6 ms·

If three armed gang members are on the run after shooting someone, and an informant names some suspects, looking up the location of the suspects' phones seems a

by ggreer 11y ago

If three armed gang members are on the run after shooting someone, and an informant names some suspects, looking up the location of the suspects' phones seems acceptable to me. I have no doubt that stingrays are abused, but this specific instance, even if not legal, is ethical. That said, I do have issues with the OPD's incompetence and the prosecution's attempt at a cover-up. Seriously, why did the officer put himself in such a dangerous situation? Have the same prosecutors hidden evidence from the defense in the past? I'd love to get answers to those questions.

mattmanser 11y ago
There's no reason to think they're on a rampage or anything. There was no threat of a future crime. So why is it ethical to throw out all the checks and balances? There's no good moral or ethical argument I can see, you're just hand waving because you feel like they deserve to get caught. The police department was obviously just embarrassed that service weapons had been stolen.
- ggreer 11y ago
  > There was no threat of a future crime. If there is any circumstance in which someone is likely to commit future crimes, it's probably after shooting a cop and taking their gun. At that point, the punishment is so bad that additional crimes are a rounding error. If carjacking or robbery can decrease your chances of getting caught, they're worth doing. Ditto for destroying evidence. It's fortunate that none of these things happened, but they all too easily could have. > So why is it ethical to throw out all the checks and balances? I never said that. I live in Oakland. I know my phone could be targeted. I'm completely in favor of checks and balances. I'm simply looking at the specifics of this case: Someone is accosted, beaten, and shot by armed gang members. An informant names some suspects. Is it ethical to look up the location of their phones? I'm pretty sure it is. If you disagree, I'd love to hear where you'd draw the line for stinger use. > The police department was obviously just embarrassed that service weapons had been stolen. That was a factor, but it was minor. The main reason for the OPD's ridiculous overreaction was that one of their own had been shot. That's what I wish had been the focus of this story: Poor training (and possibly corruption) causing public servants to do a bad job.
  - pdkl95 11y ago
    > Is it ethical to look up the location of their phones? Sure it is. They just have to get a warrant. This is not a difficult burden in such a situation. Remember that a warrant requirement only requires probably cause, which is obvious in this case). The entire point is that the government has to make sure the justification is put on record instead of simply letting the police search whatever they want. This obviously wasn't a significant burden... as they did it just an hour earlier: At 1:05am on January 22, roughly six hours after Karsseboom was shot, the OPD got a search warrant for three apartments: #108, #110, and #212. At 2:45am, the OPD faxed Metro PCS, asking the company to activate a pen register on two target phone numbers (a 510 number and a 661 number) citing exigent circumstances. Exigent circumstances is about a currently-still-active situation, such as a chase or where there is imminent danger. Seeing someone waving firearm at people is "imminent danger". Theorizing about what crimes a criminal might do in the future - without any specific evidence - based only on their past crimes while the officers involved take a few hours to apply for warrants and search a few apartments is surprisingly far from "imminent". This is terrible police work: they what should have been an easy case, but rather than simply getting a warrant and making sure the necessary evidence was handled properly, they rushed the job and ruined the evidence.
  - asveikau 11y ago
    My initial read of this story is the same as yours. If accounts are to be believed, these suspects are violent and the police have legitimate reasons to be after them. Bringing this as an example does injustice to those with more legitimate concerns over police surveillance. Then I start playing devil's advocate. They don't know this guy is a cop initially; if they did they probably would have been deterred by the risks and stiff penalties involved in harming law enforcement. They also didn't kill the cop even though they had ample opportunity to do so: they wave weapons at him, they shoot him nonfatally in the arm, they beat him up, but this may be because they saw his gun and saw him as a threat. The suspects have clearly committed crimes against the cop but it's less cut and dry whether they would have done the same had the officer done something differently.
michaelt 11y ago
an informant names some suspects, looking up the location of the suspects' phones seems acceptable to me. Wasn't the "secret informant" a wiretap they didn't want subject to legal scrutiny? That's the impression I got from the article?
- op00to 11y ago
  FTA: "At times, cops have gone as far as to falsely claim the existence of a confidential informant while in fact deploying this particularly sweeping and invasive surveillance tool." The author suggests - between the lines anyway - that the authorities claim there's a CI, when really that CI is a Stingray. To apply that logic to this case, the CI "X" seems to be a convenient way to get around pesky constitutional protections and not have to mention the use of a Stingray.
  - malnourish 11y ago
    Sounds like The Wire.
  - toufka 11y ago
    Yep. There was no informant. The implications are quite unacceptable.
mattlutze 11y ago
Tl;dr: The least ethical time to ignore the law is when a highly dynamic incident is underway. > If three armed gang members are on the run after shooting someone, and an informant names some suspects, looking up the location of the suspects' phones seems acceptable to me. I have no doubt that stingrays are abused, but this specific instance, even if not legal, is ethical. This assumes that 1. The informant is truthful and accurate 2. The informant is truthful and accurate Laws and procedures exist so that in situations of increased emotion, there is a guard against making rash, unethical, or illegal decisions. Eyewitnesses are generally pretty terrible at providing a true and accurate accounting of specific details in a sudden situation. For many reasons, informants can be misinformed, confused, incorrect, malicious. And, if there's an emotional imperative to act on the part of the police, there will be an active pressure to ignore some of these concerns or some of the rigor needed to be certain they're pursuing the right suspects. So, you have procedure, and you absolutely have to follow it because it's the one thing that's protecting you (as the officer) from making a bad decision (when the emotions are running high).
- ggreer 11y ago
  I'm aware of the inaccuracy of eyewitness testimony, but that's not relevant in this case. The tip came from a known confidential informant, not a random person. The police were going to pursue the lead, stinger or no. The stinger just made it easier for them to verify that the suspects were at their homes. Yes, proper procedures are important. Yes, I doubt this stinger usage was legal. Yes, this was bad police work. I agree with all of those points. As I said before, the OPD was incompetent. Now for a thought experiment: Imagine we lived in a world where police needed a warrant to dust for latent fingerprints. Such procedures would safeguard the privacy of citizens and prevent many abuses of power. Still, I think that world would be worse than this one. Such hindrances would, at the margin, make it harder to solve cases and allow more criminals to evade capture. Those costs are high enough to outweigh the privacy benefits. Now imagine trying to convince people of the advantages of warrantless fingerprint-dusting. No matter how you frame it, everyone thinks you don't care about civil liberties. Many of them try to educate you on the importance of checks and balances in the legal system. Sounds pretty frustrating, huh? I hope that helps you see where I'm coming from. Edit: So far in this whole thread, not a single reply has engaged with my actual argument. (sigh) I give up. Here's another thought experiment: If the Supreme Court ruled in favor of warrantless stingrays, would you be OK with them? If not, maybe legality isn't your true reason for opposing them.
fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
>Have the same prosecutors hidden evidence from the defense in the past? I'd love to get answers to those questions. Look up Alex Kozinski "There is an epidemic of Brady violations abroad in the land." http://legaltimes.typepad.com/files/usca9-brady.pdf http://legaltimes.typepad.com/files/usca9-brady.pdf

by ggreer 11y ago

mattmanser 11y ago

There's no reason to think they're on a rampage or anything. There was no threat of a future crime. So why is it ethical to throw out all the checks and balances? There's no good moral or ethical argument I can see, you're just hand waving because you feel like they deserve to get caught. The police department was obviously just embarrassed that service weapons had been stolen.

ggreer 11y ago
> There was no threat of a future crime. If there is any circumstance in which someone is likely to commit future crimes, it's probably after shooting a cop and taking their gun. At that point, the punishment is so bad that additional crimes are a rounding error. If carjacking or robbery can decrease your chances of getting caught, they're worth doing. Ditto for destroying evidence. It's fortunate that none of these things happened, but they all too easily could have. > So why is it ethical to throw out all the checks and balances? I never said that. I live in Oakland. I know my phone could be targeted. I'm completely in favor of checks and balances. I'm simply looking at the specifics of this case: Someone is accosted, beaten, and shot by armed gang members. An informant names some suspects. Is it ethical to look up the location of their phones? I'm pretty sure it is. If you disagree, I'd love to hear where you'd draw the line for stinger use. > The police department was obviously just embarrassed that service weapons had been stolen. That was a factor, but it was minor. The main reason for the OPD's ridiculous overreaction was that one of their own had been shot. That's what I wish had been the focus of this story: Poor training (and possibly corruption) causing public servants to do a bad job.
- pdkl95 11y ago
  > Is it ethical to look up the location of their phones? Sure it is. They just have to get a warrant. This is not a difficult burden in such a situation. Remember that a warrant requirement only requires probably cause, which is obvious in this case). The entire point is that the government has to make sure the justification is put on record instead of simply letting the police search whatever they want. This obviously wasn't a significant burden... as they did it just an hour earlier: At 1:05am on January 22, roughly six hours after Karsseboom was shot, the OPD got a search warrant for three apartments: #108, #110, and #212. At 2:45am, the OPD faxed Metro PCS, asking the company to activate a pen register on two target phone numbers (a 510 number and a 661 number) citing exigent circumstances. Exigent circumstances is about a currently-still-active situation, such as a chase or where there is imminent danger. Seeing someone waving firearm at people is "imminent danger". Theorizing about what crimes a criminal might do in the future - without any specific evidence - based only on their past crimes while the officers involved take a few hours to apply for warrants and search a few apartments is surprisingly far from "imminent". This is terrible police work: they what should have been an easy case, but rather than simply getting a warrant and making sure the necessary evidence was handled properly, they rushed the job and ruined the evidence.
- asveikau 11y ago
  My initial read of this story is the same as yours. If accounts are to be believed, these suspects are violent and the police have legitimate reasons to be after them. Bringing this as an example does injustice to those with more legitimate concerns over police surveillance. Then I start playing devil's advocate. They don't know this guy is a cop initially; if they did they probably would have been deterred by the risks and stiff penalties involved in harming law enforcement. They also didn't kill the cop even though they had ample opportunity to do so: they wave weapons at him, they shoot him nonfatally in the arm, they beat him up, but this may be because they saw his gun and saw him as a threat. The suspects have clearly committed crimes against the cop but it's less cut and dry whether they would have done the same had the officer done something differently.

michaelt 11y ago

an informant names some suspects, looking up the location of the suspects' phones seems acceptable to me. Wasn't the "secret informant" a wiretap they didn't want subject to legal scrutiny? That's the impression I got from the article?

op00to 11y ago
FTA: "At times, cops have gone as far as to falsely claim the existence of a confidential informant while in fact deploying this particularly sweeping and invasive surveillance tool." The author suggests - between the lines anyway - that the authorities claim there's a CI, when really that CI is a Stingray. To apply that logic to this case, the CI "X" seems to be a convenient way to get around pesky constitutional protections and not have to mention the use of a Stingray.
- malnourish 11y ago
  Sounds like The Wire.
- toufka 11y ago
  Yep. There was no informant. The implications are quite unacceptable.

mattlutze 11y ago

Tl;dr: The least ethical time to ignore the law is when a highly dynamic incident is underway. > If three armed gang members are on the run after shooting someone, and an informant names some suspects, looking up the location of the suspects' phones seems acceptable to me. I have no doubt that stingrays are abused, but this specific instance, even if not legal, is ethical. This assumes that 1. The informant is truthful and accurate 2. The informant is truthful and accurate Laws and procedures exist so that in situations of increased emotion, there is a guard against making rash, unethical, or illegal decisions. Eyewitnesses are generally pretty terrible at providing a true and accurate accounting of specific details in a sudden situation. For many reasons, informants can be misinformed, confused, incorrect, malicious. And, if there's an emotional imperative to act on the part of the police, there will be an active pressure to ignore some of these concerns or some of the rigor needed to be certain they're pursuing the right suspects. So, you have procedure, and you absolutely have to follow it because it's the one thing that's protecting you (as the officer) from making a bad decision (when the emotions are running high).

ggreer 11y ago
I'm aware of the inaccuracy of eyewitness testimony, but that's not relevant in this case. The tip came from a known confidential informant, not a random person. The police were going to pursue the lead, stinger or no. The stinger just made it easier for them to verify that the suspects were at their homes. Yes, proper procedures are important. Yes, I doubt this stinger usage was legal. Yes, this was bad police work. I agree with all of those points. As I said before, the OPD was incompetent. Now for a thought experiment: Imagine we lived in a world where police needed a warrant to dust for latent fingerprints. Such procedures would safeguard the privacy of citizens and prevent many abuses of power. Still, I think that world would be worse than this one. Such hindrances would, at the margin, make it harder to solve cases and allow more criminals to evade capture. Those costs are high enough to outweigh the privacy benefits. Now imagine trying to convince people of the advantages of warrantless fingerprint-dusting. No matter how you frame it, everyone thinks you don't care about civil liberties. Many of them try to educate you on the importance of checks and balances in the legal system. Sounds pretty frustrating, huh? I hope that helps you see where I'm coming from. Edit: So far in this whole thread, not a single reply has engaged with my actual argument. (sigh) I give up. Here's another thought experiment: If the Supreme Court ruled in favor of warrantless stingrays, would you be OK with them? If not, maybe legality isn't your true reason for opposing them.

fnordfnordfnord 11y ago

>Have the same prosecutors hidden evidence from the defense in the past? I'd love to get answers to those questions. Look up Alex Kozinski "There is an epidemic of Brady violations abroad in the land." http://legaltimes.typepad.com/files/usca9-brady.pdf http://legaltimes.typepad.com/files/usca9-brady.pdf