Appeals Court: It Doesn’t Matter If Cops Used A Stingray

[Ur_Mom]

The information was not used to convict, merely to find and apprehend.

That's the part that makes sense. Finding him, sure. Using the information to convict or to monitor for crimes is bad. Just to locate a suspect? Ok.

I don't like it that way, but it makes sense. Like someone else said with the T-1000 pic - it's like going door to door asking "Have you seen this boy?". Just on the downlow.

Just as long as it stays that way and doesn't creep into other things (which it will).

 

[Tsumi]

So bad guy a has a phone with developer profile turned on, you don't know the phone number, the device id or mac address, you just happened to see in by cell tower 1... you turn on stingray and it listens to every phone conversation until you listen on bad guy a, conversation while your buddy next to you hears about two people disusing a private tip on company that is going to publicly announce something the next day and the stock price is going to shoot through the roof. He ignores the guy is supposed to track down to buy a bunch of shares then dump them half way through the day of the announcement to take advantage of the tip and the investors get really puzzled while they have a huge dip half way through the day and wonder if the people trading the stock are working for the company and the announcement is fake.

The rico act would be that without a warrant for each of those people served ahead of time so they know that every they do is being monitored is abuse of power... thus a rico act violation... the criminal was on the tower maybe or maybe it was a sat phone, either way it is going through the other people's information on the tower that is the issue not the person they have a warrant based on evidence on hand. The whole point of calling it a warrant is so that people know you are not supposed to get one unless the situation warrants it.

This literally reads like verbal vomit. Painful to read and makes little sense. As for what I can actually understand:

Eavesdropping on and recording conversations is illegal without a warrant. Any evidence gathered as a direct or indirect result of warrantless conversations becomes inadmissable in court, no matter how damning it is.

 

[lcpiper]

So bad guy a has a phone with developer profile turned on, you don't know the phone number, the device id or mac address, you just happened to see in by cell tower 1... you turn on stingray and it listens to every phone conversation until you listen on bad guy a, conversation while your buddy next to you hears about two people disusing a private tip on company that is going to publicly announce something the next day and the stock price is going to shoot through the roof. He ignores the guy is supposed to track down to buy a bunch of shares then dump them half way through the day of the announcement to take advantage of the tip and the investors get really puzzled while they have a huge dip half way through the day and wonder if the people trading the stock are working for the company and the announcement is fake.

The rico act would be that without a warrant for each of those people served ahead of time so they know that every they do is being monitored is abuse of power... thus a rico act violation... the criminal was on the tower maybe or maybe it was a sat phone, either way it is going through the other people's information on the tower that is the issue not the person they have a warrant based on evidence on hand. The whole point of calling it a warrant is so that people know you are not supposed to get one unless the situation warrants it.

That is not how it works at all.

First, the cops are looking for a bad guy, a known bad guy, so they must do two things;
They need a warrant to get his ESN or MSID from his cell phone provider
And they need a general location so they can get close enough to use the Stingray to locate him.

If their Stingray has the capability to listen to conversations, and that is an "IF", they can listen in after the device finds the correct phone because they are not listening to conversations while the phone is connecting and dumping incorrect connections as fast as it can while trying to locate and connect to the targeted phone. It's like a scanner ripping through phones rapidly connecting and saying "Are you phone XXX?", no ? disconnect, next phone.

The way you think it works isn't the way it works at all. Even still, there are other capabilities but they are what the Military buys for Intelligence collection where completely different rules apply, and where they are not looking for evidence but instead are simply collecting all the information they can. It's an entirely different game. And I don't think you know as much about the Rico Act as you think you know about how Stingrays work.

 

[drakken]

The way it is supposed to work in a police officer finds or is given info of wrong doing. They beat feet virtually or actually talking to people to get possible leads. Those lead to possible witness or public camera feeds... camera's you can see. Then they have to find evidence they can give to a judge to try to collect evidence they could not find without breaking the law.

Half the time in the last ten years it has been more a dozen cops sitting in room with little privacy listening to phone logs, looking through social media and as many non verifiable sources as they can generate a print out from. Then they tell the judge person x has done this but they said they dumped the evidence in person y's home. They ask the judge for a warrant to look in person y's home. Person y has did not commit the crime of person x, yet might be held at gun point in their homes while the police officers search for drugs stolen property or what ever and then arrest person y, because they don't find the evidence of person x, that may not have existed. For every good cop that does the job correctly there seems to be one bad one.

The warrants and arrest system is broken, the judicial courts are trying to work with the legislative bodies of various states but that takes time, in the mean time there are people who go to work and see nothing but criminals all day long and cops and simply stop seeing anyone who is not a cop as a person at all. I speak from experience I had to take the bar at the greater Superior court of los angles in calli and likely am going to have to take it again in every state I move to.

