(Copyright © 2002 The Blacklisted Journalist)


Subject: FW: Why The FBI Never Needed a Warrant - The Exigent Circumstances Rule
Date: Sat, 5 Oct 2002 16:32:59 -0700
From: "Peter Coyote"
Organization: Wild Dog Productions

Mike Levine is a friend of mine. One of the most highly decorated DEA agents in the history of the Agency. When he talks about this stuff, I listen. I also urge you to read his books about the phony "drug war" called "The Great White Hoax" and his novel (to get around confidentiality oaths) “Deep Cover”.


Subject: Why The FBI Never Needed a Warrant - The Exigent Circumstances Rule

"I am firm believer in the people. If given the truth, they can be depended upon to meet any national crises.  The great point is to bring them the real facts." - Abe Lincoln  

"Exigent Circumstances" Why The FBI Never Needed A Warrant (c) all rights reserved. By Michael Levine
Host of the Expert Witness Radio Show
WBAI 99.5 FM (New York) - WCHL (Wilkes Barre, PA) - KPFK  90.7 ( Los
Angeles, Courtesy of the courageous Roy Tuckman) <A HREF="http://">

If you're like most people and your main source of "information" are mainstream media experts and reporters, and/or the self-anointed variety, you probably read and believe articles like the one pasted right below this one,  that, prior to 9/11, the FBI knew an attack on the World Trade Center, or some other hideous terrorist act was imminent but were stopped and/or prevented and/or obstructed in some way from taking action that might have prevented the WTC tragedy,  for one or both of the following reasons:

a.        Someone or some group of "suits" in FBI headquarters wouldn't grant approval for some enforcement action and/or a search warrant; or, as FBI agent/whistleblower Colleen Riley described:  FBI headquarters was acting like "moles for bin Laden,"


        b.  Someone in President Clinton's office in charge of coordinating anti-terrorist activities either wouldn't authorize action and/or wouldn't even return phone calls.

If you are any member of law enforcement who has experience working any kind of real street enforcement, you know that this is phony, bullshoot drivel.  I know from hearing from many of you that you are as sick and frightened by its acceptance as "fact" by our people and our Congress, as I am. Warrantless Search Under Exigent Circumstances.

The fact is, as those of us "on the job" know well, there is a great big exception to when any law enforcement officer needs to get a search warrant; it's called "exigent circumstances."   What this means is that if you as a cop have reason to believe that a crime has been committed or is about to be committed, and believe that if you don't conduct an immediate search, either the evidence will vanish and/or lives will be at risk, the law permits you to search instantly and without the approval of any damned body alive.

And let's say you made a mistake, your judgment was off that day, and some judge says, Well, I don't believe the circumstances were really exigent--—What happens?

The worst possible outcome is that the judge omits whatever it is you found, from consideration during the trial.  Bottom line:  Lives saved, evidence thrown out.

For instance, during my 25 year career as a Federal agent enforcing weapons, bomb (Destructive Device) and drug laws, I would estimate that, under the exigent circumstances rules,  I have conducted well over a thousand warantless searches of cars, homes, computers, boats, bodies and body cavities, baby carriages, furniture, motorcycles, bikes, cargo ships, toupees (both on and off heads)  and even a bowling ball.

Under exigent circumstances I have detained and interrogated a minimum of a thousand individuals without once asking anyone for permission from anybody or even Mirandizing them.   Some of my cases were extremely high profile and had drug/terrorism implications, yet, on no occasion, involving exigent circumstances, did I request permission from headquarters, the Department of Justice, Congress, the White House, or even Judge Judy.

And on no occasion was the evidence I recovered thrown out of court. And my experience was far from unusual in any of the agencies in which I served, which included a one-year stint as an Assistant Group Supervisor in the FBI/DEA Drug Task Force.

