Of the Bill of Rights?

[logroller]

All the officers know is a couple made enough of a disturbance a neighbor felt compelled to call the police, and they're legally bound to investigate; inhibiting that investigation is suspect. Truth is they could have easily avoided the search had the husband offered to step outside. Again, be reasonable-- officers respond accordingly.

[LuvRPgrl]

I agree, the courts wrong on this. But denying the police entrance can escalate real fast. Best to let them do their thing, then sue the pants off them. If your doing nothing wrong you don't need to worry, and if you are you still might beat it because of illegal search. They can enter but they can't search without a warrant or permission.

"If you are doing nothing wrong, you have nothing to worry about" is simply not true.

Cops have huge egos, and hate being wrong. It is extremely common for them to lie, plant false evidence and carry throw away guns. They often destroy the lifes of completely innocent people.

[logroller]

"If you are doing nothing wrong, you have nothing to worry about" is simply not true.

Cops have huge egos, and hate being wrong. It is extremely common for them to lie, plant false evidence and carry throw away guns. They often destroy the lifes of completely innocent people.

Completely innocent people??? nobody's perfect. You're right though, cops have huge egos, but I think you overestimate how many cops are crooked. They might purposefully include certain facts and omit others, but that's nothing most anybody hasn't done before, and it doesn't mean the evidence shown is less valid. Take this case, these two were a public nuisance, that's why the cops were called; not because they were innocent and the cops decided to make a case. I mean, I'd rather see 10 guilty persons go free to save one who's innocent from punishment, but I duly recognize the criminals enjoy the same rights as law-abiding citizens, making the job of law enforcement infinitely difficult. I don't think I need a statistic to prove criminals will break far more laws to conceal a crime than an officer would to get a conviction. My experience with law enforcement has been true to reason, treat them as I wish to be treated. I'm not gonna make their jobs easier, but I'm not gonna make it harder either. These officers were doing their job to keep the peace, dude made it harder-- he escalated the situation and he went to jail for it. Sucks for him I guess, but next time don't be an a-hole.

[Gaffer]

"If you are doing nothing wrong, you have nothing to worry about" is simply not true.

Cops have huge egos, and hate being wrong. It is extremely common for them to lie, plant false evidence and carry throw away guns. They often destroy the lifes of completely innocent people.

It's not extremely common for them to lie. I have known many cops, having been one myself. Your painting everyone with the same brush. I have known egotistical cops and a few I would call crooked. They don't carry throw down guns or evidence to be planted. If they were doing that it would be against a known criminal that they really wanted to get off the street, not because they wanted to make a bust. And Joe Patrol isn't about to do that.

Your right on a lot of things in these thread but your off base on this one.

I think the court in this case is wrong, but then I think most of the courts have been caught up in their own egotistical ideology and think they know better than everyone, including the legislators.

According to the court the cop has the right to go into a residence. He does not have a right to search the residence.

[revelarts]

He should not have resisted. not because he had no right to keep unauthorized people from his home. he did. But because today the police can conscrew a dirty look from you into an major offense to their authority, or even portray it as threat to their life.

The police had no probable cause to enter. "Disturbing the peace" hadn't happen yet in the house.( And Disturbing the peace is such a terrible crime )
They were going into their own place.

What was the crime that precipitated the cop going in?
Preemptive strike police work for disturbing the peace ...inside? "we are coming in"?

We are used to the police TAKING more authority than they actually have. And many police are used to being respected in their over steps and are put off by people that maintain there rights.

Until this ruling the police did not have the authority to PUSH into the house without a warrant or probable cause. The cop crossed the line first. now instead of making it clear where the line is for the police they've, by court fiat, taken citizens rights to live peaceably in his home without concern of attack from the police.

As Luvrpgl said If --your doing nothing wrong is not a protection-- once your in the presence of the police. " treat the cops well and hope for best" is not what we are paying police for. Police should be FOLLOWING the law as well as we and treating everyone with as much respect as they would like to receive and not be giving tit for tat when "offended". (especially if THEY broke the law 1st.) That's what they would recommend to others. they should be to be consistent examples of it.
Many police are great folks but as a citizen you have zero idea which ones. And which one of the thousands of laws they might toss in your direction as you try to go about your business. God forbid you fit a profile.

bad unconstitutional ruling here. Police wouldn't crumble to dust if the ruling was reversed. There's more problems going to come this than if they'd ruled with the constitution.

