here's the title/section this amendment refers to:
§1385. Use of Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, and Space Force as posse comitatus
Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army, the Navy, the Marine Corps, the Air Force, or the Space Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1385
If I'm understanding correctly, this proposed amendment wants to conflate the prohibition of the execution / enforcement of U.S. law by the armed forces with the provisioning of information/ evidence by the armed forces that may assist in legal and appropriate U.S. authorities enforcing/excuting U.S. law.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any information obtained by or with the assistance of a member of the Armed Forces in violation of section 1385 of
9 title 18, shall not be received in evidence in any trial, hearing, or other proceeding in or before any court, grand jury, department, officer, agency, regulatory body, legislative
committee, or other authority of the United States, a State, or a political subdivision thereof.
So let’s see. Your info says clearly it’s illegal per section 1385 to use any branch of the military in service of law enforcement without express authorization by Congress. Attempting to use the military to arrest criminals without Congressional approval or under a Constitutionally-protected scenario would violate this law already, regardless of Schiff’s amendment.
What Schiff’s amendment would ensure is that IF somebody went ahead, ignored the law, and criminally used the military in a law enforcement capacity, nothing carried out under the justification of that act would be admissible in the legal system.
Sort of like how cops can’t charge you with weed possession if they illegally break into your house to find it.
It’s important to note that this proposed amendment specifies that it only covers evidence that was gathered in violation of the existing law. I bolded the relevant text in Schiff’s proposal quote above.
So the only way that Q would be a potential target of this amendment is if Q’s evidence was gathered by a military operation that is already in violation of the existing law. If Q has been gathering evidence legally and with some sort of Constitutionally or Congressionally-recognized authority, then this amendment, even if passed, would not have any effect on Q’s case.
Eh, not a lawyer, and that’s beyond anything but me wildly speculating. But I would imagine that even if the amendment doesn’t get adopted, it would eventually end up in court anyway, because anyone who is accused of a crime due to evidence collected via commission of a crime is going to have a decent chance of getting it thrown out.
That’s why I guess I don’t see Schiff as needing any unusual motivation here. This is the same logic you’d use to defend against the use of blackmailed confessions or evidence collected by a burglar against the… burgled…
here's the title/section this amendment refers to:
If I'm understanding correctly, this proposed amendment wants to conflate the prohibition of the execution / enforcement of U.S. law by the armed forces with the provisioning of information/ evidence by the armed forces that may assist in legal and appropriate U.S. authorities enforcing/excuting U.S. law.
I believe that is correct, yes, but only if this military operation is in violation of the law you quoted.
Here is the actual proposed amendment by Schiff:
https://amendments-rules.house.gov/amendments/SCHIFF_073_xml220705100307358.pdf
So let’s see. Your info says clearly it’s illegal per section 1385 to use any branch of the military in service of law enforcement without express authorization by Congress. Attempting to use the military to arrest criminals without Congressional approval or under a Constitutionally-protected scenario would violate this law already, regardless of Schiff’s amendment.
What Schiff’s amendment would ensure is that IF somebody went ahead, ignored the law, and criminally used the military in a law enforcement capacity, nothing carried out under the justification of that act would be admissible in the legal system.
Sort of like how cops can’t charge you with weed possession if they illegally break into your house to find it.
It’s important to note that this proposed amendment specifies that it only covers evidence that was gathered in violation of the existing law. I bolded the relevant text in Schiff’s proposal quote above.
So the only way that Q would be a potential target of this amendment is if Q’s evidence was gathered by a military operation that is already in violation of the existing law. If Q has been gathering evidence legally and with some sort of Constitutionally or Congressionally-recognized authority, then this amendment, even if passed, would not have any effect on Q’s case.
Would this amendment be ‘retroactive’ from date of adoption or only for info post date.?
Eh, not a lawyer, and that’s beyond anything but me wildly speculating. But I would imagine that even if the amendment doesn’t get adopted, it would eventually end up in court anyway, because anyone who is accused of a crime due to evidence collected via commission of a crime is going to have a decent chance of getting it thrown out.
That’s why I guess I don’t see Schiff as needing any unusual motivation here. This is the same logic you’d use to defend against the use of blackmailed confessions or evidence collected by a burglar against the… burgled…