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
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.
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
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 to enforce the law, 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.
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
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 to enforce the law, 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 specifics that it only covers evidence that was gathered in violation of the existing law.
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.
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
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 proposes is also ensuring that IF somebody went ahead, ignored the law, and criminally used the military in this way, 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 specifics that it only covers evidence that was gathered in violation of the existing law.
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.
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
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. Any attempt to use the military to arrest criminals would violate this law already, regardless of Schiff’s amendment.
What Schiff’s amendment proposes is also ensuring that IF somebody went ahead, ignored the law, and criminally used the military in this way, 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 specifics that it only covers evidence that was gathered in violation of the existing law.
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.