[logroller]

He should not have resisted. not because he had no right to keep unauthorized people from his home. he did. But because today the police can conscrew a dirty look from you into an major offense to their authority, or even portray it as threat to their life.

The police had no probable cause to enter. "Disturbing the peace" hadn't happen yet in the house.( And Disturbing the peace is such a terrible crime )
They were going into their own place.

What was the crime that precipitated the cop going in?
Preemptive strike police work for disturbing the peace ...inside? "we are coming in"?

We are used to the police TAKING more authority than they actually have. And many police are used to being respected in their over steps and are put off by people that maintain there rights.

Until this ruling the police did not have the authority to PUSH into the house without a warrant or probable cause. The cop crossed the line first. now instead of making it clear where the line is for the police they've, by court fiat, taken citizens rights to live peaceably in his home without concern of attack from the police.

As Luvrpgl said If --your doing nothing wrong is not a protection-- once your in the presence of the police. " treat the cops well and hope for best" is not what we are paying police for. Police should be FOLLOWING the law as well as we and treating everyone with as much respect as they would like to receive and not be giving tit for tat when "offended". (especially if THEY broke the law 1st.) That's what they would recommend to others. they should be to be consistent examples of it.
Many police are great folks but as a citizen you have zero idea which ones. And which one of the thousands of laws they might toss in your direction as you try to go about your business. God forbid you fit a profile.

bad unconstitutional ruling here. Police wouldn't crumble to dust if the ruling was reversed. There's more problems going to come this than if they'd ruled with the constitution.

UH...no. These people let their personal situation affect others, that not a private matter. Perhaps you've not been awakened by "put the knife down", I have, and I can tell you it's anything but a private matter. Don't judge a situation by reason of law-abiding means--its not realistic.

[LuvRPgrl]

Completely innocent people??? nobody's perfect. You're right though, cops have huge egos, but I think you overestimate how many cops are crooked. They might purposefully include certain facts and omit others, but that's nothing most anybody hasn't done before, and it doesn't mean the evidence shown is less valid. Take this case, these two were a public nuisance, that's why the cops were called; not because they were innocent and the cops decided to make a case. I mean, I'd rather see 10 guilty persons go free to save one who's innocent from punishment, but I duly recognize the criminals enjoy the same rights as law-abiding citizens, making the job of law enforcement infinitely difficult. I don't think I need a statistic to prove criminals will break far more laws to conceal a crime than an officer would to get a conviction. My experience with law enforcement has been true to reason, treat them as I wish to be treated. I'm not gonna make their jobs easier, but I'm not gonna make it harder either. These officers were doing their job to keep the peace, dude made it harder-- he escalated the situation and he went to jail for it. Sucks for him I guess, but next time don't be an a-hole.

It is generally assumed that if you refuse to let cops search your house w/o a warrant, then you must be guilty. By that logic, innocent people dont have a right to privacy, after all, if they are innocent they will let the cops search their house.

I say, "TOTALLY FUCK THAT SHIT" I will NEVER allow a cop into my house if I don't have to unless their is a criminal in the house or if he is chasing one who \went through my house.

As for how many crooked cops there are, I have no idea, but I do know that alot of the straight cops have to back up the lies of the dirty ones even if they dont really want to, otherwise they get a bad reputation amongst their peers and the time might come when the straight cop needs some backup but won't get it due to that reputation.

Do you remember the Lacrosse players that were accused of gang raping some girl, I think it was at Duke University, and even when it became completely clear that the accusation was bogus, the DA continued to press the issue against the lacrosse players.
The lacrosse team was disbanded, the reputation of the players was irrevocably damaged, they were put through pure hell for a number of months, and yet they were completely innocent of the charges, but because of asshole cops and DA, they continued to try and convict them.

When it comes down to a cop needing help in dealing with a criminal, I will and do give them all the support I can.

I was working next to a burger king one day, and this guy who was high on meth punched the plastic cover on a newspaper rack and broke it so he could grab a paper for free, which he did. He then went into the Burger King and got a cup without paying for it, and filled it up with soda.
The BK employees called the cops, but by the time the cop got there, the guy had walked down to the corner light and went left on the street and out of site.
The cop told me he couldnt arrest him because the crime was a misdemeaner, and unless the cop witnesses it himself, he cant arrest him. But he told me I could make a citizens arrest, but since the guy had already left we probably wouldnt be able to find him.
I told the cop that I watched where the guy went and that I know where he is. SO the cop asked if I was willing to make a citizens arrest and I said yes.
So, I got in his car and directed him to where the guy went, and the cop pulled up along side the guy. I got out of the cop car, and the officer cuffed the guy and put him in the back seat. The cop then told me I have to tell the guy, "Im making a citizens arrest on you"

So, I leaned towards the open window and told the guy, "sir, Im placing you under citizens arrest because you are a fucked up asshole loser and I want you to spend some time in jail". The cop then drove off and I dont know what happened after that.

A few months later I made another citizens arrest in the same area, so, I am definately in favor of catching and convicting criminals and I support the death penalty

However, since the cops are suppose to be protecting us, if they in fact lie or do anything else to hassle or try to convict an innocent person, then they should get a much harsher punishment for perjury than a regular citizen would.

I know for a fact, an absolute fact, that I have personally witnessed cops lieing in court at least 5 times. One of the cases was a supposed attempted murder of a police officer, which the guy DID NOt do, BUT HE WAS CONVICTED BECAUSE OF THE LIES OF THE COPS.

I have served on juries before, and have been a jury foreman, and when Im on a jury, unlike others, I dont automatically believe that the cops have a higher liklihood of telling the truth.

But the bottom line is that if a cop doesnt have a right to enter a persons house, and the homeowner denies the cop entrance, then the cop should NOT suddenly become extra hostile to the homeowner just because he was exercising his constitutional right to privacy or any other right for that matter.

I am saying all of this in regards to cops and criminals and alleged criminals in general and not towards this specific case.

And I do know for a fact that cops have on occasion that I witnessed, destoryed peoples lives when in fact they were innocent of the alleged crime, simply because the cop lied because he didnt want to look bad by having made a false accusation.

I recently was working on my bicycle brakes, and was testing them by riding it down the alley and back. On the way back, a female sheriff asked me why I was riding back and forth past this crime scene, and I said I wasnt, I only rode by one time and then turned to go back home.
Then one of the cops walked towards me and grabbed my arm, if that had been anybody other than a cop I would have leveled the guy, but because he was a cop, he was allowed to go outside of the law, and there wasnt a damn thing I could do about it.

[revelarts]

Tennessee police work.
-Cash Trap- West bound HWY 40

Pull you over on the highway if you look like you might have cash.
Search the car.
Take the cash.
And not give it back unless you prove it yours in court.

And fight with other cops over what looks like might be fat stops.

No charges, no trial, no nothing.

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/WTeH9D_tN-k?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/WTeH9D_tN-k?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></object>

it's hard to talk about this this.

but another reason some drugs should be legal. takes away excuses for crap like this.

[revelarts]

sneak and peak warrents on the rise,
for your safety.
Ozombie Bin laden is gonna get us if the police can't do anything to stop um.

ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. -- A special type of government search warrant that allows authorities to search homes without informing the owner for months is becoming more common, Target 7 has learned.

Imagine someone walking through your neighborhood, coming into your home and rifling through your intimate belongings.

“(They) search through your home, your dresser drawers, your computer files,” Peter Simonson, with ACLU New Mexico, said.

These search warrants don’t involve knocking on doors or any type of warning at all. Delayed-notice search warrants, or "sneak-and-peek" warrants, allow federal agents to enter your home without telling you they’ve been there until months later.

The warrants have always been around, but their use has spiked since the revamped Patriot Act in 2005. The number of delayed-notice search warrants spiked nationally from nearly 700 in fiscal year 2007 to close to 2,000 in 2009.

Upwards of 200 approved during that same three-year stretch came out of the 10th Circuit Court, which covers a handful of states including New Mexico. The majority of those delayed search warrants aren’t even for terrorism-related cases. According to the U.S. Department of Justice’s figures, the majority of the warrants are for drug cases.

