![]() Prosecutors reported that those taps, often conducted by federal drug investigators, intercepted phone calls and text messages by more than 52,000 people. The violations could undermine the legality of as many as 738 wiretaps approved in Riverside County, Calif., since the middle of 2013, an investigation by USA TODAY and The Desert Sun, based on interviews and court records, has found. Prosecutors in the Los Angeles suburb responsible for a huge share of the nation’s wiretaps almost certainly violated federal law when they authorized widespread eavesdropping that police used to make more than 300 arrests and seize millions of dollars in cash and drugs throughout the USA. Now, Heath and Kelman are back with more bad news from Riverside. So, a federal agency has already been exposed as participating in likely illegal activity related to one of the most intrusive surveillance options it has at its disposal. They were only irritated enough to tell the DEA to keep its tainted evidence out of federal courts. Notably, the DOJ legal staff wasn’t concerned enough about the potential illegality of the DEA’s actions to stop it from routing everything through Hernandez’s courtroom. A handful of unnamed federal proecutors stated the agency had been previously warned that its use of a local court meant there was little chance the DOJ would offer its blessing for prosecution at the federal level. The DOJ isn’t particularly thrilled with the DEA’s warrant funneling. The DEA, being a federal agency, is supposed to be running its wiretap warrant applications past federal judges, rather than county judges, but has seemingly found itself a very willing participant in its southern California surveillance dragnet. Judge Helios Hernandez has signed off on five times as many wiretap warrants as any other judge in the United States. ![]() Bart.Earlier this month, Brad Heath and Brett Kelman of USA Today reported that the DEA was running a massive amount of wiretap applications through a single judge in Riverside County, California. 1778/79 Samuel Heywood / Robert Summers.1779/80 Samuel Worthington / Samuel Green.1784/85 Edward Swann / Alexander Strahan.1786/87 Stokeham Huthwaite / Thomas Hawkesley.1788/89 Timothy Fellows / William Huthwaite Jnr.1789/90 Joseph Hurst Lowe / Joseph Heath.1790/91 John Whitlock / Ehlm Samuel Fellows.1793/94 Nathaniel Whitlock / Thomas Smith.1794/95 Thomas Richards / Henry Green Jnr.1796/97 Thomas Richards / Nathaniel Need Jnr.1797/98 Cornelius Huthwaite / William Dawson.1798/99 Wright Coldhan / William Wilson.1802/03 William Howitt / William Hickling.1803/04 George Nelson / Thomas Williams.1804/05 Charles Lomas Morley / John Houseman Barber.1805/06 Charles Mellor / Edward Stavely.1808/09 John Carr / Francis Wakefield Jnr. ![]() 1810/11 Charles Wakefield / John Stevens Howitt.1812/13 Edward Allatt Swann / Alfred Lowe. ![]() 1813/14 Charles Lomas Morley / John Michael Fellows.1815/16 Richard Hopper Jnr / Thomas Wakfield.1823/24 Henry Leaver / Thomas Guildford.1826/27 William Enfield / Thomas Shipman.1828/29 Nathaniel Barnsdall / Henry Homer. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |