4th amendment bro.

if LEO cannot obtain a warrant they have no right to search.
period.

if there is justifiable grounds a warrant will be issued.
it's not like the burden of probable cause is so high that obtaining a warrant is preventing law enforcement from doing their job.

it's not like this was a ticking clock scenario where time was a critical factor and they were forced to act to prevent the loss of life.

My point is that cases should not be thrown out because the evidence was obtained illegally. The cases should continue and those who obtained the evidence illegally should also be prosecuted.
Evidence is evidence.

We can't even seem to prosecute cops that murder people, but I'm sure this idea will work well.

That's what happens in pariah countries where suspects are tortured to get confessions.

I prefer to live in a nation of law, where police has to observe the constitutional rights of suspects. Even if that means some people can get away with breaking the law.

If I understood the problem correctly, they have no evidence (because it was all "spoiled") so continuing the case would mean waiting for them to come back to the us and commit the crime again (or another crime, wtv)... I'm sure the FBI have better ways to spend their money.

So I found the agent responsible for the sting

I pity those who equate torture with cutting internet connections.

I would prefer to live in a nation where common sense prevails over law.

I pitty those who say it's at the discretion of authorities to violate the constituational rights of suspects.

Nothing is wrong with cutting internet connections. But doing that to enter the premisis to gather evidence because you can't get a search warrant is plain wrong.

I agree it's wrong, but using the fact that it's wrong to argue that the case should be thrown out is also wrong.

Which is why this case it being highlighted as a potential test case.
Unfortunately, when you get a test case, most people completely misinterpret it apply the results poorly.

Nice analogy.
I'm kinda surprised Oscar Pistorius didn't use that defence. "I shot Reeva in order to get an ambulance for her".

That's exactly why it should be thrown out.

Your logic seems to be as long as something criminal was occurring, then no matter how evidence was obtained it should still be admissible. What if these same tactics were used and it was determined that there wasn't any illegal activity?

There has to be laws with expectations and limitations of what is acceptable in the pursuit of obtaining evidence of the existence of a crime. If it is determined that evidence is obtained in violation of these guidelines it must be thrown out to preserve the integrity of the law and to protect those that deserve presumption of innocence.

Which camp do you fall into then?

1. Phua is innocent?
2. Phua is guilty but there's nothing that can be done about it now?

IMO both are absurd and if current laws allow them both to be absurd, the laws are absurd.

How would those that did the illegal search be prosecuted if they never found anything criminal? Its not like the FBI would turn themselves in. This is the very reason the evidence needs to be thrown out. The only way to deter this activity is by removing its chance of success.

I have no opinion on innocent or guilty simply because I am missing a great deal of facts.

What made the FBI suspect them in the first place? Was it simple assumption they did it in Asia so they will do it here?

For illegal gambling charges shouldn't there be an exchange of money? How was this being processed?

Were they using the US casinos to place bets taken online?

Are there other facts outside the search in question that shows illegal activity?

Was the information gathered in the illegal search enough to prove guilt even if it is admissible?

I just don't know the facts, so I am unsure of guilt or innocence. In the USA we operate with the assumption everyone is innocent until proven guilty. I disagree with the tactics taken to try to allege a crime.

I do support a guilty criminal getting off the crime if the evidence to convict him was grossly obtained illegally. That does allow some to not be punished for their actions, but it also protects the innocent from unjust witch hunts.

how many super high rollers are going to avoid going to caesers after this kind of dumb on caesers part should lose alot of business

That's an unintended consequence which has to be of significant concern to Caesars brass. I've examined the court exhibits at length and as I wrote about in my pieces at FD, there's no indication of whether or not the defendants and their extended group have made good on the entirety of the $93 million in gambling markers Caesars extended to them before the searches and arrests. There is also a "Far East marketing lady" (her name is in the stuff but I won't put it here) who authorized some unusual expenditures, including the tech set-up, and who one would think just has to be on a bit of a hot seat.

^ is this all public somewhere, can u linnk it or pm it

$93m in relation to this trip, or that's how much they extended over a long period of time??

WOW +1 More great work by Haley Hintze. Thank you great read

Police work is really simple, not easy, but simple. You do everything you can to build a case within the framework of the law. When you determine that tapping a telephone call or searching someone's residence or office will help make your case, you bring the evidence you have collected to a non adversarial party, i.e. the Judge, and explain that the search is justified by probable cause. If your argument passes legal muster in the eyes of that judge, you get your warrant. Easy peasy japaneseee. It's not like there aren't a lot of conservative, law and order judges, who bend over backward for Law Enforcement. They usually go out of their way to sign off. LE not taking this step, and walking such a razor edge, is an indication they didn't do their work well enough to sell it.

It is my strong opinion that Law Enforcement should not be allowed to dress up in costumes and enter private residences to secretly troll for evidence of crimes being committed, without express permission from a Judge. As a relatively conservative Republican, I don't think that is a very radical opinion. At least it wasn't before the Bush/Obama years.

+1

As an officer of the law, you follow the law. How is that even complicated? As mentioned before, it doesn't currently seem to be hard to get warrants. The law isn't an impediment to law enforcement, it is the actual reason they exist.

for example one where government officals may do anything they wish to obtain evidence? How about if they couldn't prove that the bad guys were bad enough, so they make **** up? Common sense says bad guys should be in jail, right?

it's funny Doug. I have voted for two Bushes, Dole, McCain and a Romney. It wasn't until I realized that Obama, really to my shock, intended to make the 911 era security measures part of out permanent government. Even though I didn't vote for him, I was relieved when he was elected because I thought he was a typical Liberal Democrat who would knee jerk strike down anti civil liberties legislation. Yet he didn't, he expanded the government's encroachment and privacy rights, and solidified the measures GWB put in place. All without a peep from the mainstream press, who would have been all over a republican president with the same policies.

If you remember the Robert Bork Supreme Court hearings, one of the major issues was the right of the Federal government to monitor citizens public library records. Bork's support for this right actually was one of the sticking points that blocked him from the court. I joined the ACLU right after the first time I saw the sign posted in the library that due to the patriot act, all materials I check out will be cataloged by the government. It is like noone, on either side of the debate, cares about this kind of stuff anymore.

It is especially curious that more conservatives aren't outraged by this kind of stuff. After all, the main theme of their campaigns is that government can't be trusted!!!! Yet a lot of conservatives are happy to award more and more power to non elected government officials, many of whom are motivated by career and political considerations.

It is very important that the Government lose this case.

You do, the problem you're running into is that successive UK governments have established themselves as the sole arbiter of common sense.

Not sure if this has been answered yet as making my way through the thread but my understanding is the illegality is if there is a "rake" involved.

I can bet you a million dollars that the Colts beat the Giants on MNF and that is legal but if someone was a middle man and took 5% of the bet then that would be illegal. Same with a home poker game. Legal as long as there is no rake.

True in a lot of jurisdictions with regard to rakeless poker. Absolutely untrue for interstate transmission of sports gambling information regardless of vig amount.

PeteBlow: terrible troll, or just terrible ITT? the evidence is right here on this page, you be the judge.