The system of Child Welfare is out of control. Children are beingtaken from good families.

Ronald Van Dyne, a former COP is sitting on here
trying to justify violating the parents rights
"for the good of the child".

You DO know that high courts have quashed that right?

Of course you do, because every cop should know very
well that the ends do NOT justify the means, even
when you pit one citizens rights against anothers or many.

When you were a cop, if the town drunk told you that
some kid was being held in a basement dungeon
in town, did you go barging in like Geraldo into Capone's vault?

And if you did hear a child crying that turns out to
be a television program, did you decide that
the child was in IMMINENT DANGER and go
barging in without a search warrant?

And when you figure out that the initial call
that got you inside was bogus, you looked around
for other things to complain about right?

What's wrong with this picture?

Tell me Ron, HOW LONG was your career as an LEO?

"Greegor" wrote in message
oups.com...
Ronald Van Dyne, a former COP is sitting on here
trying to justify violating the parents rights
"for the good of the child".

Are you of the opion that the parents rights are more important in the eyes
of the law than the childs gregg?

You DO know that high courts have quashed that right?

Limited gregg, not quashed.

Of course you do, because every cop should know very
well that the ends do NOT justify the means, even
when you pit one citizens rights against anothers or many.

Ahh, so you are unsure of the answer to my question. I understand.

When you were a cop, if the town drunk told you that
some kid was being held in a basement dungeon
in town, did you go barging in like Geraldo into Capone's vault?

I didn't usually have sledge hammers and drills in the patrol car.

As to the rest of your question gregg, hmmm lets see. Knowing that he is
the town drunk I can also assume that I know him fairly well, right?
Therefore we can also assume that I know if he is a credible individual,
drunk or sober. I should also know if he has a history of telling whoppers
or not and if he has access to the area he is reporting as a "basement
dungeon". Given all these things gregg, it would be a judgment call on the
part of the officer in question. IF the drunk does not tell lies, has
access to the area in question, and in the past has a favorable record with
my fellow police officers for conduct, I would say that investigating his
concerns would be a reasonable action.

Being the town drunk does not imply that he is an unreliable witness gregg,
only that he likes his beer. The answer to your question is far more
complicated than you think, which is why I was a cop and you were not.

And if you did hear a child crying that turns out to
be a television program, did you decide that
the child was in IMMINENT DANGER and go
barging in without a search warrant?

Barging? Not likely.

And when you figure out that the initial call
that got you inside was bogus, you looked around
for other things to complain about right?

Plain sight rule. If I go looking for kids in danger but find a kilo of
coke sitting on the kitchen table I dont just walk out gregg.

What's wrong with this picture?

Whats wrong is that as usual you have no idea what you are talking about.
But not to worry, we are use to that.

Tell me Ron, HOW LONG was your career as an LEO?

A bit longer than you have been freeloading off of Lisa. The difference is
that I am no longer in law enforcement, and you are still her resident couch
potato. So you are catching up.

Ron

On Mar 17, 7:42 am, "Ron" wrote:
"Greegor" wrote in message

oups.com...

Ronald Van Dyne, a former COP is sitting on here
trying to justify violating the parents rights
"for the good of the child".

Are you of the opion that the parents rights are more important in the eyes
of the law than the childs gregg?

You DO know that high courts have quashed that right?

Limited gregg, not quashed.

Can you use the protection of the child with no probable cause
to violate the parents rights against unreasonable search?

Is that the "limitation" Ron?

The absolute upholding of the 4th Amendment and
requirement of serious "Probable Cause"?

Is that a "limitation" Ron?


Of course you do, because every cop should know very
well that the ends do NOT justify the means, even
when you pit one citizens rights against anothers or many.

Ahh, so you are unsure of the answer to my question. I understand.

Do you?

When you were a cop, if the town drunk told you that
some kid was being held in a basement dungeon
in town, did you go barging in like Geraldo into Capone's vault?

I didn't usually have sledge hammers and drills in the patrol car.

As to the rest of your question gregg, hmmm lets see. Knowing that he is
the town drunk I can also assume that I know him fairly well, right?
Therefore we can also assume that I know if he is a credible individual,
drunk or sober. I should also know if he has a history of telling whoppers
or not and if he has access to the area he is reporting as a "basement
dungeon". Given all these things gregg, it would be a judgment call on the
part of the officer in question. IF the drunk does not tell lies, has
access to the area in question, and in the past has a favorable record with
my fellow police officers for conduct, I would say that investigating his
concerns would be a reasonable action.

Being the town drunk does not imply that he is an unreliable witness gregg,
only that he likes his beer. The answer to your question is far more
complicated than you think, which is why I was a cop and you were not.

Yes, the rights of an LEO to intrude are VERY complicated,
so complicated you just can't explain. Right.

And if you did hear a child crying that turns out to
be a television program, did you decide that
the child was in IMMINENT DANGER and go
barging in without a search warrant?

Barging? Not likely.

And when you figure out that the initial call
that got you inside was bogus, you looked around
for other things to complain about right?

Plain sight rule. If I go looking for kids in danger but find a kilo of
coke sitting on the kitchen table I dont just walk out gregg.

That voids the need for a search warrant to be SPECIFIC?

What's wrong with this picture?

Whats wrong is that as usual you have no idea what you are talking about.
But not to worry, we are use to that.

Tell me Ron, HOW LONG was your career as an LEO?

A bit longer than you have been freeloading off of Lisa. The difference is
that I am no longer in law enforcement, and you are still her resident couch
potato. So you are catching up.

So you were a cop for 6 years? Big career?

WP: Amid concerns, FBI lapses went on
Records collection brought internal questions but little scrutiny
By R. Jeffrey Smith and John Solomon
The Washington Post
Updated: 4:02 a.m. CT March 18, 2007
FBI counterterrorism officials continued to use flawed procedures to
obtain thousands of U.S. telephone records during a two-year period
when bureau lawyers and managers were expressing escalating concerns
about the practice, according to senior FBI and Justice Department
officials and documents.

FBI lawyers raised the concerns beginning in late October 2004 but did
not closely scrutinize the practice until last year, FBI officials
acknowledged. They also did not understand the scope of the problem
until the Justice Department launched an investigation, FBI officials
said.

Under pressure to provide a stronger legal footing, counterterrorism
agents last year wrote new letters to phone companies demanding the
information the bureau already possessed. At least one senior FBI
headquarters official -- whom the bureau declined to name -- signed
these "national security letters" without including the required proof
that the letters were linked to FBI counterterrorism or espionage
investigations, an FBI official said.

Fauly claims, broken rules
The flawed procedures involved the use of emergency demands for
records, called "exigent circumstance" letters, which contained false
or undocumented claims. They also included national security letters
that were issued without FBI rules being followed. Both types of
request were served on three phone companies.

Referring to the exigent circumstance letters, Sen. Charles E.
Grassley (R-Iowa) wrote in a letter Friday to Justice Department
Inspector General Glenn A. Fine: "It is . . . difficult to imagine why
there should not have been swift and severe consequences for anyone
who knowingly signed . . . a letter containing false statements.
Anyone at the FBI who knew about that kind of wrongdoing had an
obligation to put a stop to it and report it immediately."

A March 9 report by Fine bluntly stated that the FBI's use of the
exigency letters "circumvented" the law that governs the FBI's access
to personal information about U.S. residents.

The exigency letters, created by the FBI's New York office after the
Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, told telephone providers that the FBI needed
information immediately and would follow up with subpoenas later.
There is no basis in the law to compel phone companies to turn over
information using such letters, Fine found, and in many cases, agents
never followed up with the promised subpoenas, he said.

But Fine's report made no mention of the FBI's subsequent efforts to
legitimize those actions with improperly prepared national security
letters last year.

Calls to curtail program
Fine's report brought a deluge of criticism on the FBI, prompting a
news conference at which Director Robert S. Mueller III took
responsibility for the lapses. In a letter to Fine that was released
along with the March 9 report, Mueller acknowledged that the bureau's
agents had used unacceptable shortcuts, violated internal policies and
made mistakes in their use of exigent circumstance letters.

Mueller also said he had banned the future use of such letters this
month, although he defended their value and denied that the agency had
intentionally violated the law.