“While billed as an anti-terror tool, (a sneak-and-peek warrant) had no requirements on it that it precluded it from being used in standard criminal investigations,” Simonson said.

The warrants are so secret that the New Mexico U.S. Attorney’s Office wouldn’t go on record with Target 7 about them.

The ACLU said it expects delayed-notice warrant numbers to keep growing each year as long as certain parts of the Patriot Act remain on the books.

Read more: http://www.koat.com/news/27922147/de...#ixzz1MeWmiDP9

[logroller]

I am saying all of this in regards to cops and criminals and alleged criminals in general and not towards this specific case.

OK, fair enough, we all deserve a turn.

[LuvRPgrl]

Tennessee police work.
-Cash Trap- West bound HWY 40

Pull you over on the highway if you look like you might have cash.
Search the car.
Take the cash.
And not give it back unless you prove it yours in court.

And fight with other cops over what looks like might be fat stops.

No charges, no trial, no nothing.

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/WTeH9D_tN-k?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/WTeH9D_tN-k?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></object>

it's hard to talk about this this.

but another reason some drugs should be legal. takes away excuses for crap like this.

Not to mention the DUI checkpoints they have. If it is truly to catch drunk drivers, then once they see the person isnt drinnking and driving, they should let them go, but noooooooooooo, they run warrant checks on them, run the plates to see if the car is stolen, ask for proof of insurance, your drivers license,,,,,,,they are simply big fat liars

our freedoms are being slowly eroded day by day, until we will be living in a virtual police state where only the criminals have rights

OK, fair enough, we all deserve a turn.

sorry, those cant be my boots, I wear a size 14, not to mention I wear shoes/boots about once a month, and never, never wear brown

It's not extremely common for them to lie. I have known many cops, having been one myself. Your painting everyone with the same brush. I have known egotistical cops and a few I would call crooked. They don't carry throw down guns or evidence to be planted. If they were doing that it would be against a known criminal that they really wanted to get off the street, not because they wanted to make a bust. And Joe Patrol isn't about to do that.

Your right on a lot of things in these thread but your off base on this one.

I think the court in this case is wrong, but then I think most of the courts have been caught up in their own egotistical ideology and think they know better than everyone, including the legislators.

According to the court the cop has the right to go into a residence. He does not have a right to search the residence.

I truly appreciate your service. I also respect your inside perspective, but still:

The Pima County Sheriff's Department initially claimed (PDF) Guerena fired his weapon at the SWAT team. They now acknowledge that not only did he not fire, the safety on his gun was still activated when he was killed. Guerena had no prior criminal record, and the police found nothing illegal in his home. After ushering out his wife and son, the police refused to allow paramedics to access Guerena for more than hour, leaving the young father to bleed to death, alone, in his own home.

I can now report a number of new details that further call into question the police account of what happened that morning. But first some context:

The Pima County Sheriff's Office has now changed its story several times over the last few weeks. They have issued a press release (PDF) scolding the media and critics for questioning the legality of the raid, the department's account of what happened, and the department's ability to fairly investigate its own officers. They have obtained a court order sealing the search warrants and police affidavits that led to the raids, and they're now refusing any further comment on the case at all. When I contacted Public Information Officer Jason Ogan with some questions, he replied via email that the department won't be releasing any more information. On Saturday, Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik told Arizona Daily Star columnist Josh Brodesky that he may never release the search warrants and police affidavits. Dupnik rose to national prominence earlier this year after claiming combative political rhetoric contributed to Jared Loughner killing six people and wounding 19 others, including Rep. Gabielle Giffords, last January.

And that vid that rev man put up is absolutely disgusting on soooo many levels.
OFFICER,"Well,, if you got this money legally, you can hire an attorney and go to court and prove it"
OHHHHHH, wait, we just took all your money, guess you cant hire an attorney. I guess you will have to represent yourself,
but you know what they say, "only a fool has himself as a client"

[Gaffer]

I truly appreciate your service. I also respect your inside perspective, but still:

The Pima County Sheriff's Department initially claimed (PDF) Guerena fired his weapon at the SWAT team. They now acknowledge that not only did he not fire, the safety on his gun was still activated when he was killed. Guerena had no prior criminal record, and the police found nothing illegal in his home. After ushering out his wife and son, the police refused to allow paramedics to access Guerena for more than hour, leaving the young father to bleed to death, alone, in his own home.