 

[lcpiper]

The way it is supposed to work in a police officer finds or is given info of wrong doing. They beat feet virtually or actually talking to people to get possible leads. Those lead to possible witness or public camera feeds... camera's you can see. Then they have to find evidence they can give to a judge to try to collect evidence they could not find without breaking the law.

Half the time in the last ten years it has been more a dozen cops sitting in room with little privacy listening to phone logs, looking through social media and as many non verifiable sources as they can generate a print out from. Then they tell the judge person x has done this but they said they dumped the evidence in person y's home. They ask the judge for a warrant to look in person y's home. Person y has did not commit the crime of person x, yet might be held at gun point in their homes while the police officers search for drugs stolen property or what ever and then arrest person y, because they don't find the evidence of person x, that may not have existed. For every good cop that does the job correctly there seems to be one bad one.

The warrants and arrest system is broken, the judicial courts are trying to work with the legislative bodies of various states but that takes time, in the mean time there are people who go to work and see nothing but criminals all day long and cops and simply stop seeing anyone who is not a cop as a person at all. I speak from experience I had to take the bar at the greater Superior court of los angles in calli and likely am going to have to take it again in every state I move to.

I'm not playing this fictitious ring around the rosy game. I can't chase tales of unspecific wrongs.

We have this article, this article is about Officers who had an arrest warrant for an individual, they got the info they needed from the man's cell phone provider, tracked his phone by Stingray, and arrested him. I don't see anything wrong with that and it sounds like an efficient way of conducting business. If the guy was so stupid as to keep his phone on him when he has a warrant out for his arrest, all the better.

 

[c3k]

How does one get notified that there is a warrant out for their arrest? The above presupposes prior knowledge, and acquiescence to the active "pinging" of the phone. How is this not the same as, "We're just coming in to look around for John Smith?"

I see it as a warrantless search. No different than placing a tap, trace, or recording on a phone line. "Oh...we just used that to FIND him." The next step will be turning on cameras on the cellphones of known associates...to help "locate" the individual. But, don't worry: the images won't be used against you. After all, who's dumb enough to leave their batteries in their phone? And that of all their friends... It's a slippery slope and this is a step downhill.

The phone is his personal property, in his possession. The government is USING it...without asking his permission. Illegal search and seizure should cover it.

 

[lcpiper]

How does one get notified that there is a warrant out for their arrest? The above presupposes prior knowledge, and acquiescence to the active "pinging" of the phone. How is this not the same as, "We're just coming in to look around for John Smith?"

I see it as a warrantless search. No different than placing a tap, trace, or recording on a phone line. "Oh...we just used that to FIND him." The next step will be turning on cameras on the cellphones of known associates...to help "locate" the individual. But, don't worry: the images won't be used against you. After all, who's dumb enough to leave their batteries in their phone? And that of all their friends... It's a slippery slope and this is a step downhill.

The phone is his personal property, in his possession. The government is USING it...without asking his permission. Illegal search and seizure should cover it.

How is it a warrantless search if they are not "searching something"?

How is it different from looking for his car by his license plate number. The man's phone is out there broadcasting it's identity to the world and with a warrant for the man's arrest, all the cops are doing is listening for it and then following the signal to the source. You know we all pay for these efforts, it's our tax payer dollars that pay for the cops to spend time out there looking for the guy. If they can find him simply and quickly I am all for it. Maybe it'll help them catch up on their work load and become more efficient at the job. I want them to catch asshole number one so I have no problem with this. I do not see this as a slippery slope, an invasion of privacy, none of those things at all.

You say " The next step will be turning on cameras on the cellphones of known associates...to help "locate" the individual." and I say, this is entirely reasonable and effective so there is no reason for them to try other more shady methods.

Granted, I also am all for classifying this technology by it's capabilities and specifying which class of device can be used for what purposes. If a Class I device doesn't have the ability to "listen or record conversations" then that is all they need for locating people for arrest and therefor that is the class of device they should use for that purpose. A Class II device that can listen and record should only be used for purposes where a warrant would be required for search and evidence. Class III devices become military and Intelligence service use only and are not legal to use against US Persons. This approach would go a long way toward clearing up the problems with these devices.

 

[lcpiper]

How does one get notified that there is a warrant out for their arrest?...........................

https://www.quora.com/If-a-bench-wa...s-the-person-whom-the-warrant-is-for-notified

If a bench warrant is issued, how is the person whom the warrant is for notified?

Most courts will send a letter advising of the warrant to the defendant's last known address.

http://www.davidbreston.com/blog/2015/10/what-happens-after-police-issue-a-warrant/

Some people may have no idea a warrant is out for their arrest. The court may not call you to notify you of the warrant, but you can go online to find out if you may have an outstanding warrant. You can also contact the court clerk, who can provide that information.

For more serious warrants, a law enforcement officer will deliver the warrant and conduct an arrest as soon as possible. He or she must show you the warrant at the time of arrest. If the warrant is not available, he or she can still arrest you, but must provide the written warrant as quickly as possible.

Of course, sometimes it's as simple as the cops came by your house and your Mom called you about it.

 

[Tsumi]

How does one get notified that there is a warrant out for their arrest? The above presupposes prior knowledge, and acquiescence to the active "pinging" of the phone. How is this not the same as, "We're just coming in to look around for John Smith?"

I see it as a warrantless search. No different than placing a tap, trace, or recording on a phone line. "Oh...we just used that to FIND him." The next step will be turning on cameras on the cellphones of known associates...to help "locate" the individual. But, don't worry: the images won't be used against you. After all, who's dumb enough to leave their batteries in their phone? And that of all their friends... It's a slippery slope and this is a step downhill.

The phone is his personal property, in his possession. The government is USING it...without asking his permission. Illegal search and seizure should cover it.

Hacking into a phone is a very different matter than scanning for a known ID. One is actively invading a protected device, like breaking into a home, the other is no different than looking for an address and knocking on the door. Or finding a license plate and pulling over the car. A car is personal property. It doesn't mean cops can't look for its license plate.

 

[lcpiper]

I am not pro-cop, but I am also not anti-cop. They are employees that perform a government service and I want them working and doing it right.

In this case, the "suspect" is a convicted felon who was in violation of his parole and had an arrest warrant sworn out on him. If he didn't know about the warrant then I think he at least knew one was coming. The conditions for his parole were almost certainly explicit. That he was recently released and on parole, and had a gun in the car with him in violation of Federal law, that just sweetens the pot.

 

[dethklokworkorange]

So let's take this to it's logical extreme: Cops are searching for someone who is believed to be a suspect in some crime. As of present, no evidence is found against that person, but a warrant is out for their arrest. Illegal means are used to serve that warrant, and in the process, evidence is found that indicates the suspect is guilty.

Just saying, there is a slippery slope here. What seems cut and dry isn't always so clear.

If there is no evidence of a person committing a crime, a warrant can not be issued for their arrest for that crime. The police have to show a judge they have probable cause to believe that person committed a crime, beyond just suspicions. Unless you mean the man had a warrant for another crime. For example, if he had a probation warrant and were also suspected of a separate burglary, and using the Stingray to locate him for the warrant revealed evidence of the burglary. In which case, he'd be off the hook for burglary (unless they found other evidence by approved methods) but still on the hook for the probation violation.

 

[dethklokworkorange]

For every good cop that does the job correctly there seems to be one bad one.

It may seem like there is a 1:1 ratio of good:bad cops out there because peoples' availability heuristic is being triggered by media coverage. News agencies report on unusual events disproportionate to the rate at which they occur, which makes it seem more common than it is.
That is not to suggest there are no bad cops, or that the media has some anti-cop agenda. Our current version of mainstream News exists only to sell advertisements, and the biggest craziest thing they can find is always what they go with, because you're more likely to keep watching. Tl;dr Don't believe everything you see on TV or the Internets.

 

[lcpiper]

In 2008, state and local law enforcement agencies employed more than 1.1 million people on a full-time basis, including about 765,000 sworn personnel (defined as those with general arrest powers). Agencies also employed approximately 100,000 part-time employees, including 44,000 sworn officers.

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

This isn't counting the Feds, so the number is roughly 2 million plus. But that works for demonstration purposes. A one to one ration of good cop / bad cop = 1 million (known, because they made the news, that's why drakken says it looks that way, I presume), bad cops.

1 million bad cops / 365 days a year = 2,740 bad cop stories a day, in the news.

Now let's go with the inverse or reverse the logic. This is just a rough estimate, but let's say we get 200 bad cop stories and youtube videos a day. 200 x 365 = 73,000 bad cop stories a year, = .073 (7% roughly), or seven bad cops out of every one hundred, one out of every 14 or so.

EDIT: (We have to half this number, I was using 1 million instead of 2 million so call it 1 bad cop for every 28 or 3.5% of the LE Workforce at State and Local.)

Now in truth, this is a huge swag, a wild assed guess and not scientific or statistical by any means of accuracy. You can add that these are the ones that are known or got caught, you can also balance this against the difference between a cop showing poor judgement vs an actual criminally bad cop who abuses his position for personal gain.