Jamesb101.com

commentary on Politics and a little bit of everything else

From Senator Al Franken…….on how you don't have to be Lawyer to figure some things out………..

I just saw this over at mydd.com …..and it made me smile because everyone was making fun of Al Franken when he decided to run for the Senate…well, I don’t live in his state…but from this …He’d have my vote……….

Al Franken’s Explicit Language

by Charles Lemos, Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 02:03:25 AM EST

…… the Obama Justice Department [ is ] seeking renewal of three key provisions of the Patriot Act that are due to expire at the end of the year……….

The three powers up for renewal are, first, the Section 215 powers that allow the government to obtain literally any tangible thing held by a third party about you with a secret court order, and that court order does not have to be based on any wrongdoing on your part or any suspicion that you’ve done anything wrong. The other provision, number two, is Section 206 of the Patriot Act, which relates to John Doe roving wiretaps, which allows the FISA court to issue a secret order to follow people’s cell phones, from cell phone to cell phone, if they’re suspected of being involved in terrorism. And the third provision is known as the “lone wolf” provision, which allows a full array of searches to be issued by the court secretly, if someone is believed to be a potential threat.

Today Senator Franken took up the gauntlet in defense of our liberties using the some rather explicit language, that of The Constitution.

The story in the Washington Independent:

Just in case he wasn’t familiar with it, Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) decided to read the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution to David Kris, assistant attorney general of the Justice Department’s National Security Division, who was testifying to the Senate Judiciary Committee today to urge reauthorization of expiring provisions of the USA Patriot Act.

Franken, who opened by acknowledging that unlike most of his colleagues in the Senate, he’s not a lawyer, but according to his research “most Americans aren’t lawyers” either, said he’d also done research on the Patriot Act and in particular, the “roving wiretap” provision that allows the FBI to get a warrant to wiretap a an unnamed target and his or her various and changing cell phones, computers and other communication devices.

Noting that he received a copy of the Constitution when he was sworn in as a senator, he proceeded to read it to Kris, emphasizing this part: “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.”

“That’s pretty explicit language,” noted Franken, asking Kris how the “roving wiretap” provision of the Patriot Act can meet that requirement if it doesn’t require the government to name its target.

Kris looked flustered and mumbled that “this is surreal,” apparently referring to having to respond to Franken’s question. “I would defer to the other branch of government,” he said, referring to the courts, prompting Franken to interject: “I know what that is.”

Kris explained that the courts have held that the law’s requirements that the person be described, though not named, is sufficient to meet the demands of the Constitution. That did not appear to completely satisfy Franken’s concerns.


September 24, 2009 - Posted by | Law, Politics | , , , , , , ,

3 Comments »

  1. What is the usual penalty for wiretaps from private individuals??

    Comment by Tim Leal | September 24, 2009 | Reply

  2. TPL…I don’t understand the question?……..

    But I’m going to give it a try in relation to New York State……..

    Comment by jamesb101 | September 24, 2009 | Reply

  3. These are the appropriate statues for NY State which may, or may not be similar around the country….Please notice the last of the statues which absolve law enforcement agencies and officials of liability in the performance of their duties……..

    Section 250.45 Unlawful surveillance in the second degree.

    A person is guilty of unlawful surveillance in the second degree when:

    1. For his or her own, or another person`s amusement, entertainment, or profit, or for the purpose of degrading or abusing a person, he or she intentionally uses or installs, or permits the utilization or installation of an imaging device to surreptitiously view, broadcast or record a person dressing or undressing or the sexual or other intimate parts of such person at a place and time when such person has a reasonable expectation of privacy, without such person`s knowledge or consent; or

    2. For his or her own, or another person`s sexual arousal or sexual gratification, he or she intentionally uses or installs, or permits the utilization or installation of an imaging device to surreptitiously view, broadcast or record a person dressing or undressing or the sexual or other intimate parts of such person at a place and time when such person has a reasonable expectation of privacy, without such person`s knowledge or consent; or

    3. (a) For no legitimate purpose, he or she intentionally uses or installs, or permits the utilization or installation of an imaging device to surreptitiously view, broadcast or record a person in a bedroom, changing room, fitting room, restroom, toilet, bathroom, washroom, shower or any room assigned to guests or patrons in a motel, hotel or inn, without such person`s knowledge or consent.

    (b) For the purposes of this subdivision, when a person uses or installs, or permits the utilization or installation of an imaging device in a bedroom, changing room, fitting room, restroom, toilet, bathroom, washroom, shower or any room assigned to guests or patrons in a hotel, motel or inn, there is a rebuttable presumption that such person did so for no legitimate purpose; or

    4. Without the knowledge or consent of a person, he or she intentionally uses or installs, or permits the utilization or installation of an imaging device to surreptitiously view, broadcast or record, under the clothing being worn by such person, the sexual or other intimate parts of such person.

    Unlawful surveillance in the second degree is a class E felony.

    Section 250.50 Unlawful surveillance in the first degree.

    A person is guilty of unlawful surveillance in the first degree when he or she commits the crime of unlawful surveillance in the second degree and has been previously convicted within the past ten years of unlawful surveillance in the first or second degree.

    Unlawful surveillance in the first degree is a class D felony.

    Section 250.55 Dissemination of an unlawful surveillance image in the second degree.

    A person is guilty of dissemination of an unlawful surveillance image in the second degree when he or she, with knowledge of the unlawful conduct by which an image or images of the sexual or other intimate parts of another person or persons were obtained and such unlawful conduct would satisfy the essential elements of the crime of unlawful surveillance in the first or second degree, intentionally disseminates such image or images.

    Dissemination of an unlawful surveillance image in the second degree is a class A misdemeanor.

    Section 250.60 Dissemination of an unlawful surveillance image in the first degree.

    A person is guilty of dissemination of an unlawful surveillance image in the first degree when:

    1. He or she, with knowledge of the unlawful conduct by which an image or images of the sexual or other intimate parts of another person or persons were obtained and such unlawful conduct would satisfy the essential elements of the crime of unlawful surveillance in the first or second degree, sells or publishes such image or images; or

    2. Having created a surveillance image in violation of section 250.45 or 250.50 of this article, or in violation of the law in any other jurisdiction which includes all of the essential elements of either such crime, or having acted as an accomplice to such crime, or acting as an agent to the person who committed such crime, he or she intentionally disseminates such unlawfully created image; or

    3. He or she commits the crime of dissemination of an unlawful surveillance image in the second degree and has been previously convicted within the past ten years of dissemination of an unlawful surveillance image in the first or second degree.

    Dissemination of an unlawful surveillance image in the first degree is a class E felony.

    Section 250.65 Additional provisions.

    1. The provisions of sections 250.45, 250.50, 250.55 and 250.60 of this article do not apply with respect to any: (a) law enforcement personnel engaged in the conduct of their authorized duties; (b) security system wherein a written notice is conspicuously posted on the premises stating that a video surveillance system has been installed for the purpose of security; or (c) video surveillance devices installed in such a manner that their presence is clearly and immediately obvious.

    2. With respect to sections 250.55 and 250.60 of this article, the provisions of subdivision two of section 235.15 and subdivisions one and two of section 235.24 of this chapter shall apply.

    Comment by jamesb101 | September 24, 2009 | Reply


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: