Delayed Notice Search Warrants: (get a load of these! Good-bye Rights)

On the road today I had the radio on and I heard a local news reporter stating how in PA there were something like 28 Delayed Notice Search Warrants issued by local judges in 2011 and like 68 in 2010. (Not sure of the exact numbers-working on it).

Anyway, I never heard of the D.N.S.W's. Thought I would listen up. She went on to say the the D.N.S.W's are a result from the passage of provisions in the Patriot Act. This would allow Law EnForcement Agencies to conduct detailed searches of a Suspected Terrorist without having to notify them or post notice you were there for weeks/months afterwards. Sounds pretty darn smart-pulling a fast one on the bad-terrorist who want to kill us-Great.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/f0d7a97550be.jpg[/atsimg]
Link to the a 2004 D.OJ report to Congress as to the effectiveness of the program:
DELAYED NOTICE SEARCH WARRANTS:
A VITAL AND TIME-HONORED TOOL FOR FIGHTING CRIME
www.justice.gov...
Now, in reading this report, you will see they present a very logical and glorifying report to show there successes on both Terror and Drug cases.
Conclusion of the Report:

Both before and after the enactment of section 213 of the USA PATRIOT Act, immediate notice that a search warrant has been executed has been standard procedure. As has always been the ease, delayed-notice warrants are used infrequently and judiciously only in appropriate situations where immediate notice likely would harm individuals or compromise investigations, and even then only with a judge's express approval. As demonstrated by the examples above, however, the ability to delay notice that a search or seizure has taken place is invaluable when those rare situations arise. The investigators and prosecutors on tile front lines of fighting crime and terrorism should not be forced to choose between preventing immediate harm -- such as a terrorist attack or an influx of illegal drugs -- and completing a sensitive investigation that might shut down the entire terror cell or drug trafficking operation. Thanks to the long-standing availability of delayed-notice warrants in these circumstances, they do not have to make that choice.

Wait. Drug Cases too? Hmm. That really got my attention. Never heard of that one either-for drug cases.
Okay, so I read the above report and I got the hibbie-gibbies when I see that they present the whole operation as long and on-going and only getting attention due to the recent passage of the Patriot Act (back then).

I have been in Law Enfocement over 20 years. I have been through so many courses and classses on Search Warrants and Seizure of Property etc I lost count. (Admittedly, not in the last 5 years).

The whole premise taught was the rights of the property owners and protection for yourself from lawsuits from doing improper Search Warrants etc.

This whole D.N.S.W just strikes me as wrong. Seriously. It totally is against the protection of ones rights. yes, I know a potential terrorist and or Drug King Pin but.... how long before they use it on other crimes/alleged?

Against you or I? Not notifying them for weeks/months afterwards. That means WE have NO or very limited rights. And, try finding out about them?

What if you get pulled away by mistake etc. How can you prepare an adequate defense? How do you know they didn't manufacture evidence in the mean time. It could go on and on about how this IS the stepping stone to more freedoms being lost to an every oppressive Gov't of the USA.

Here is a link to the law and report included>
cryptome.sabotage.org...

I looked around the net and I found these good stories of it's use(s):
Federal investigators used delayed-notice search warrant to help crack Greater Cleveland heroin ring

CLEVELAND, Ohio -- A little-known federal law that allows investigators to carry out a search warrant without the suspect's knowledge contributed to the smashing of a major heroin ring in the area last week. The tool was put in place as part of anti-terrorism laws passed by Congress after the 9/11 attacks on American soil. The implement was rarely employed in its first years, but records show investigators nationally are increasingly pulling it from their belts.

blog.cleveland.com...

Now, here is some more from the story that I find shocking and one of the problems I am concerned about:

Some in the legal profession are jittery that the law can be abused and question whether federal judges should allow these warrants for offenses other than suspected terrorism. The delayed-notice search warrant is designed to keep suspects from knowing they are under surveillance.

