Pubdate: Fri, 11 Sep 2009 Source: Raynham Call (MA) Copyright: 2009 GateHouse Media, Inc. Contact: http://www.wickedlocal.com/raynham Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/4885 Referenced: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v09/n848/a01.html Author: Robert Merkin WHERE'S THE CON SIDE TO WIRETAPPING? To the Editor: "Wiretapping key to drug enforcement" (7 September) is an odd sort of story. Twenty paragraphs about police wiretaps - and not one mention of the word "warrant." Are readers supposed to automatically assume that Chief Pacheco and Bristol County DA Sutter scrupulously present evidence of criminal activity to judges who issue warrants for police wiretaps? The story quoted and depended entirely on law-enforcement sources. Is there no one in the commonwealth other than police and DAs who has professional knowledge of and expert opinions on wiretaps and warrants? No judges or magistrates willing to discuss these matters? No criminal defense lawyers? No law professors? I was left with the troubling impression that the Chief and DA are rubber-stamping and assembly-lining the warrants the U.S. Constitution requires for such law-enforcement tools. I read nothing about the requirements judges and magistrates are supposed to insist on before issuing a wiretap warrant. The story would have readers believe that all wiretap warrants have been proper, lawful, soundly grounded in oaths, evidence and reasonable suspicion, and that no wiretap warrants have been successfully challenged and declared unlawful or void in criminal and appeals court. This wasn't a thorough and dimensioned story at all. There are journalistic holes you could drive a truck through - important questions never asked, important sources never interviewed. I love high-tech, proactive crime-fighting tools as well as the next guy. I also love the U.S. Constitution and its protections for American citizens, and would like to see its role represented in your coverage of crime-fighting, too. Robert Merkin Northampton (MA) - --- MAP posted-by: Richard Lake