Some lawmakers immediately proposed curtailing the government's
expansive anti-terrorism powers under the USA Patriot Act.

Other FBI officials acknowledged widespread problems but said they
involved procedural and documentation failures, not intentional
misgathering of Americans' phone records. Mueller ordered a nationwide
audit, which began Friday, to determine if the inappropriate use of
exigency letters went beyond one headquarters unit.

"We wish, in retrospect, that we had learned about this sooner,
corrections had been made and the process was more transparent," FBI
Assistant Director John Miller said yesterday.

Some records may have to be destroyed
Fine's report said the bureau's counterterrorism office used the
exigency letters at least 739 times between 2003 and 2005 to obtain
records related to 3,000 separate phone numbers. FBI officials
acknowledged that the process was so flawed that they may have to
destroy some phone records to keep them from being used in the future,
if the bureau does not find proof they were gathered in connection
with an authorized investigation.

Disciplinary action may be taken when the bureau completes an internal
audit, a senior FBI official said in an interview at headquarters
Friday.

Ann Beeson, an attorney for the ACLU who has sued the FBI in an effort
to block some of its data requests, said that if the agency cannot
prove a link between the letters and an ongoing investigation, its
requests were "a total fishing expedition."

The FBI agreed that one senior official, who spoke on the condition of
anonymity because of forthcoming House and Senate hearings on the
matter, would speak for the agency.

Lawmakers have begun to probe who knew about the use of the letters
and why the department did not act more swiftly to halt the practice.
Grassley asked that Fine turn over to the Senate Judiciary Committee
copies of all FBI e-mails related to the letters of demand, as well as
transcripts of the interviews Fine conducted on the issue.

The committee has scheduled a hearing for Wednesday, with Mueller as
the chief witness. On Tuesday, the House Judiciary Committee intends
to question Fine and FBI general counsel Valerie Caproni.


Rush jobs that weren't
FBI and Justice Department officials said most of the letters at issue
were drafted by the Communications Analysis Unit (CAU), which
comprises about a dozen people assigned to analyze telephone records
and other communications for counterterrorism investigators. They sent
the secret requests to three companies -- AT&T, Verizon and a third
firm whose identity could not be learned. Since the 2001 terrorist
attacks, the FBI has been paying the companies' cost of supplying such
records almost instantaneously in a form that its agents can readily
examine, according to the report and the senior FBI official.

In each letter, the FBI asserted that "due to exigent circumstances,
it is requested that records for the attached list of telephone
numbers be provided." The bureau promised in most of the letters that
subpoenas for the same information "have been submitted to the U.S.
Attorney's office who will process and serve them formally."

But the inspector general's probe concluded that many of the letters
were "not sent in exigent circumstances" and that "there sometimes
were no open or pending national security investigations tied to the
request," contrary to what U.S. law requires. No subpoenas had
actually been requested before the letters were sent. The phone
companies nonetheless promptly turned over the information, in
anticipation of getting a more legally viable document later, FBI
officials said.

'Uncontrolled' use of security letters
The use of such letters was virtually "uncontrolled," said an FBI
official who was briefed on the issue in early 2005. By that fall, CAU
agents had begun creating spreadsheets to track phone records they had
collected for a year or more that were not covered by the appropriate
documents, according to FBI e-mails and interviews with officials.

A spokesman for AT&T declined to discuss the topic, referring
questions to the FBI. Verizon spokesman Peter Thonis , who would not
confirm nor deny the existence of an FBI contract with his firm, said
that "every day Verizon subpoena units respond to emergency requests
from federal, state and local law enforcement for particular calling
records. After 9/11, of course, Verizon responded to FBI emergency
requests in terrorist matters, and we had every reason to believe they
were legitimate emergency situations."

The inspector general's report said that the wording of the exigency
letters was copied from a standard letter that the FBI's New York
office used to obtain urgently needed records after the 2001 terrorist
bombings. When officials from that office were later reassigned to
create the CAU in Washington, the senior FBI official said, "they
brought their business practices with them" and continued to use the
same letter "for reasons that I cannot explain."

