Here’s the pertinent part of the current MA the law regarding wire tapping.
Here is the bill our already infinitesimally empowered Attorney General and District Attorneys want to replace it with.
First off the jackboots want to eliminate the following pre-amble written in to out current law.
A. Preamble.
The general court finds that organized crime exists within the commonwealth and that the increasing activities of organized crime constitute a grave danger to the public welfare and safety. Organized crime, as it exists in the commonwealth today, consists of a continuing conspiracy among highly organized and disciplined groups to engage in supplying illegal goods and services. In supplying these goods and services organized crime commits unlawful acts and employs brutal and violent tactics. Organized crime is infiltrating legitimate business activities and depriving honest businessmen of the right to make a living.
The general court further finds that because organized crime carries on its activities through layers of insulation and behind a wall of secrecy, government has been unsuccessful in curtailing and eliminating it. Normal investigative procedures are not effective in the investigation of illegal acts committed by organized crime. Therefore, law enforcement officials must be permitted to use modern methods of electronic surveillance, under strict judicial supervision, when investigating these organized criminal activities.
The general court further finds that the uncontrolled development and unrestricted use of modern electronic surveillance devices pose grave dangers to the privacy of all citizens of the commonwealth. Therefore, the secret use of such devices by private individuals must be prohibited. The use of such devices by law enforcement officials must be conducted under strict judicial supervision and should be limited to the investigation of organized crime.
See what they are doing here? They want start a whole new ball game. Wait, what am I saying. They want to start a brand new sport and have it compete with the NFL. Now if a kid gets in a fist fight and then kicks the guy when he’s down he’s committed assault and battery with a dangerous weapon. Currently you had to be mobbed up to plant a bug to find out if he did it. Idea of course is the guy can lead you up the ladder to Mr. or Mrs. Big. Martha and the Pips want local cops to be able to bug the homes’ of teenagers if they feel like it.
Opportunities for abuses and personal revenge are rampant in this bill.
And if the other kid tells the local police and they think you’re telling a buddy was who was with you to lie for you than they can get a bug for that. You don’t have to be mobbed up.
What if kids drink in an abandoned warehouse occassionally. While there they take some odd piece of junk from there. Now we went from trespassing t burglary. The local cops can bug all the houses where those kids live.
Say a kid shoplifts a few video games. Larceny over $250. Now the kid had to be mobbed up and the theft part of much bigger thing. Martha and her MerryMen want the local cop to be able to bug the kids house, his car, his parents car if they want.
I could go on and on with crimes outlined. If you are a law abiding gun owner and the local chief doesn’t like guns and has it stuck in his mind that you are up to know good can now plant a bug in your house. Before you ahd to be mobbed up.
E-mail your reps and senators and tell them to stop this now!
Below is a list of the crimes included in the bill. Many are in current bill and some our updates. But remember organized crime element for a wiretap has been taken away.
Nobody should have problems with murder and such. But a good deal of these crimes can be and many times applied to facts that when taken in context are not serious offenses.
We cannot trust good intentions and discretion of every single police officer currently and in the future to arbitrate this. The judge really can’t. All he can do is make sure the four corners of the affidavit (trusting the word of a cop, any cop) are in accordance with the statute and case law.
. The term “designated offense” shall include the following offenses: murder or manslaughter, except under chapter 90 or 90B or section 13 ½ of chapter 265; any violation of chapter 94C; the illegal use, possession or carrying of a firearm, sawed-off shotgun, machine gun, assault weapon, large capacity weapon or covert weapon as defined by section 121 of chapter 140; any license violation under sections 121 to 131P, inclusive, of chapter 140; arson; assault and battery with a dangerous weapon; bribery; burglary; child enticement in violation of sections 26C and 26D of chapter 265; money laundering in violation of chapter 267A; embezzlement; enterprise crime in violation of chapter 271A; extortion; forgery; gaming in violation of sections 38, 39, 40, 41 and 43 of chapter 23K and sections 16 A and 17 of chapter 271; human trafficking in violation of sections 50 through 53 of chapter 265; kidnapping; larceny; lending of money or things of value in violation of the general laws; mayhem; perjury; prostitution; rape as defined in sections 22, 22A, 22B, 22C, 23, 23A, 23B, 24 and 24B of chapter 265; robbery; subornation of perjury; any violation of sections 13B, 13D or 13E of chapter 268 and sections 29A , 29B and 105 of chapter 272; any felony under chapter 269; any violation of this section; being an accessory to any of the foregoing offense and conspiracy or attempt or solicitation to commit any of the foregoing offenses.
