Some folks might be ashamed to use the bodies of dead kids as cover for a power grab. That clearly doesn’t include Massachusetts Attorney-General Martha Coakley, last seen managing to lose a Senate race to Scott Brown in 2010 in a deep blue state.
See, Coakley, along with with state senator Gene O’Flaherty (D-Chelsea) and state rep John Keenan (D-Salem), have introduced a new bill, An Act Updating the Wire Interception Law, to massively expand law enforcement’s power to conduct electronic wiretaps of our communications. In a press conference, she cited the Newtown shootings, and a 2011 case where a conviction was overturned because current law would not authorize an electronic wiretap. She and her fellow electeds are arguing that "criminals have the upper hand" here in Massachusetts.
Before I present a detailed analysis of the bill itself, let's get a few things straight.
(a) Weaker laws on electronic wiretapping wouldn't have done a thing to stop the Newtown shootings - Adam Lanza didn't even have a Facebook page. For Coakley to use that tragedy as a way to push this is despicable. The AG's office introduces a bill like this every two-year session, and simply hangs the latest crime du jour on it to justify it. Last time around it was financial crime, and she tried, and failed, to make things like investigations of kiting checks eligible for electronic wiretapping warrants. This time it's guns. But the basic aim remains the same: to let law enforcement wiretap whomever it likes, with very few if any legal constraints.
(b) In the 2011 case, the murderer was later convicted anyway. Coakley appears not to be able to think up a single case where the current wiretapping laws have actually prevented her from catching criminals.
(c) Crime is at a 45-year low in Massachusetts. Since 2003, it's been steadily below 3 crimes per 100 residents per year, down from a peak of more than 6 in the 1970s. So there's no evidence that "criminals have the upper hand".
Let’s not kid ourselves what this is about. This is not about reducing crime. They can’t think of a single case where there’s a criminal walking free today because electronic wiretapping is only allowed under narrow circumstances here in Massachusetts. This is about power. The AG’s office knows that it’s technologically possible for them to monitor more of our electronic communications, and it bugs them that it’s illegal to do, whether or not that monitoring will result in more convictions. So, they’re ginning up false fears of a crime wave, calling this an “update”, and trying to get the people of Massachusetts to agree to join them in the brave new mass-monitored world – which they, not us, would control.
Follow me below the fold to find out what's in the bill itself!