
Police hid use of cell phone tracking device from judge because of NDA - rajbala
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/03/police-hid-use-of-cell-phone-tracking-device-from-judge-because-of-nda/
======
leepowers
_....as of 2010 the Tallahassee Police Department had used stingrays a
staggering 200 times without ever disclosing their use to a judge to get a
warrant._

This is the heart of the problem with law enforcement surveillance at all
levels (local, state, federal). In the U.S. we've always had independent
judicial oversight for police entering and searching your home. There's
absolutely no reason why a similar invasion (if not more severe), which can
track your movements and conversations, should be held to a lesser standard.

Time and again law enforcement has sided with what's expedient. They should be
erring on the side of caution when it comes to the fundamental rights of the
citizens they've sworn to protect.

~~~
wwweston
> Time and again law enforcement has sided with what's expedient. They should
> be erring on the side of caution when it comes to the fundamental rights of
> the citizens they've sworn to protect.

Agreed. There seems to be a narrow view of which laws they're enforcing. I
think it's arguable that when law enforcement fails to respect fundamental
rights _which are also part of the law they 're ostensibly enforcing_ then
they're failing at their job as much as if they were to observe a property
crime in progress and take no action to catch the perps.

Of course, it's also arguable that most officers (and prosecutors) work inside
a system which incentivizes that narrow view.

------
pmorici
Pretty sure an NDA can't prevent an individual from testifying truthfully in a
court in the US no matter what the NDA says. So essentially the Police just
lied.

~~~
DerpDerpDerp
Police in the US lied to a court of law?

Why, that's just unpossible in this great nation!

~~~
EpicEng
If you're going to make a sweeping insult about all law enforcement in a given
country at least try to use proper grammar when doing so. "Unpossible" is not
a word.

~~~
rosser
It's also a meme, of which you may not be aware. It comes from Ralph Wiggum,
the caricature of the special needs child on _The Simpsons_ , when he says,
"Me fail English? That's unpossible!"

In common use, it's generally taken to mean exactly what the GP poster
intended: a mock expression of surprise at a thing that is, in fact, assumed
to be the case.

~~~
EpicEng
...ok, yeah, that went right over my head. I'm ashamed as I used to be an avid
Simpsons viewer.

------
arca_vorago
'Police "did not want to obtain a search warrant because they did not want to
reveal information about the technology they used to track the cell phone
signal,"'

"As two judges noted during the oral argument, as of 2010 the Tallahassee
Police Department had used stingrays a staggering 200 times without ever
disclosing their use to a judge to get a warrant."

I'm curious if the government plans to appeal, because if it goes to a higher
court, I wouldn't be surprised if it was overturned. I have noticed a pattern
where some middle level courts will actually, gasp, rule in favor of the
Constitution, only to be overturned in a higher court (years later of course).

This is such a blatant violation of the fourth amendment that it is disgusting
(much like many other Constitutional violations happening these days).

Also, please remember that according to Ruse Tice and an unnamed source of
Sibel Edmonds, the SCOTUS itself is likely to be compromised via traditional
intelligence tools (blackmail, corruption, etc).

This is a symptom of larger issues at hand in society.

------
csense
The police department has Constitutional obligation to follow the Fourth and
Fifth Amendments. Don't these obligations trump the provisions of any private
contract?

~~~
sliverstorm
If companies are people, isn't disclosing private information belonging to
that company is a violation of a person's privacy? Doesn't that mean the gov't
also has a constitutional obligation to not break the privacy of companies?

What do you even do when you have conflicting constitutional obligations...

~~~
skywhopper
You err on the side of protecting the innocent and allowing the guilty to go
free. That's the entire premise behind our justice system--that it's better to
allow criminals to get away with crimes than to punish innocent people.

~~~
dllthomas
_" That's the entire premise behind our justice system--that it's better to
allow criminals to get away with crimes than to punish innocent people."_

Well, that's the premise behind _many aspects_ of our justice system. No
justice system at all accomplishes it better than any justice system at all,
without other considerations, so it's clearly not the entire premise behind
the whole of our justice system.

------
derekp7
So here's the problem that I have with most of these types of cases, where
police don't follow proper procedure to capture a suspect. Let's say they went
through normal procedures -- get a sketch artist to make a possibly inaccurate
caricature of the suspect, and use that to make an arrest, and have the victim
ID the suspect. This has a good chance of convicting the wrong person. First,
if the sketch is inaccurate, the victim may have that image in there mind
afterwards, which would influence picking out the suspect from a lineup.

Now, using the alternative procedure, in which the police are tracking down
the victim's stolen phone (I'm assuming with the victim's blessing), there is
a much higher chance of getting the right suspect.

So, how do you argue with someone that the police should use inferior (but
legal) evidence to put the (possibly wrong) person away, instead of using more
accurate (but 4'th amendment violating) evidence to get the right person? Now
in cases where proper procedure always gives superior evidence, then it is
easier to argue for that (such as standards for collecting DNA evidence to
avoid contamination). But in other cases, it is possible that unauthorized
methods can lead police away from an innocent person and toward the guilty
one.

~~~
Osiris
How it would it violate the 4th amendment to track the location of an
individual's phone with their consent? If the location of the phone happens to
be in another person's pocket, wouldn't that provide reasonable suspicion that
a crime was committed, allowing the police to further investigate that
individual?

I suppose the distinction is in _how_ the police track the victim's phone.

~~~
fleitz
If a phone is stolen in a mall do you think it's reasonable for police to
setup checkpoints at all entrances and exits and body cavity search everyone
who goes in and out with out judicial oversight based only on the assertions
of the alleged victim?

Or do you think a search like that might warrant judicial oversight?

------
gumby
Metacomplaint:

The real title of this piece should be "Police used NDA as an excuse to hide
use of cell phone tracking device from judge." As others have already
commented, (e.g. pmorici) there is no way a civil agreement could prevent
disclosure in a criminal matter.

It's no great surprise the police would want to do this.

What's disappointing is the reflexive journalistic cringe to be "fair" which
in fact ends up being unfair. I'm not advocating froth-at-the-mouth
partisanship a la Fox News or WorldNetDaily. But this headline unambiguously
skews the story by taking the cops' word as they (mendaciously) uttered it.

------
avsbst
So in a case like this assuming the defendant is able to suppress any
information used against him with respect to his location. Does it even matter
for his case? The police now know who he is and assuming DNA evidence, rape
test kit evidence, etc. come back and implicate him won't he still be found
guilty? Or is all of that suppressed because the police wouldn't have found
him otherwise without violating the 4th amendment?

Edit: Made my first question more specific

~~~
wmf
See
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruit_of_the_poisonous_tree](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruit_of_the_poisonous_tree)

------
chrismcb
It sounds like they did some dirty underhanded things... But did they get in
trouble for finding the thief of a phone, by tracking the victim's phone?