The last line of the preamble in the current law reads as follows:
It appears to me that this is the line Ms. Coakley and the others most want to strike. I wonder if you might edit the threadstarter to include it.
n/t
I broke out all of the references, so that people would have a complete list of what the designated offenses would actually be. You’re welcome 🙂
eb3, somervilletom – we should really be in touch more. I’m at alex@warrantless.org if you’d care to send me your details.
murder, kidnapping, robbery, or extortion; arson, assault and battery with or without a dangerous weapon, bribery, corruption or attempted corruption of a public official, burglary, misuse of credit cards or fraudulent use of credit cards to obtain money, goods or services, malicious destruction of property, embezzlement, enterprise crime, escape, throwing or placing explosives at or near persons or property, illegal possession or storage of explosives, possession of infernal machines, forgery, gaming violations, identity fraud, indecent assault and battery, insurance fraud, intimidation of witnesses or jurors or persons furnishing information in connection with criminal proceedings, larceny, lending of money or things of value in violation of the general laws, mayhem, money laundering, perjury, subornation of perjury, prostitution, rape, receiving stolen property, communicating terroristic threats, possessing or using chemical, biological or nuclear weapons, possession or use of hoax substances, crimes involving violations of: gambling and lottery laws, gift laws, liquor laws, tobacco laws, firearms laws, securities laws, lobbying laws, ethics laws, or conflict of interest laws; any offense involving the possession or distribution of a narcotic drug, marijuana, or other dangerous drug; coercion of child under eighteen into criminal conspiracy, inducing person under eighteen to have sexual intercourse, possession or dissemination of matter harmful to minors, posing or exhibiting child in state of nudity or sexual conduct, dissemination of visual material of child in state of nudity or sexual conduct, purchase or possession of visual material of child depicted in sexual conduct; any offense punishable by imprisonment for more than one year involving the possession or distribution of firearms; any accessory to any offense described in this act or any conspiracy or attempt or solicitation to commit any offense described in this act; the location of any fugitive from justice from an offense described in this subsection.
as always I am ernie bock 3 at hot mail . com (spread it out I won’t get spammed.
on twitter I’m ernieboch3
thanks a bunch for spelling out all the crimes. Great service to BMG
“Communicating terroristic threats” is the bogus charge they put on Methuen teenager Cameron D’Ambrosio.
What I’m missing is why would it be OK for some crimes and not others. Seems to me that in any situation if the police/DA think a wiretap might be helpful they should be able to apply for a warrant and show probable cause. The check is to have judges willing to say no when appropriate as well so there are no fishing expeditions. The constitutional requirement for specificity must be respected as well.
never mind
What I assume isn’t really important anyway, but the rest of the comment stands.
Here, for your convenience, is what it says (emphasis mine):
I suggest that the current law reflects the collective wisdom of generations of judges, prosecutors, and voters. Most specifically, it reflects the clear and explicit right to privacy that every Massachusetts resident has both had and rightfully expected until now.
I ask you to consider whether perhaps those who came before us were just as insightful, just as smart, just as wise, just as concerned about crime, and just as concerned about maintaining a just society as we are today.
Perhaps you might consider WHY the current law is as it is, rather than joining the rush to change it — especially since your assumptions are mistaken.
I’m still asking why. As long as the constitutional and procedural requirements for obtaining and executing, I don’t think the degree of privacy rights we have is affected by the nature of the alleged crime.
…to a court ordered wire tap? Just “organized crime”?
remember, by definition the wire tap is means a conspiracy or confession.
Why is murderer talking about it and to whom? Why tap every phone call if no reason to believe he will talk about it especially if speaking with non-know criminals.
Different with organized crime. They talk to each other about the crimes. Therefore smart t listen in. Different from bugging phone of every individual perp.
The option should be there, though. In a particular case law enforcement may have probable cause to believe they will obtain information by wiretapping, which they would have to convince a judge when applying for a warrant. There will remain I’m sure plenty of instances where it would not make sense and be a colossal waste of resources to do a wiretap.