Follow-up work neglected
But the unit was not authorized under FBI rules to make such requests,
and from the outset in 2003 it asked FBI field offices to submit the
promised legal follow-up documents. The offices rarely did so
speedily, and in many cases ignored the request altogether.


"In practice, if you have already got the records, the incentive to do
the paperwork is reduced," the senior FBI official said.

When a lawyer in the FBI's national security law branch, Patrice
Kopistansky, noted in late 2004 that the proper legal justifications
were frequently missing or extremely late, she did not advise agents
to "change their process," the senior official said. "Our advice was
instead to . . . use these letters only in true emergencies" and
institute "covering practices."

These included ensuring that the bureau's agents had opened a related
investigation and promptly sent a formal national security letter to
provide legal backing for the demand.


Concerns not acted on
Bassem Youssef, who currently heads the CAU, raised concerns about the
tardy legal justifications shortly after he was assigned to the job in
early 2005, according to his lawyer, Steve Kohn.

"He discovered they were not in compliance, and then he reported that
to his chain of command. They defended the procedures and took no
action," Kohn said, adding that "their initial response was to deny
the scope of the problem."

Youssef has battled the FBI in court over whether he was denied a
promotion because of discrimination based on his ethnicity.

Eventually, the general counsel's office organized a meeting at
headquarters on Sept. 26, 2005, where the bureau considered a work-
around: Its lawyers proposed creating special, catch-all investigative
files that could be used to authorize quick phone-records seizures
that did not involve open field investigations.

But one official at the meeting, Youssef, argued that genuine
emergency requests for the records "were few and far between,"
according to an e-mail summarizing the meeting that was reviewed by
The Washington Post, and the idea was never implemented. The account
referred to efforts by one of the bureau's top lawyers to brief
"higher ups" in the agency about the problem.

"At some point, they told us there were not that many such letters"
still in use, the senior official said. "We believed the problem had
resolved itself . . . in retrospect, it never got resolved."

Playing catch-up
One reason that FBI officials did not act more quickly is that
Kopistansky and others in the general counsel's office did not review
until May 2006 copies of any of the exigent circumstances letters sent
to the phone companies from 2003 to 2005. As a result, they were
unaware that some of the letters contained false statements about
forthcoming subpoenas and urgent deadlines, the senior official said.


Bureau officials ultimately decided to "clean up" the problem by
writing seven national security letters designed to provide legal
backing for all the telephone records requests that still needed it,
the senior FBI official said. In every case, these requests in 2006
covered records already in the FBI's possession and lacked the
required cover memos spelling out the investigative requirements for
the requests.

At no time did senior FBI officials outside the communications unit
attempt to tally how often the exigent circumstances letters had been
used, with the result that Mueller and others in senior management did
not learn about the scope of the problem until two months ago, when
Fine informed them, the senior official said.

© 2007 The Washington Post Company
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17652865/

On 18 Mar 2007 08:41:23 -0700, "Greegor" wrote:
......"I'm an idiot with nothing to say, so I'm going to up the ante on
CPS and LEO innuendo and insinuation." snarfle drool drool drool...


Do me a favor. Search on the word "child" in your stupid post, little
man.

Try "family."

Try "Greg is a puckering anti government wacko nutcase."


The FBI apparently is charged with going out of bounds. The issue is
being exposed, stupid puckering idiot.

Our system is WORKING. Just as it was intended to from the Founders.

Three branches of government, and 'the press.'

Just how puckering stupid ARE you Greg?


WP: Amid concerns, FBI lapses went on
Records collection brought internal questions but little scrutiny
By R. Jeffrey Smith and John Solomon
The Washington Post
Updated: 4:02 a.m. CT March 18, 2007
FBI counterterrorism officials continued to use flawed procedures to
obtain thousands of U.S. telephone records during a two-year period
when bureau lawyers and managers were expressing escalating concerns
about the practice, according to senior FBI and Justice Department
officials and documents.

FBI lawyers raised the concerns beginning in late October 2004 but did
not closely scrutinize the practice until last year, FBI officials
acknowledged. They also did not understand the scope of the problem
until the Justice Department launched an investigation, FBI officials
said.

Under pressure to provide a stronger legal footing, counterterrorism
agents last year wrote new letters to phone companies demanding the
information the bureau already possessed. At least one senior FBI
headquarters official -- whom the bureau declined to name -- signed
these "national security letters" without including the required proof
that the letters were linked to FBI counterterrorism or espionage
investigations, an FBI official said.

Fauly claims, broken rules
The flawed procedures involved the use of emergency demands for
records, called "exigent circumstance" letters, which contained false
or undocumented claims. They also included national security letters
that were issued without FBI rules being followed. Both types of
request were served on three phone companies.

Referring to the exigent circumstance letters, Sen. Charles E.
Grassley (R-Iowa) wrote in a letter Friday to Justice Department
Inspector General Glenn A. Fine: "It is . . . difficult to imagine why
there should not have been swift and severe consequences for anyone
who knowingly signed . . . a letter containing false statements.
Anyone at the FBI who knew about that kind of wrongdoing had an
obligation to put a stop to it and report it immediately."

A March 9 report by Fine bluntly stated that the FBI's use of the
exigency letters "circumvented" the law that governs the FBI's access
to personal information about U.S. residents.

The exigency letters, created by the FBI's New York office after the
Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, told telephone providers that the FBI needed
information immediately and would follow up with subpoenas later.
There is no basis in the law to compel phone companies to turn over
information using such letters, Fine found, and in many cases, agents
never followed up with the promised subpoenas, he said.

But Fine's report made no mention of the FBI's subsequent efforts to
legitimize those actions with improperly prepared national security
letters last year.

Calls to curtail program
Fine's report brought a deluge of criticism on the FBI, prompting a
news conference at which Director Robert S. Mueller III took
responsibility for the lapses. In a letter to Fine that was released
along with the March 9 report, Mueller acknowledged that the bureau's
agents had used unacceptable shortcuts, violated internal policies and
made mistakes in their use of exigent circumstance letters.

Mueller also said he had banned the future use of such letters this
month, although he defended their value and denied that the agency had
intentionally violated the law.

Some lawmakers immediately proposed curtailing the government's
expansive anti-terrorism powers under the USA Patriot Act.

Other FBI officials acknowledged widespread problems but said they
involved procedural and documentation failures, not intentional
misgathering of Americans' phone records. Mueller ordered a nationwide
audit, which began Friday, to determine if the inappropriate use of
exigency letters went beyond one headquarters unit.

"We wish, in retrospect, that we had learned about this sooner,
corrections had been made and the process was more transparent," FBI
Assistant Director John Miller said yesterday.

Some records may have to be destroyed
Fine's report said the bureau's counterterrorism office used the
exigency letters at least 739 times between 2003 and 2005 to obtain
records related to 3,000 separate phone numbers. FBI officials
acknowledged that the process was so flawed that they may have to
destroy some phone records to keep them from being used in the future,
if the bureau does not find proof they were gathered in connection
with an authorized investigation.

Disciplinary action may be taken when the bureau completes an internal
audit, a senior FBI official said in an interview at headquarters
Friday.

Ann Beeson, an attorney for the ACLU who has sued the FBI in an effort
to block some of its data requests, said that if the agency cannot
prove a link between the letters and an ongoing investigation, its
requests were "a total fishing expedition."

The FBI agreed that one senior official, who spoke on the condition of
anonymity because of forthcoming House and Senate hearings on the
matter, would speak for the agency.

Lawmakers have begun to probe who knew about the use of the letters
and why the department did not act more swiftly to halt the practice.
Grassley asked that Fine turn over to the Senate Judiciary Committee
copies of all FBI e-mails related to the letters of demand, as well as
transcripts of the interviews Fine conducted on the issue.

The committee has scheduled a hearing for Wednesday, with Mueller as
the chief witness. On Tuesday, the House Judiciary Committee intends
to question Fine and FBI general counsel Valerie Caproni.