In this case, investigators used the warrant to go through a suspected drug dealer's apartment in Cleveland last April. They took more than a pound of heroin and two guns, then trashed the place to make it look like a burglary.

They trashed the place to make it look like a robbery. So, they committed a crime to cover their tracks? That's okay for Law Enforcement to do? Really?

But anon72, look at what they took out of the apartment and off the streets by doing so!!!!!! I will hear someone claim. Okay. I'll give you that.

How about this. Why didn't they just arrest the people/person right afterwards if it was such a big deal? Why did they let them continue? Can they assure the public that NO drugs/harm occurred after they knew the person was invovled in the activity?

Can L.E. ensure that the suspects weren't able to conduct more or others operations that allowed them to peddle that posion onto the streets-while they built their cases more?

L.E. claims they only do it on a limited basis from the attached link:

The special warrants, like the one used in April, are most commonly utilized in drug cases, and only rarely against suspected terrorists. Their use has soared, from 87 granted nationwide by federal judges in 2006 to 1,145 last year. The warrants, also called "sneak and peeks," are used sparingly in Northern Ohio -- only 10 times between 2006 and 2009. Federal judges nationwide have rejected requests for the special warrants only eight times between 2006 and 2009.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/ab6d834c3b8c.jpg[/atsimg]
At what point does L.E become the bad guy. If they get, say one arrest and it cripples the business and saves people from harm. Is that the best thing? Or continue investigating and getting 20 others a year later etc? How many drugs sales, crimes etc occurred in that time? How many people hurt but the Cops not acting quicker.

Law Enforcment needs to take a reality check on how things are going to proceed from here on in. And, I think we need to be on our toes for any other sneaky crap.

The slippery slope has already been stepped on. The continuing erosion of our Civil Liberities/Rights is all around us!
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/bcbb8a626be9.jpg[/atsimg]

reply to post by anon72



"Anyway, I never heard of the D.N.S.W's. Thought I would listen up. She went on to say the the D.N.S.W's are a result from the passage of provisions in the Patriot Act. This would allow Law EnForcement Agencies to conduct detailed searches of a Suspected Terrorist without having to notify them or post notice you were there for weeks/months afterwards. Sounds pretty darn smart-pulling a fast one on the bad-terrorist who want to kill us-Great."


Some citizen might decide they were house breakers and confront them with a shotgun. What then?

reply to post by anon72
Great post! Thank you, I have not heard of these DNSW before.

Remember when the Patriot Act took effect? "Oh, this will be used just to help us catch terrorists". Now it's, "Oh, we've been using it for everything for years now, look how effective it is!"

Kiss the Bill of Rights goodbye.

Alright, I'll say something that I've been saying for sometime.
Yes, the events of 9/11 were the catilyst to EVERYTHING the major and very real corruption by the judicial system but it is us, the citizen, that have allowed it to happen.
The patriot act was passed in 01 but it wasnt until 05/06 that it was put to the test.
The Govt needed a test bed and the disaster in New Orleans was the perfect opportunity to test the average US Citizens will power during very hard times.
The realized that when there were hardships placed on us citizens, then they would be more likely to submit to their demands, as long as they promised help and safety.
I'm not saying that the flooding of NO was man made, I am saying that they exploited the situation to test our resolve and we failed or passed, depending on your position.

Seriously, think about it. Crap didnt really start rolling downhill, until around 05 or 06

reply to post by trailertrash

Some citizen might decide they were house breakers and confront them with a shotgun. What then?

Most law abiding citizens would say that you are entitled to shoot them.

If you don't, they may shoot you, after all, what they are doing at that point is under the guise of an illegal act anyway... right?

reply to post by anon72

U.S. Constitution: Fourth Amendment
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

History and Scope of the Amendment

History .--Few provisions of the Bill of Rights grew so directly out of the experience of the colonials as the Fourth Amendment, embodying as it did the protection against the utilization of the ''writs of assistance.'' But while the insistence on freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures as a fundamental right gained expression in the Colonies late and as a result of experience, 1 there was also a rich English experience to draw on. ''Every man's house is his castle'' was a maxim much celebrated in England, as was demonstrated in Semayne's Case, decided in 1603. 2 A civil case of execution of process, Semayne's Case nonetheless recognized the right of the homeowner to defend his house against unlawful entry even by the King's agents, but at the same time recognized the authority of the appropriate officers to break and enter upon notice in order to arrest or to execute the King's process. Most famous of the English cases was Entick v. Carrington, 3 one of a series of civil actions against state officers who, pursuant to general warrants, had raided many homes and other places in search of materials connected with John Wilkes' polemical pamphlets attacking not only governmental policies but the King himself. 4

Entick, an associate of Wilkes, sued because agents had forcibly broken into his house, broken into locked desks and boxes, and seized many printed charts, pamphlets and the like. In an opinion sweeping in terms, the court declared the warrant and the behavior it authorized subversive ''of all the comforts of society,'' and the issuance of a warrant for the seizure of all of a person's papers rather than only those alleged to be criminal in nature ''contrary to the genius of the law of England.'' 5 Besides its general character, said the court, the warrant was bad because it was not issued on a showing of probable cause and no record was required to be made of what had been seized. Entick v. Carrington, the Supreme Court has said, is a ''great judgment,'' ''one of the landmarks of English liberty,'' ''one of the permanent monuments of the British Constitution,'' and a guide to an understanding of what the Framers meant in writing the Fourth Amendment.... 6


caselaw.lp.findlaw.com...

THIS is the basis for the fourth: "... A civil case of execution of process, Semayne's Case nonetheless recognized the right of the homeowner to defend his house against unlawful entry even by the King's agents, but at the same time recognized the authority of the appropriate officers to break and enter upon notice in order to arrest or to execute the King's process.

THAT is the English Case law that backs up the meaning of the fourth. Upon Notice means you D@#N well better present that search warrant TO the owner of the property you are searching.

We KNOW the Supreme Court has been playing fast and loose with the Constitution for years so the Federal government can get around the limits place upon it.

During Roosevelt’s first term, the Supreme Court struck down key parts of his New Deal legislation,... In each of these cases, the Court relied on various precedents – most stemming from the “liberty of contract” doctrine set forth in LOCHNER v. NEW YORK (198 U.S. 45 1905) – to argue that state and national governments had exceeded their authority to regulate commerce....

...Roosevelt then plotted with his staff and his allies in Congress to do something about the Nine Old Men. Shesol meticulously recounts the genesis and development of each of the proposed schemes to curb judicial power. Most surprising, perhaps, were the efforts at constructing a constitutional amendment aimed at restricting judicial review of Congress – an act that would essentially eviscerate the powers of the judiciary. By February 1937, Roosevelt had decided on a plan: he would ask for legislation that sought to expand the Court by one member for every justice over the age of 70, for a total of six new justices. Roosevelt argued that the Court was overworked, and fresh blood would help to clear the docket of pending cases. Of course, no one really believed him – not Roosevelt’s allies, not his opponents, and not the general public. In fact, Roosevelt himself never consistently stuck to his own argument; within weeks of his announcement, Roosevelt was advocating for the court packing plan on purely ideological grounds....

And yet in the end, Roosevelt got what he wanted: the Hughes Court began to rule in his favor after he turned up the heat. By the end of the Court’s 1937 term, judicial interpretation of the interstate commerce clause had been completely transformed.
www.bsos.umd.edu...

You know something?
I hate to say it too but after reading that quote of the 4th amendment, I realize that OUR Constitution, really could use some updating, as far as the language goes.
However, I dont think there is anyone or any party that I trust to do this

This is why we must eliminate the "Patriot" Act.

So many of our rights were thrown out the window - and premeditatedly, at that (since when is a 900 page Act drawn up from scratch, discussed, revised, fiddled with, discussed, and then printed in three weeks?). The PTB love the rights stripping.

