Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Takket

(22,940 posts)
7. whelp... this should be dismissed in about 5 seconds.........
Mon Dec 13, 2021, 10:51 PM
Dec 2021
https://thefederalist.com/2019/12/06/the-feds-dont-need-to-tell-you-or-get-a-warrant-to-collect-your-emails-and-phone-records/

from 2019:

Americans began querying how Schiff could have obtained the phone call records for the report. Some speculated that a secret warrant had been sought for them, that someone at the carrier (AT&T) had leaked them, that the National Security Agency had been tasked with obtaining them, or that a federal agency had issued a “natsec” letter to acquire them for the intelligence committee.

In reality, the government can obtain these records without taking any such extraordinary measures — and no judge even need be involved for Congress to get them. It can simply send a subpoena to the carrier.

This seemingly astonishing explanation exists because under current law, these records are not protected by any warrant requirement. First, based on Supreme Court precedent, obtaining these records is not a “search” under the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures by the government.

In Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979), the court said Americans did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the information showing who they spoke to on the telephone because the phone company possessed that information. With no reasonable expectation of privacy in that information, the court concluded police didn’t need a warrant to obtain it.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Wait, they are saying there is a constitutional right to privacy Walleye Dec 2021 #1
I caught that too underpants Dec 2021 #3
Good. Glad I wasn't the only one. Too bad the Supremes don't listen Walleye Dec 2021 #5
The investigation has a lawful purpose & "peaceful, lawful, orderly and patriotic" it sure wasn't bucolic_frolic Dec 2021 #2
Shills for congress critters Fullduplexxx Dec 2021 #4
dumb legal question......... Takket Dec 2021 #6
You COULD, but as the post below yours says, it'll likely get tossed in a few minutes. oldsoftie Dec 2021 #21
whelp... this should be dismissed in about 5 seconds......... Takket Dec 2021 #7
Lol. Love it! Orrex Dec 2021 #10
Sweet!!!!!!!! Talitha Dec 2021 #13
Fuck 'em Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin Dec 2021 #8
The fire's getting hot, huh? tishaLA Dec 2021 #9
"If I'd known you were gonna catch me, I wouldn't have talked about it on my cell." Orrex Dec 2021 #11
What is it that you're so desperate to hide? sinkingfeeling Dec 2021 #12
How long before this is decided and the Committee gets the information? jalan48 Dec 2021 #14
Exactly. gab13by13 Dec 2021 #17
Our problem is that Democrat's could become the minority party in a little more than a year. jalan48 Dec 2021 #18
do the word treason hit home ! the noose is on the other neck now !!! monkeyman1 Dec 2021 #15
It is their strategy, Delay Delay Delay. gab13by13 Dec 2021 #16
We need to find out who is paying their lawyers (n/t) William Seger Dec 2021 #19
Fuck around find out... Historic NY Dec 2021 #20
When it comes to National Security Linda Ed Dec 2021 #22
Mulvaney berniesandersmittens Dec 2021 #23
Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Jan. 6 rally organizers s...»Reply #7