TO: Students in CJ 50-005

FROM: R. B. Taylor

DATE: 10/18/02

In class last time we talked about whether the use of spy planes to capture the Beltway Sniper represented violations of the Posse Comitatus Act. Here are some of your thoughts.

* What are the advantages of augmenting civilian law enforcement with military capabilities? 

• “they increase the chances of catching the guy”
• “local and federal authorities … are being outsmarted … the sniper poses a ‘clear and present danger’ to the country”

* Do you think these advantages are needed in this case?

• “I do think these advantages are needed …. Use anything that we can”
• “whatever the means, the sniper needs to be caught”
• Technology “should be used ONLY in this case”
• “advantages are necessary … whom ever is committing those crimes can be considered a terrorist”
• [yes because] “police are not trained to deal with this type of killer”

* Are there any potential disadvantages to involving the military in a case like this?

• “if they find the person with this plane the US citizens will want it used in every major case”
• “the military may start locking down cities and profiling once they get a description”

* Do you think this is setting a good or a bad “legal precedent?” 

• “these advantages seem like a cop out and since this will be a precedent it will most likely merge into common law every time the police get frustrated and cannot solve a crime quickly.”
• [bad because] “in the future the federal gov’t will not hesitate to use military technology and techniques to invade the privacy of citizens, spy on citizens and use it for more than simply apprehending criminals.”
• [ok] “as long as the local law enforcement officers maintain control of data”
• [in future, police] “may simply use this as an easy way out for finding all their criminals”
• [bad because] “it is taking authority away from the states and can later be interpreted to allow for a lot of federal activity in local jurisdiction.”
• [good because] “an example for the future … shows that you can’t hide forever, we have the technology to find you.”
• “a good precedent only if it is used properly … this is now a terr[or]istic act and has gotten the whole nation in a frenzy”

 * Suppose the surveillance feed, either video or telecom, finds evidence of another crime in progress, or provides evidence that allows local authorities to apprehend someone? Should that be used?

• no
• only if they see it happening
• “most likely it would not be included because the police would need a search warrant” [i.e., evidence would be thrown out?]
• “I think it should be used depending on the seriousness of the crime” Not for car theft, yes for murder
• yes, authorities should apprehend people if they see another crime “this could maybe lead us to the real terrorist that we’re looking for”
• “Yes it should be used because that is still a crime”
• [no because] “that isn’t the point of this and they will be infringing on their [citizens?] rights”