> FBI posting claimed it is “impossible to know in advance what information is accurate, relevant, timely and complete” for “authorized law enforcement purposes.”
> “With time, seemingly irrelevant or untimely information may acquire new significance when new details are brought to light,"
A person is supposed to be investigated for a particular crime. Any actions clearly in association with such crime is considered relevant. But if during the investigation, it is revealed that their are other crimes that the person may be committing, any actions recorded in the past committed in association with a crime found later becomes relevant later.
I do not understand the "intent" of the law. Is the FBI prevented from investigating other crimes other than the one initially authorized?
Or is the FBI supposed to ignore crimes observed if not relevant to the crime being investigated?
The intent of the law is to end the J. Edgar Hoover-era practice of keeping files on people who aren't even suspected of a crime... and if they investigate and find nothing, the files should be destroyed.
> “With time, seemingly irrelevant or untimely information may acquire new significance when new details are brought to light,"
A person is supposed to be investigated for a particular crime. Any actions clearly in association with such crime is considered relevant. But if during the investigation, it is revealed that their are other crimes that the person may be committing, any actions recorded in the past committed in association with a crime found later becomes relevant later.
I do not understand the "intent" of the law. Is the FBI prevented from investigating other crimes other than the one initially authorized?
Or is the FBI supposed to ignore crimes observed if not relevant to the crime being investigated?