I can now report a number of new details that further call into question the police account of what happened that morning. But first some context:

The Pima County Sheriff's Office has now changed its story several times over the last few weeks. They have issued a press release (PDF) scolding the media and critics for questioning the legality of the raid, the department's account of what happened, and the department's ability to fairly investigate its own officers. They have obtained a court order sealing the search warrants and police affidavits that led to the raids, and they're now refusing any further comment on the case at all. When I contacted Public Information Officer Jason Ogan with some questions, he replied via email that the department won't be releasing any more information. On Saturday, Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik told Arizona Daily Star columnist Josh Brodesky that he may never release the search warrants and police affidavits. Dupnik rose to national prominence earlier this year after claiming combative political rhetoric contributed to Jared Loughner killing six people and wounding 19 others, including Rep. Gabielle Giffords, last January.

And that vid that rev man put up is absolutely disgusting on soooo many levels.
OFFICER,"Well,, if you got this money legally, you can hire an attorney and go to court and prove it"
OHHHHHH, wait, we just took all your money, guess you cant hire an attorney. I guess you will have to represent yourself,
but you know what they say, "only a fool has himself as a client"

It's always important to look at the department overall as well as the individuals involved. I know how sheriff's dept's work. They are extremely political and nepotistic. In the case of Pima county, with the egotistical liberal sheriff the actions you describe are not all that surprising to me. It sounds like a case where the state police should be stepping in and conducting investigations and the whole matter be taken out of the sheriff's hands entirely. Maybe Arizona doesn't work like that, but most states do. I would be questioning why the state hasn't taken up the investigation into all of this.

I smell conspiracy to cover up and maybe a bit of nepotism protection as well. Cops will stick together and there is a us verses them mentality among many of them. Put the wrong ones in charge and you can have serious consequences.

This is an interesting case that deserves following. Keep us informed if there's anything new, and especially if the state steps in.

Liberals are dangerous at any level of government.

[LuvRPgrl]

It's always important to look at the department overall as well as the individuals involved. I know how sheriff's dept's work. They are extremely political and nepotistic. In the case of Pima county, with the egotistical liberal sheriff the actions you describe are not all that surprising to me. It sounds like a case where the state police should be stepping in and conducting investigations and the whole matter be taken out of the sheriff's hands entirely. Maybe Arizona doesn't work like that, but most states do. I would be questioning why the state hasn't taken up the investigation into all of this.

I smell conspiracy to cover up and maybe a bit of nepotism protection as well. Cops will stick together and there is a us verses them mentality among many of them. Put the wrong ones in charge and you can have serious consequences.

This is an interesting case that deserves following. Keep us informed if there's anything new, and especially if the state steps in.

Liberals are dangerous at any level of government.

I get kinda weird sometimes. I think cops should receive harsher punishment than civilians, IF...........it is proven they have committed an offence without any doubt whatsoever.
I support the death penalty, but only when there is 100% certainty the person did it, like Jeffry Dohmer

When they had that hollywood shootout years back, and the two punks had body armor on, and were stanging in the open firing bullets that would pierce a bullet proof vest,

one of them was shot and wounded and bleeding. The officers did not allow paramedics to attend to him for an hour or two, I personally think they did it just so he would bleed to death, which is what he did, now that I ACTUALLY SUPPORTED, LET THE SON OF A BITCH DIE. There was no doubt whatsoever, that this guy was shooting at unarmed civilians and trying to murder cops

[Gaffer]

I get kinda weird sometimes. I think cops should receive harsher punishment than civilians, IF...........it is proven they have committed an offence without any doubt whatsoever.
I support the death penalty, but only when there is 100% certainty the person did it, like Jeffry Dohmer

When they had that hollywood shootout years back, and the two punks had body armor on, and were stanging in the open firing bullets that would pierce a bullet proof vest,

one of them was shot and wounded and bleeding. The officers did not allow paramedics to attend to him for an hour or two, I personally think they did it just so he would bleed to death, which is what he did, now that I ACTUALLY SUPPORTED, LET THE SON OF A BITCH DIE. There was no doubt whatsoever, that this guy was shooting at unarmed civilians and trying to murder cops

I'm with you on that. And I agree. A cop that does wrong should get a much harsher sentence. The hollywood shoot out was a clear case of being justified in letting him bleed out. I've seen the actual footage of that shoot out. The pima case tho is suspicious too me. The old cop in me says "somethin' ain't right".