So the questions all cops now being bombarded with an endless flow of FBI and Department of Justice bullshoot, duly swallowed and regurgitated without an intelligent question by mainstream media, want to ask are as follows:

    1.  If it is true that you FBI agents had enough probable cause/evidence/indications, in July, 2001, to believe that Zacariah Moussaoui, for example, was going to do just what he looked like he was about to do, run a big plane into a big building, than why the hell didn't you take immediate action, under the exigent circumstances rules, and search his damned computer?

    2.  The French police notified Immigrations that Moussaoui was linked to bin Laden and a plot to hijack and fly a plane into the Eiffel Tower, so didn't one of you guys even try to talk to the man, as he sat in an immigrations jail for an entire month before 9/11?

    3.  Didn't you guys think that the threat of more than 3,000 lives was enough to qualify under the Exigent Circumstances rules?

To comprehend just how much evidence the FBI had in their hands and ignored, I urge the reader to check the archives of the Expert Witness Show and you will find recorded discussions of court-qualified experts in police work discussing this evidence with great specificity.

I'm not talking about unnamed sources of mainstream media or FBI spokesmen, I'm talking about ex FBI, DEA and CIA with frontline investigative experiences, who had the courage to speak out.

Sorry I'm letting the cat out of the bag, Famous but Incompetents, but there's a whole bunch of us folks who did real law enforcement work that are getting both pissed and worried about the safety of our nation in your hands.  The fact is that if this drivel is believed by congress and you win, our nation stays as vulnerable as we were on September 10th, 2001.

You guys really want that?


FBI Agent: Moussaoui Might Crash Plane Into WTC
By Reuters
Friday, 27 September, 2002

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - An FBI agent said in August 2001 that accused Sept. 11 conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui might take control of an airplane and crash it into the World Trade Center if he was released from custody, according to a court document made public on Friday. The document relates communications between FBI headquarters and its office in Minneapolis involving Moussaoui, who was being held in Minnesota in August 2001 on immigration violations after arousing suspicion at a flight school. The agent said Moussaoui “might take control of an airplane and crash it into the World Trade Center,” prosecutors said in the document detailing what has been given to the congressional intelligence committees investigating the attacks. Moussaoui, who was still in custody on Sept. 11 last year, later became the only person charged in the United States with conspiring in the attacks. The prosecutors also described an FBI report concerning interviews with Moussaoui in mid-August 2001, in which FBI agents accused him of giving misleading and evasive answers. The FBI report described how Moussaoui involved his right to a lawyer when confronted with information “that he was known to be an extremist intent on using his past and future aviation training in furtherance of a terrorist goal.” Questioning of Moussaoui then stopped. Earlier in the questioning, Moussaoui discussed his suspicion of immigration authorities, his desire to fly a large jet aircraft, his reasons for not attending a flight school in Europe, his connections in Saudi Arabia and his recent travel to Pakistan, Malaysia and Indonesia, according to the FBI report dated Aug. 18, 2001. When asked about his travel to Pakistan, Moussaoui, a French national of Moroccan descent, became “extremely agitated and he refused to discuss the matter further,” according to the FBI report. It says Moussaoui became angry when agents suggested to him that he did not have an adequate explanation for the large sums of money in his possession. The FBI report said agents in Minneapolis had assessed Moussaoui as an “Islamic fundamentalist preparing for some future act in furtherance of radical fundamentalist goals” involving an aircraft. The FBI report was turned over as part of the congressional investigation into whether the FBI and CIA had missed possible clues that could have prevented the hijacked plane attacks. The 34-year-old Moussaoui has been charged with six counts of conspiracy in the Sept. 11 attacks. Four of them carry the death penalty. His trial is scheduled to begin in January. He has denied being a part of the hijacking, but admitted to being a member of al Qaeda. The United States blames Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda network for the attacks that killed about 3,000 people. The judge in the Moussaoui case on Friday unsealed the document, which prosecutors filed on Sept. 19. Prosecutors had wanted clarification from the judge on what the FBI and Justice Department could disclose in the public congressional hearings.  ##



The Blacklisted Journalist can be contacted at P.O.Box 964, Elizabeth, NJ 07208-0964
The Blacklisted Journalist's E-Mail Address: