — The Justice Department for the first time has notified a criminal defendant that evidence being used against him came from a warrantless wiretap, a move that is expected to set up a Supreme Court test of whether such eavesdropping is constitutional.

Prosecutors filed such a notice late Friday in the case of Jamshid Muhtorov, who was charged in Colorado in January 2012 with providing material support to the Islamic Jihad Union, a designated terrorist organization based in Uzbekistan.

Mr. Muhtorov is accused of planning to travel abroad to join the militants and has pleaded not guilty. A criminal complaint against him showed that much of the government’s case was based on e-mails and phone calls intercepted under a 2008 surveillance law.

The government’s notice allows Mr. Muhtorov’s lawyer to ask a court to suppress the evidence by arguing that it derived from unconstitutional surveillance, setting in motion judicial review of the eavesdropping.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/27/us/federal-prosecutors-in-a-policy-shift-cite-warrantless-wiretaps-as-evidence.html?_r=1&

7 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Federal Prosecutors, in a Policy Shift, Cite Warrantless Wiretaps as Evidence (Original Post) IDemo Oct 2013 OP
Meh, it's just a goddamn piece of paper. jsr Oct 2013 #1
The fascists are working steadily woo me with science Oct 2013 #2
We are so lucky to have the defender of the People, John Roberts, on our side. Octafish Oct 2013 #3
K&R. nt OnyxCollie Oct 2013 #4
What do we need laws for, when opinions work just as well? RC Oct 2013 #5
As long as they're CONSERVATIVE opinions, no problem-o. Octafish Oct 2013 #6
Good bye Fourth Amendment Oilwellian Oct 2013 #7
 

RC

(25,592 posts)
5. What do we need laws for, when opinions work just as well?
Sun Oct 27, 2013, 11:21 AM
Oct 2013

That warrant-less wiretap should have been thrown out from the get-go and who ever authorized it needs to in jeopardy of his job and bank account.

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
6. As long as they're CONSERVATIVE opinions, no problem-o.
Reply to RC (Reply #5)
Sun Oct 27, 2013, 12:07 PM
Oct 2013

Get into stupid stuff like the Bill of Rights and Civil Rights and we're in loony-bin territory, yes sir or ma'am.

for those new to the concepts.

Oilwellian

(12,647 posts)
7. Good bye Fourth Amendment
Sun Oct 27, 2013, 01:00 PM
Oct 2013

You served us well until our arrogant, criminal government decided it was a hindrance to their fascist agenda.

It's a real slap in the face to see them use a case involving a suspected terrorist to destroy our right to privacy.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Federal Prosecutors, in a...