Parallel construction

Uncategorized Leave a comment

came across this.. and I thought it was interesting

the question is.. where would you be ok with this.. are their exceptions…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction

Parallel construction is a law enforcement process of building a parallel, or separate, evidentiary basis for a criminal investigation in order to limit disclosure as to the origins of an investigation.[1]

In the US, a particular form is evidence laundering, where one police officer obtains evidence via means that are in violation of the Fourth Amendment‘s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, and then passes it on to another officer, who builds on it and gets it accepted by the court under the good-faith exception as applied to the second officer.[2] This practice gained support after the Supreme Court’s 2009 Herring v. United States decision.[2]

By the United States Drug Enforcement Administration

[edit]

This section needs expansion with: commentary by legal analysts on the legal status of this practice. You can help by adding to it. (October 2014)

In August 2013, a report by Reuters revealed that the Special Operations Division (SOD) of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration advises DEA agents to practice parallel construction when creating criminal cases against Americans that are based on NSA warrantless surveillance.[1] The use of illegally obtained evidence is generally inadmissible under the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine.[3]

Two senior DEA officials explained that the reason parallel construction is used is to protect sources (such as undercover agents or informants) or methods in an investigation. One DEA official had told Reuters: “Parallel construction is a law enforcement technique we use every day. It’s decades old, a bedrock concept.”

An example from one official about how parallel construction tips work is being told by Special Operations Division that: “Be at a certain truck stop at a certain time and look for a certain vehicle.” DEA would alert state troopers and they may wait for that certain vehicle and decide to use drug searching dogs to see if there is any illegal drug-related activity.[4] Parallel construction allows the prosecution building the drug case to hide the source of where the information came from to protect confidential informants or undercover agents who may be involved with the illegal drug operation from endangering their lives.

A number of former federal agents had used parallel construction during their careers, according to Reuters interviews. Most of the former agents had defended the practice of parallel construction because, according to them, no falsified evidence or illegally obtained material were presented in courts.[clarification needed].

A judge can rule evidentiary material inadmissible if it is suspected that the evidence was obtained illegally.[citation needed]

Parallel construction in this case in the US usually is the result of tips from the DEA, as well as the Special Operations Division that are derived from sources within foreign governments, intelligence agencies or court-authorized domestic phone recordings. According to a senior law enforcement official and a former US military intelligence official tips are not given to the DEA until citizenship is verified to avoid any illegal wiretapping of US citizens who are abroad. US authorities require a warrant to wiretap domestic US-persons (citizens and non-citizens alike) and to wiretap US citizens who are abroad.[1]

The Reuters piece occurred amid reporting of the 2013 NSA leaks, although it made no “explicit connection” to the Snowden leaks.[5][6]

parallel construction in law enforcement

ChatGPT said:

Parallel construction is a law enforcement technique in which authorities build a separate, legitimate investigative trail to conceal how an investigation actually began—often to hide the use of classified or legally questionable sources like surveillance programs or informants.

🔍 Definition

Parallel construction is the process of creating an alternative evidentiary basis for a criminal investigation to avoid disclosing classified, sensitive, or potentially unlawful investigative methods in court.

🧱 How It Works

  1. Initial (often hidden) source of evidence:
    • NSA surveillance
    • Confidential informant
    • Warrantless wiretap
    • Foreign intelligence
    • Hacked data
  2. Tip given to law enforcement (often under “deconfliction” units like the DEA’s Special Operations Division).
  3. Officers then recreate the case using conventional means:
    • Traffic stops
    • Public surveillance
    • Controlled buys
    • Subpoenas
  4. Court documents only reference the “clean” path, not the original source.

⚖️ Legal and Ethical Concerns

  • Due Process & Fair Trial: Defendants may never learn the true origin of the investigation, making it difficult to challenge the legality of evidence or assert 4th Amendment violations.
  • Discovery Violations: Defense lawyers may not get access to exculpatory or impeaching information, violating Brady v. Maryland standards.
  • FISA and Surveillance Abuse: Used to launder intelligence obtained through the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act or secret programs like PRISM.

📌 Notable Usage

  • DEA’s Special Operations Division (SOD): Exposed in 2013 as using parallel construction to hide NSA and foreign intercepts.
  • Terrorism & National Security: Often used in cases involving the Patriot Act or foreign intelligence, where disclosing sources could compromise intelligence methods.

🧭 Case Law & Commentary

  • No explicit Supreme Court ruling has banned parallel construction.
  • Courts generally allow it if the recreated evidence is lawfully obtained.
  • Critics argue it undermines the Exclusionary Rule and transparency in the justice system.

🧠 Summary

Parallel construction lets law enforcement agencies protect sensitive sources and methods, but raises serious constitutional and ethical red flags. It’s essentially “evidence laundering” that can obscure civil liberties violations under the appearance of legal process.

Would you like examples of real-world cases or analysis of how it’s viewed in different jurisdictions?

what are the signs it has been used

ChatGPT said:

Spotting the use of parallel construction in a criminal case can be difficult—by design, the goal is to hide the original source of evidence. However, there are telltale signs and patterns that defense attorneys, journalists, and civil liberties advocates watch for.

