Feds to get MLB steroid test results

No, but the Fourth and Fifth Amendments are deals we make between ourselves and the federal government, and if any of these guys, who took the tests anonymously at least in part because both sides realized that the tests had to pass constitutional muster, get nailed because of the 9th circuit ruling, then their lawyers have a glorious grounds for appeal.
This one's going across the street from the Capitol, where Fredo's bowling team will uphold this stupidity.

 

If it's not covered in the warrant, they can't take it. Pretty fucking simple.

 

So, if your newspaper has a drug-testing program and the feds decide to seize results of those who failed (for pot, heroin, cocaine, whatever), would you consider that appropriate?

 

Not quite. If a policeman shows up at a business with a warrant to seize something they know is there, but "stumble" upon something else they can seize that too. The question for the courts is whether they truly stumbled upon it or were using the original warrant as a way to get more evidence they couldn't get on the warrant.

 

My former newspaper did have a drug testing program. If there were some court case that caused the feds to seize the results, there's a simple way to avoid any problems: Don't use illegal drugs.

 

Thanks Nancy Reagan, but that doesn't answer the question. Why do you think that the government doesn't need a reason to search an individual's employment records?

 

Suppose your newspaper had done a lengthy series critical of the serving US Attorney and that gent wanted a little payback.
OK then?
And Ralph? That's how the Bill of Rights dies, by the way.

 

It's a question of who they're targeting. We all know the feds aren't going to prosecute any player simply for using steroids, and they shouldn't, much like they shouldn't (and usually don't) prosecute people for using recreational drugs. What they're looking to do is prove that Bonds, Sheffield and others lied under oath when they said they didn't knowingly take steroids. That's the out Bonds has; he didn't "knowingly" take steroids, but if he tested positive, it was because of that damn Greg Anderson.

 

What is wrong with you?

 

Fenian, in case I wasn't clear three pages ago when we were discussing this before it got all, well, stupid ... I agree with what you say: No one should be prosecuted based on those tests results purely for having used drugs. And I don't think that's what the Feds want to do. To me it's clear they're digging (some would say fishing) to see if they can nail a certain Mr. Bonds for perjury based on those tests, and possibly anybody else, like Sheffield or one of the unnamed players. So in that regard the feds are smart to try and get the results.

Now I would love to hear a more legal view of the matter, as to how many people with a law degree think the court made the right decision.