And drugs are Their favorite liberty-stripping excuse - They seize property on only an accusation of drug involvement (80% of people who have property seized are never charged with a crime - can we say bye-bye Bill of Rights?). Legalize drugs. This would go a long way to stripping Them of (unconstitutional) power.

To crimvelvet and all.

You bring up some great points and ideas. I get more P.O'ed the more I think about it.

As a normal joe blow citizen or crook, you don't stand a chance of defending yourself properly in court.

That's if you even get to court.

Meaning, at what point do they decide that after doing a D.N.S.W they determine they have such damaging evidence that the target doesn't even deserve to go to a trial that they have determined he must be killed ASAP.

Bang. No defense. Later on... "Oooops, wrong guy(s)-the Undercover Team ID'ed the wrong person. Sorry.-it won't happen again".

reply to post by Amaterasu

This is why we must eliminate the "Patriot" Act.

i wouldn't have agreed with you before this story. Now I do. I think it was quick and desprate legistation (needed at the time-perhaps) but now we need to look this thing over from front to back.

reply to post by anon72


S & F Anon72, and thank you for revealing this; this is something everyone needs to know about.

This and the TSA travesty are among the many reason why the "Patriot" act (and the patriot actors) need to be throw the hell out!

It's like we're all on a water-slide straight to hell.

Originally posted by anon72
reply to post by Amaterasu

 

This is why we must eliminate the "Patriot" Act.

i wouldn't have agreed with you before this story. Now I do. I think it was quick and desprate legistation (needed at the time-perhaps) but now we need to look this thing over from front to back.

It was NOT needed at the time. It was part of a plot to remove our rights - with the false flag created to give an excuse to push through the Act. Most of the signatories were told, "Just sign it, don't read it," and most did not read it before signing.

reply to post by mydarkpassenger

It's like we're all on a water-slide straight to hell.

That statement says it best.... sadly enough but yes. A water slide.

reply to post by anon72


This is a great thread. I am firmly against drug laws.

One major problem i see is that they take the mafia approach to criminals. They won't arrest them, choosing instead to let them go and commit their crimes, all the while milking them for information on other people.

This practice is tyranny. You have a criminal. Letting them go so you can "milk" them every week is an atrocity.

In business, if i don't write you up on the first or second day after an infraction, i likely lost any impetus to do so. You must address the issue quickly and up front. And it is for the same reason that unused laws are seen as worthless that they should not allow this. If you let the guy go, you have told him it is a free pass.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


Exactly and well stated.

The whole thought of letting the target continue on with his "enterprise", only to entice more people, seems to be a form of entrapment in itself.

If the bad guy was taken down when the crime was committed or discovered, the others that get arrest later on, may not have gotten invovled with that activity had the origianl person been arrested to begin with.

reply to post by anon72


And it is done for, among other reason, to get the investigator notoriety and a promotion. The public safety is traded off for political pull and pay raises.

It is a disasterpiece of hypocrisy that they allow drug dealing to continue in order to cast a wider net. If you have the law, enforce it. If you don't enforce it, then get rid of the law.

The legal system is allowed to behave outside the law in order to "keep the public safety". Nauseating.

I'm not gonna lie to you. I was one of those people who executed S.W's on drug cases. Back when I did it, you couldn't convince me I was in the wrong. Everyone that I was going through that door (so-to-speak) after was considered a bad guy/target.

Now, the older I get, I look back thinking of those arrest that resulted from S/W's and really, I think you are probably correct in saying the bigger the hype created the more chance for promotions and the alike.

By the higher ups-for sure.

I'm just glad those days are over and I didn't get killed and I didn't kill anyone. Lucky me. )

reply to post by anon72


Brother, we all do some things in the line of duty that we reflect on later, and wonder about.

Great topic, and again thanks for bringing this out - we need to hear about crap like this.

reply to post by Animatrix


I agree.

Hey, why can't I give you/him a star? You "Star" area is missing. Odd.

Well, star anyway buddy.