<p>This is a question for my junior project.
If the government doesn’t find anything related to terrorism during a sneak-and-peek search, but does find other illegal material like drugs or kiddy porn, does the Patriot Act allow the person in question to be prosecuted based on that search? I would think the information would be inadmissible since it’s not a normal criminal investigation, but I’m trying to find out how the Patriot Act affects normal criminal procedure. I can’t find any websites that will give me a solid answer. Thanks in advance for any info.</p>
<p>c’mon, guys…any info or ideas at all would be great.</p>
<p>This is a law school ADMISSIONS forum. Not an actual law forum. You should direct your questions elsewhere.</p>
<p>Obviously. I was merely hoping that the people who frequent this forum might know more than I do on the subject - it makes sense, considering that some of them are already lawyers.</p>
<p>sound like you’re asking others to answer (do your homework)…for you</p>
<p>hm…i’d say it should be admissible</p>
<p>I haven’t been able to find a definite answer in my research. Thank you for your information.</p>
<p>Actually, they have something on Wikipedia about other people who have been prosectued under the Patriot Act (non-terrorist investigations). After all, the Patriot Act does say that it will be used for terrorist surveillance and “other purposes” (notice the ambiguities). I have been researching this for my Constitutional team at school, but some of the things I remember from the “abuses of Patriot Act” include:</p>
<p>Jane and Terry Adkins… charged for 100 counts of child pornography… (long story, somewhere on wikipedia)</p>
<p>Someone was arrested for copright infringement through surveillance under the Patriot Act.</p>
<p>Some have been citing recent abuses of homeless people under the Patriot Act because terrorists have been known to act/dress like homeless people in subways/stations etc.</p>
<p>There are more, but this is just a basic idea. Wikipedia does a good job under the Patriot Act of defining it.</p>
<p>I’ll definitely give wikipedia a better look. I only looked for information on a different section of it before. thanks, mattyb!</p>
<p>I would say that since it was a lawful search, all evidence obtained from that search would be admissible. This doesn’t specifically pertain to the Patriot Act, but to criminal procedure in general. </p>
<p>For example, if there is a warrant obtained to search your house for illegal drugs and they search your house and find child pornography, you can be charged for the child pornography as long as it was within the place to be searched. Lets say that the pornography was on your computer hard drive. The search warrant was for your house and the seach can include parts of the house that might reasonably contain drugs. Information on your hard drive would not/could not contain drugs so it would not be admissible and you could not be charged. However, if there were pictures of child pornography in plain view, then you could be arrested.</p>
<p>thanks, kono. however, sneak and peek searches are generally done without warrants. as you said, a warrant can cover any found illegal activity, but what about a terrorism-related search without a warrant? is the non-terrorism related illegal material admissible then?</p>
<p>i actually thought illegally obtained evidence was not permitted to be used against you in court (mapp v. ohio and weeks v. us) ???</p>
<p>It is not illegally obtained. Federal action such as the patriot act extends police power. The evidence is incident to a lawful search, so it is admissible.</p>
<p>You are right, if it was an illegal search then all evidence would be excluded as “fruits of the poisinous tree”.</p>
<p>Even if the purpose of the search is ONLY to gather terrorism-related info or intelligence info? Without a warrant?</p>
<p>I am not an expert in crim law and evidence, but if I understand your question correctly the answer is that the evidence is admissible. I will give you an example using a recent US Supreme Court case. In Lawrence v Texas the police responded to a call regarding a weapons disturbance and when they searched the house they caught Lawrence and another male engaging in a homosexual act in violation of a Texas Statute. The issue was never that the police conducted the search for weapons, so other crimes could not also be charged. In other words, if the state engages in a lawful search of any kind, and they stumble upon evidence of another crime, this evidence is admissible. This is my understanding and it is really more of an evidence question than crim law.</p>
<p>If the Patriot Act is being followed, most of those sneak and peek searches should be done with warrants signed by a judge. It is just easier to get one and there is a lot more secrecy surrounding getting one. For those warrantless searches, and even, as many legal minds contend, the warranted searches, there are still disputed issues as to whether they meet consitutional standards. If the search does meet consitutional standards, then any evidence found in a place where authorities were premitted to search can be used for any crime it might prove. Your consitutional right is to be free from an unreasonable search itself, not to be free from the use made of any evidence found during an otherwise lawful search. In other words, the “purpose” of the search is an important issue to determine whether the search itself was lawful but it is irrelevant to the issue of what you can do with any evidence found during a lawful search.</p>
<p>If the initial search was illegal, all fruits are excluded under Wong Sun. If the initial entrance was lawful, anything in plain view is admissible.</p>