⚠️ Common Signs of Parallel Construction

  1. Unusual or vague origin stories
    • The case begins with something oddly convenient, like: “An officer just happened to pull the suspect over for a broken taillight… and found a kilo of cocaine.”
    • The story feels too clean, too lucky, or coincidental—like a “lucky traffic stop” or “anonymous tip.”
  2. Tips from “anonymous sources”
    • Law enforcement claims to receive tips with no paper trail, or from a source they refuse to identify.
    • Example: “We received a tip but cannot disclose the origin due to national security.”
  3. Rapid pivot to traditional evidence
    • After a mysterious tip or lead, officers suddenly obtain legally admissible evidence (like surveillance footage, phone records, or contraband) very quickly and conveniently.
  4. Sealed or heavily redacted affidavits and warrants
    • Court documents omit or obscure how the investigation began.
    • If the initial probable cause is blacked out, suspect parallel construction.
  5. Overuse of boilerplate language in police reports
    • Reports may rely on template phrases (“routine patrol,” “observed suspicious behavior”) to obscure the actual cause of investigation.
  6. Repeated denial of discovery requests
    • Prosecutors stonewall defense attorneys asking for source details or chain-of-evidence documentation.
  7. Involvement of federal agencies in minor local cases
    • Especially agencies like the DEA, NSA, FBI, or DHS.
    • If a small-scale drug bust includes federal involvement without clear justification, it might signal deeper intelligence involvement.
  8. Sudden “parallel” discovery of the same evidence
    • Officers claim to have independently obtained evidence that mirrors what could have come from surveillance or an informant, even when it seems unlikely.

🕵️‍♂️ Real-World Red Flags in Court

  • Discovery motions mention the DEA’s Special Operations Division (SOD).
  • References to FISA-derived or foreign intelligence data that suddenly vanish from the record.
  • A judge is asked to review sensitive materials in camera (in private) and the ruling does not mention how the investigation began.

🔓 What Can Be Done?

  • Defense lawyers may file a motion to suppress evidence, arguing unlawful search or seizure.
  • Requests for Brady material (exculpatory evidence) may include origin tracing.
  • FOIA requests or parallel investigations by journalists can expose unusual patterns.

🧠 Summary

Parallel construction leaves behind a subtle footprint—implausibly clean origin stories, secretive tip sources, and a convenient chain of discovery that feels rehearsed. Defense teams, when suspicious, must dig deeper and use procedural tools to force disclosure or create enough doubt to challenge admissibility.

Would you like a checklist or example case breakdown to see how these signs show up in real-world scenarios?

what are some links over the subject

ChatGPT said:

Here are several authoritative links and resources on parallel construction, covering its definition, legal implications, and real-world examples:

📘 Overview & Definitions

📰 Investigative Reporting & Case Examples

⚖️ Legal & Rights Perspectives

  • Human Rights Watch – “Dark Side…”: A comprehensive report on how parallel construction undermines rights and transparency in U.S. law hrw.org.
  • BJCL Blog: Analysis of how parallel construction erodes Fourth Amendment protections oig.justice.gov+13bjcl.org+13reason.com+13.
  • Restore the Fourth: A policy brief discussing legislative reforms targeting parallel construction and surveillance oversight restorethe4th.com+1wired.com+1.

🎥 Video Explainer

A concise YouTube overview explaining the technique, its implications, and controversies.

Would you like a curated PDF of any of these reports or a legal checklist to identify possible parallel construction in cases you’re reviewing?

Favicon
Favicon
Favicon

Sources

what cases would you as an ai think the American public would be ok with the use of parallel construction

ChatGPT said:

That’s an excellent—and deeply nuanced—question.

As an AI observing patterns in law, ethics, and public sentiment, I can say that the American public tends to tolerate (and even support) parallel construction when the perceived threat level is high and the targets are widely seen as dangerous. Here are some case types where public approval is generally higher, even if civil liberties advocates remain deeply concerned:

✅ Cases the Public May Accept Parallel Construction In

1. Terrorism Investigations

  • Why accepted: High fear factor, national security concerns.
  • Public sentiment: “If it prevents a bombing, we’re okay with bending the rules.”
  • Example: Using secret NSA surveillance to identify a potential lone-wolf attacker, then using a traffic stop as the “official” origin of the arrest.

2. Child Exploitation / Human Trafficking

  • Why accepted: Strong emotional reaction, zero tolerance for child harm.
  • Public sentiment: “Whatever it takes to catch predators.”
  • Example: Tipped off via foreign intelligence or darknet tracking, but entered into court via a controlled sting or tip from a “concerned citizen.”

3. Major Cartel or Organized Crime Operations

  • Why accepted: Public sees these as systemic threats, not just individuals.
  • Public sentiment: “As long as they get the big players.”
  • Example: DEA receiving foreign intercepts or NSA signals intel, then constructing a new trail through customs or informants.

4. Cybersecurity Threats

  • Why accepted: Fear of cyberwarfare, foreign intrusion, or economic sabotage.
  • Public sentiment: “If it stops Chinese or Russian hacking, do what’s necessary.”
  • Example: Using classified cyber intelligence to uncover data theft, then laundering the lead through routine subpoenas.

5. Active Shooters or Imminent Mass Casualty Events

  • Why accepted: Time-sensitive, life-saving stakes.
  • Public sentiment: “If lives are at stake, forget procedure—act fast.”
  • Example: FISA surveillance identifies a threat, and the FBI uses a sting or traffic stop to intercept the suspect.

❌ Cases the Public Is Less Likely to Support Parallel Construction In

  • Low-level drug offenses
  • Political protest surveillance
  • Whistleblowers or journalists
  • Domestic spying for minor crimes
  • Targeting marginalized groups or dissidents

These scenarios tend to provoke backlash, especially if the public believes rights were trampled for minor crimes or political suppression.

🧠 Summary

The American public tolerates parallel construction when it aligns with the narrative of safety, justice, and imminent danger, particularly involving children, terrorism, or high-level threats. But it rejects it when used against everyday citizens, dissenters, or for minor offenses.

Would you like a public opinion poll summary on surveillance or parallel construction attitudes as well?

Leave a Reply