Quote:
Originally posted by smooth
You've attributed the modifier 'roving' to the line being tapped instead of to the warrant.
"Roving" wiretaps grant the ability to tap all the phones an individual may use--not just a cell phone that moves from one area to the next. While this may be a reflection of technology in that people have more access to phone lines than they have in the past, such assertions don't detract from the very real threat the erosion of historical principles against government intrusion into our personal affairs.
Traditional warrants have been limited to specific times, places argets.
|
You're right -- I left off the communications surveillance on the person (as well as the phone). To me surveillance on multiple phone lines is moot, if the judge is willing to award a warrant for one phone line, then likely he is willing to award a second one for another phone line. This just simplifies (and codifies) the process. But, I can completely understand the fear that this lowers the amount of effort, so to speak, for the feds to have a blanket tap over a ridiculous amount of phones (which the target never intended to use). I suppose I trust the federal government and the system of checks and balances more than the average person, though.
-- Alvin
EDIT: Grammar errors (than/then).