As a practical matter, individual privacy is more important than the convenience of law enforcement. I have a right to expect that my private communications remain private.
I doubt that Ms. Coakley needs sweeping and draconian eavesdropping power to, for example, find a way to disrupt the various disability scams that have been practiced by certain sectors of our public employees for decades. Similarly, the information about corruption in the Big Dig was uncovered by journalists without such power — somehow the AG’s office never found anything to prosecute. Private industry is well aware of vendor bribery — somehow, our state law enforcement agencies didn’t notice the cozy relationship between Mr. Dimasi and Cognos. Not that Mr. Dimasi was particularly special — each of his two predecessors also left office under a cloud of corruption, and neither attracted the attention of state law enforcement.
Surely the restrictions of the current law did not cause the AGs office to miss the probation department scandal, the housing authority scandal, nor the drug testing lab scandals.
It is hard to resist the temptation to observe that Ms. Coakley and state law enforcement agencies are, in fact, rather skilled at looking the other way — no amount of eavesdropping will ever change that.
As a practical matter, there is more than enough information already available to Ms. Coakley and state law enforcement if she and they chose to actually prosecute many of the offenses they choose to ignore today.
You also have the right to expect that your home will not be searched. Yet I am not aware of any restrictions on the ability of law enforcement to in fact search your home upon the issuance of a warrant for whatever crime might be alleged. I say it should be up to a judge to say a search is not necessary in a given case and deny a warrant, rather than a blanket law that says you can’t even apply for a warrant for certain crimes.
I understand that you place little value on personal privacy and great value on the discretion of whatever Judge hears the request for a warrant.
As I wrote below, in my view personal communications are different from other searches — that’s why the Fifth (and First) Amendment is different from the Fourth.
I do not want to expand the already horrifying breadth of the Government’s ability to violate my personal privacy.
I’ve actually learned alot in these discussions about what private companies have access to that I’m not a big fan of. However, a search is a search and we need to make sure that both the protection and the enforcement mechanisms keep up with the technology and the times.
cannot throw you into prison for years for nonsense like “communicating terroristic threats”
cannot force you to provide false witness against someone else in order to avoid bullshit prosecution
…they certainly contribute to government power to do those things.
That this phenomenon is viewed as a problem of the private sector, which requires further government regulation, rather than a problem of government itself.
“Everyday murderers” have been identified, prosecuted, and convicted until now under the current law.
We presume innocence, not guilt. We also presume privacy, until now. Shall we also shred our fifth-amendment right against self-incrimination?
There, does that make you feel better? The courts, according to press reports, have served 3 search warrants concerning the murder of Odin Lloyd. Using the same level of probable cause, why shouldn’t phone taps be used if investigators sought one from a court? (Omitting conversations with attorney’s)
Unless we think that Mr. Lloyed is the victim of a serial killer or of organized crime, there is no reason to suggest that his murderer will strike again. The search warrants allow the police to recover evidence that already exists of a crime that has already occurred.
The only “evidence” that a wiretap could possible provide is if the perpetrator incriminates himself in a telephone conversation (or other electronic communication) where the perpetrator has a reasonable expectation of privacy. In my view, one reason for the Fifth Amendment is to prohibit this kind of “evidence”.
I don’t want to further erode our already gravely undermined personal privacy protections — that’s why I don’t want phone taps used in this kind of investigation.
Don’t go blabbing about your crimes except maybe to your doctor, lawyer, or religious confessor. Miranda warnings only apply to custody and testimony in open court. I don’t see a 5th amendment issue here. You always have the right not to talk and I am of course opposed to coerced statements. It may also be appropriate to inform the party that they are being searched just like the police must present the warrant in most cases upon entering your home.
The knowledge that government may eavesdrop on communications is sure to have a chilling effect on speech, and thus makes it a First Amendment issue.
This is one of the key problems with the NSA spying scandal, and I believe it applies here as well.
Maybe counterintuitive is the word I’m looking for. The point of the first amendment is to give us the right to speak against the government, but for such speech to matter and effect change the government needs to hear it. The right is for the speech per se not to be prevented or criminalized. When the government starts using what they hear to prosecute you for expressing those opinions, that’s when it becomes a first amendment issue.