Parts of USA PATRIOT Act ruled unconstitutional

I hope this is good I do not know we will see.

 

Inho, it's very good. They have been trying to take away our freedom under the "guise" of terrorism for a long while now. The newspapers and media are promoting this propaganda, trying to scare us into handing the government our God given freedoms one by one.

 

What Joe said... :applause:

 

Fingerprints at a crime scene are not "probable cause"?

 

This is not the ed of it to be sure.

 

But hopefully the end is getting closer.

 

Defense attorneys all over the country are licking their chops.:1_grouphug:

 

I'm so happy I could !!!! Finally!!!

 

From browsing Reason:

 

Ahem:

Can you say, "Mob Lynch?"

http://www.reason.com/news/show/119690.html

 

No. You should be able to figure out why.

 

I can't, Don. Help ?

 

From the ACLU:

Perhaps most troubling:

Also, from Cato:

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6330

 

I can help Bro. Curtis.

A fingerprint found in a public place is meaningless.

A fingerprint found on an object that had been in a public place is meaningless.

Even a fingerprint found on an explosive device has the potential to be meaningless unless there is other evidence connecting a suspect to the crime. Why? Because components must be: manufactured, packaged, sold or may have changed hand numerous times.

What the FBI should have done is looked to see if there was anything else that connected this guy to the crime except a print and the fact the man was Muslim. Then they should have double checked. Why? Because that is their job and prosecutions fall quite often on faulty evidence!

I too see this ruling as a positive change.

 

This particular ruling makes no effective change. It will continue to be battled in the courts until it gets to the Supreme Court.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by carpro
Fingerprints at a crime scene are not "probable cause"?

Really ?

It's kinda tough when they are used as probable cause on a fairly routine basis to obtain search warrants.

These prints weren't the defendants. That's the problem. Making this knnd of sweeping ruling based on an admitted mistake by the government will never stand.

It turned out they did not have probable cause but believed they did at the time of the search. I believe this ruling will be applied only to this case and has no real effect on the Patriot Law.

 

Don't know how else to say it. I haven't been able to find any other case where a fingerprint was used as probable cause.

Why stop there? I saw you at the scene, so I'm going to put you under surveillance. Or, I heard you were at the scene, so I'm going to put you under surveillance.

The Patriot Act is being misused.

 

Capro, I don't think so. Prints may be enough to pull someone in for questioning, but it's not going to be enough by itself to obtain a search warrant for their home/car/office/phones plus funding to follow the owner of the fingerprint everywhere he goes on the mere possiblity that he might do something incriminating. Especially a print recovered from a public surface (see my above post).