Rush jobs that weren't
FBI and Justice Department officials said most of the letters at issue
were drafted by the Communications Analysis Unit (CAU), which
comprises about a dozen people assigned to analyze telephone records
and other communications for counterterrorism investigators. They sent
the secret requests to three companies -- AT&T, Verizon and a third
firm whose identity could not be learned. Since the 2001 terrorist
attacks, the FBI has been paying the companies' cost of supplying such
records almost instantaneously in a form that its agents can readily
examine, according to the report and the senior FBI official.

In each letter, the FBI asserted that "due to exigent circumstances,
it is requested that records for the attached list of telephone
numbers be provided." The bureau promised in most of the letters that
subpoenas for the same information "have been submitted to the U.S.
Attorney's office who will process and serve them formally."

But the inspector general's probe concluded that many of the letters
were "not sent in exigent circumstances" and that "there sometimes
were no open or pending national security investigations tied to the
request," contrary to what U.S. law requires. No subpoenas had
actually been requested before the letters were sent. The phone
companies nonetheless promptly turned over the information, in
anticipation of getting a more legally viable document later, FBI
officials said.

'Uncontrolled' use of security letters
The use of such letters was virtually "uncontrolled," said an FBI
official who was briefed on the issue in early 2005. By that fall, CAU
agents had begun creating spreadsheets to track phone records they had
collected for a year or more that were not covered by the appropriate
documents, according to FBI e-mails and interviews with officials.

A spokesman for AT&T declined to discuss the topic, referring
questions to the FBI. Verizon spokesman Peter Thonis , who would not
confirm nor deny the existence of an FBI contract with his firm, said
that "every day Verizon subpoena units respond to emergency requests
from federal, state and local law enforcement for particular calling
records. After 9/11, of course, Verizon responded to FBI emergency
requests in terrorist matters, and we had every reason to believe they
were legitimate emergency situations."

The inspector general's report said that the wording of the exigency
letters was copied from a standard letter that the FBI's New York
office used to obtain urgently needed records after the 2001 terrorist
bombings. When officials from that office were later reassigned to
create the CAU in Washington, the senior FBI official said, "they
brought their business practices with them" and continued to use the
same letter "for reasons that I cannot explain."

Follow-up work neglected
But the unit was not authorized under FBI rules to make such requests,
and from the outset in 2003 it asked FBI field offices to submit the
promised legal follow-up documents. The offices rarely did so
speedily, and in many cases ignored the request altogether.


"In practice, if you have already got the records, the incentive to do
the paperwork is reduced," the senior FBI official said.

When a lawyer in the FBI's national security law branch, Patrice
Kopistansky, noted in late 2004 that the proper legal justifications
were frequently missing or extremely late, she did not advise agents
to "change their process," the senior official said. "Our advice was
instead to . . . use these letters only in true emergencies" and
institute "covering practices."

These included ensuring that the bureau's agents had opened a related
investigation and promptly sent a formal national security letter to
provide legal backing for the demand.


Concerns not acted on
Bassem Youssef, who currently heads the CAU, raised concerns about the
tardy legal justifications shortly after he was assigned to the job in
early 2005, according to his lawyer, Steve Kohn.

"He discovered they were not in compliance, and then he reported that
to his chain of command. They defended the procedures and took no
action," Kohn said, adding that "their initial response was to deny
the scope of the problem."

Youssef has battled the FBI in court over whether he was denied a
promotion because of discrimination based on his ethnicity.

Eventually, the general counsel's office organized a meeting at
headquarters on Sept. 26, 2005, where the bureau considered a work-
around: Its lawyers proposed creating special, catch-all investigative
files that could be used to authorize quick phone-records seizures
that did not involve open field investigations.

But one official at the meeting, Youssef, argued that genuine
emergency requests for the records "were few and far between,"
according to an e-mail summarizing the meeting that was reviewed by
The Washington Post, and the idea was never implemented. The account
referred to efforts by one of the bureau's top lawyers to brief
"higher ups" in the agency about the problem.

"At some point, they told us there were not that many such letters"
still in use, the senior official said. "We believed the problem had
resolved itself . . . in retrospect, it never got resolved."

Playing catch-up
One reason that FBI officials did not act more quickly is that
Kopistansky and others in the general counsel's office did not review
until May 2006 copies of any of the exigent circumstances letters sent
to the phone companies from 2003 to 2005. As a result, they were
unaware that some of the letters contained false statements about
forthcoming subpoenas and urgent deadlines, the senior official said.


