From selena Mon Apr 17 13:35:59 1995 Received: (from selena@localhost) by eff.org (8.6.10/8.6.6) id NAA17713; Mon, 17 Apr 1995 13:35:57 -0400 Date: Mon, 17 Apr 1995 13:35:57 -0400 (EDT) From: Selena Sol To: David Johnson , Shari Steele , Apparattus Norvegicus cc: Selena Sol Subject: Don't know if this is for real but... Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: RO X-Status: ----forwarded from EFF Compuserve Forum---- Saw this in my new PC World issue--- " House Bill 666 : Exculsionary Reform Act of 1995 Goal: Repeal 4th Amendment provision requiring court supervision of search warrants used by officials Status: Passed the House, expected to pass the Senate Likely Impact: Gut 4th Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizures." From PC World -James F. Emge 76043.2017@compuserve.com ________________________________________________________________________________ Gary Brown replied 70003.1215@compuserve.com That's basically true, although it has nothing to do with court supervision of search warrants. H.R. 666 says two things: (1) If evidence is obtained in violation of the fourth amendment, but "the search or seizure was carried out in circumstances justifying an objectively reasonable belief that it was in conformity with the fourth amendment," then the fourth amendment may not be used as grounds to exclude the evidence. In particular, if the evidence was obtained "pursuant to and within the scope of a warrant," then the evidence is admissible; it cannot be excluded on the grounds of violating the fourth amendment. (2) In the past, you could argue that evidence should be excluded on the basis that it was obtained in violation of a statute, administrative rule or regulation, or rule of procedure. That's changed in two ways. First, it's now excludable only if it was a violation of a statute that explicitly says that a violation makes the evidence inadmissible, or if the Supreme Court makes a rule that says it's inadmissible. Second, even in those cases, the evidence is still admissible if "the search or seizure was carried out in circumstances justifying an objectively reasonable belief that the search or seizure was in conformity with the statute, administrative rule or regulation, or rule of procedure, the violation of which [would otherwise have] occasioned its being excludable." The only exceptions are IRS and BATF, which aren't allowed to take advantage of the new law. ________________________________________________________________________________ James 76043.2017@compuserve.com replied >> The only exceptions are IRS and BATF, << I thought the IRS was exempt from the 4th since the Civil War ? What do you think HB 666 means as far as online use, and Exon's 314 also ? After all People think there aren't enough cops around when they the People are in trouble, and too many cops around when the People want to be scofflaws. ________________________________________________________________________________ Gary Brown 70003.1215@compuserve.com wrote: I don't know what the IRS's relationship with the 4th amendment is. I'd guess that H.R.666 might make it easier to do questionable wiretaps, or pursue things like "Who reads messages on such-and-such a newsgroup or forum?" and then search those persons' homes. ________________________________________________________________________________