[revelarts]

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/fkR1uGSqWz0?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/fkR1uGSqWz0?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></object>

Rand Paul Tried to Amend the patriot act.

Tired to add amendments that would help protect the 2nd amendment as well

Senator on the Intel committe says that there are SECRET interpretations of the the patriot act that the justice dept uses.
do you think they follow the constitution more closely or less?

OsamaBinZombie gonna get us, if you don't give up your rights.

I'm almost numb with frustration from this type of news.
the country in a heap a trouble.

....You think you understand how the Patriot Act allows the government to spy on its citizens. Sen. Ron Wyden says it’s worse than you know.

Congress is set to reauthorize three controversial provisions of the surveillance law as early as Thursday. Wyden (D-Oregon) says that powers they grant the government on their face, the government applies a far broader legal interpretation — an interpretation that the government has conveniently classified, so it cannot be publicly assessed or challenged. But one prominent Patriot-watcher asserts that the secret interpretation empowers the government to deploy ”dragnets” for massive amounts of information on private citizens; the government portrays its data-collection efforts much differently.

“We’re getting to a gap between what the public thinks the law says and what the American government secretly thinks the law says,” Wyden told Danger Room in an interview in his Senate office. “When you’ve got that kind of a gap, you’re going to have a problem on your hands.”

What exactly does Wyden mean by that? As a member of the intelligence committee, he laments that he can’t precisely explain without disclosing classified information. But one component of the Patriot Act in particular gives him immense pause: the so-called “business-records provision,” which empowers the FBI to get businesses, medical offices, banks and other organizations to turn over any “tangible things” it deems relevant to a security investigation.

“It is fair to say that the business-records provision is a part of the Patriot Act that I am extremely interested in reforming,” Wyden says. “I know a fair amount about how it’s interpreted, and I am going to keep pushing, as I have, to get more information about how the Patriot Act is being interpreted declassified. I think the public has a right to public debate about it.”

That’s why Wyden and his colleague Sen. Mark Udall offered an amendment on Tuesday to the Patriot Act reauthorization.

The amendment, first reported by Marcy Wheeler, blasts the administration for “secretly reinterpret[ing] public laws and statutes.” It would compel the Attorney General to “publicly disclose the United States Government’s official interpretation of the USA Patriot Act.” And, intriguingly, it refers to “intelligence-collection authorities” embedded in the Patriot Act that the administration briefed the Senate about in February.

Wyden says he “can’t answer” any specific questions about how the government thinks it can use the Patriot Act. That would risk revealing classified information — something Wyden considers an abuse of government secrecy. He believes the techniques themselves should stay secret, but the rationale for using their legal use under Patriot ought to be disclosed.

“I draw a sharp line between the secret interpretation of the law, which I believe is a growing problem, and protecting operations and methods in the intelligence area, which have to be protected,” he says....

The FBI deferred comment on any secret interpretation of the Patriot Act to the Justice Department. The Justice Department said it wouldn’t have any comment beyond a bit of March congressional testimony from its top national security official, Todd Hinnen, who presented the type of material collected as far more individualized and specific: “driver’s license records, hotel records, car-rental records, apartment-leasing records, credit card records, and the like.”

But that’s not what Udall sees. He warned in a Tuesday statement about the government’s “unfettered” access to bulk citizen data, like “a cellphone company’s phone records.” In a Senate floor speech on Tuesday, Udall urged Congress to restrict the Patriot Act’s business-records seizures to “terrorism investigations” — something the ostensible counterterrorism measure has never required in its nearly 10-year existence.....

For now, Wyden’s considering his options ahead of the Patriot Act vote on Thursday. He wants to compel as much disclosure as he can on the secret interpretation, arguing that a shadow broadening of the Patriot Act sets a dangerous precedent.

“I’m talking about instances where the government is relying on secret interpretations of what the law says without telling the public what those interpretations are,” Wyden says, “and the reliance on secret interpretations of the law is growing.”

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011...t-patriot-act/