Bureau officials ultimately decided to "clean up" the problem by
writing seven national security letters designed to provide legal
backing for all the telephone records requests that still needed it,
the senior FBI official said. In every case, these requests in 2006
covered records already in the FBI's possession and lacked the
required cover memos spelling out the investigative requirements for
the requests.

At no time did senior FBI officials outside the communications unit
attempt to tally how often the exigent circumstances letters had been
used, with the result that Mueller and others in senior management did
not learn about the scope of the problem until two months ago, when
Fine informed them, the senior official said.

© 2007 The Washington Post Company
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17652865/

"Greegor" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Mar 17, 7:42 am, "Ron" wrote:
"Greegor" wrote in message

oups.com...

Ronald Van Dyne, a former COP is sitting on here
trying to justify violating the parents rights
"for the good of the child".

Are you of the opion that the parents rights are more important in the
eyes
of the law than the childs gregg?

You DO know that high courts have quashed that right?

Limited gregg, not quashed.

Can you use the protection of the child with no probable cause
to violate the parents rights against unreasonable search?

Is that the "limitation" Ron?

The absolute upholding of the 4th Amendment and
requirement of serious "Probable Cause"?

Is that a "limitation" Ron?


Of course you do, because every cop should know very
well that the ends do NOT justify the means, even
when you pit one citizens rights against anothers or many.

Ahh, so you are unsure of the answer to my question. I understand.

Do you?

When you were a cop, if the town drunk told you that
some kid was being held in a basement dungeon
in town, did you go barging in like Geraldo into Capone's vault?

I didn't usually have sledge hammers and drills in the patrol car.

As to the rest of your question gregg, hmmm lets see. Knowing that he is
the town drunk I can also assume that I know him fairly well, right?
Therefore we can also assume that I know if he is a credible individual,
drunk or sober. I should also know if he has a history of telling
whoppers
or not and if he has access to the area he is reporting as a "basement
dungeon". Given all these things gregg, it would be a judgment call on
the
part of the officer in question. IF the drunk does not tell lies, has
access to the area in question, and in the past has a favorable record
with
my fellow police officers for conduct, I would say that investigating his
concerns would be a reasonable action.

Being the town drunk does not imply that he is an unreliable witness
gregg,
only that he likes his beer. The answer to your question is far more
complicated than you think, which is why I was a cop and you were not.

Yes, the rights of an LEO to intrude are VERY complicated,
so complicated you just can't explain. Right.

I did explain it gregg, you didnt read it. Naturally. Might as well pound
my head into a door as try to explain it to you again. The outcome would be
about the same.

And if you did hear a child crying that turns out to
be a television program, did you decide that
the child was in IMMINENT DANGER and go
barging in without a search warrant?

Barging? Not likely.

And when you figure out that the initial call
that got you inside was bogus, you looked around
for other things to complain about right?

Plain sight rule. If I go looking for kids in danger but find a kilo of
coke sitting on the kitchen table I dont just walk out gregg.

That voids the need for a search warrant to be SPECIFIC?

Plain sight rules avoid the need for warrants period. I cant go looking in
your windows, but if I get called to your house because of a noise complaint
and you are smoking a joint when you answer the door....... Or even if I am
called to get the cat out of the tree, and I note that the garden contains
several pot plants....

IOW gregg, if you are going to call the cops, make sure that you have your
stash stashed.

What's wrong with this picture?

Whats wrong is that as usual you have no idea what you are talking about.
But not to worry, we are use to that.

Tell me Ron, HOW LONG was your career as an LEO?

A bit longer than you have been freeloading off of Lisa. The difference
is
that I am no longer in law enforcement, and you are still her resident
couch
potato. So you are catching up.

So you were a cop for 6 years? Big career?

We all do things for our own reasons gregg. For as long as we choose. 3
years or 30, either way its experience that you don't have and cannot make
reasonable comments on. So how long are you going to continue to freeload?
I'd like to know so that I can tell you when you have surpassed my time as a
LEO.

Ron