4 ms·

yes it will hold up in court. Police don't let suspects out of detention just because they complain they have to pee. High-tech state-of-the-art tracking techn

yes it will hold up in court. Police don't let suspects out of detention just because they complain they have to pee. High-tech state-of-the-art tracking technology from Google and Apple indicates that these people are somehow involved in the disappearance of a missing person. How dumb would the officer look if he let a suspect destroy evidence, escape, or otherwise pull something on the claim that they have to pee?

duaneb 11y ago
I think this in itself proves that the technology is far from state-of-the-art. Google and Apple are not in the business of providing canonical evidence and should not be.
mentat 11y ago
There's no way it would hold up in court. Perhaps the court of public opinion but nowhere else.
- anikamariam 11y ago
  i can cite 100s of cases where way weaker evidence held up in court with NO PROBLEM
andreasvc 11y ago
> High-tech state-of-the-art tracking technology from Google and Apple indicates that these people are somehow involved in the disappearance of a missing person. It is rather odd that you insist on this when you know it to be false. The technology is not state-of-the art because it is missing the crucial feature of telling you how confident it is in its assessment. These people were clearly not involved and the tracking app was simply malfunctioning. In my opinion this clearly shows how irresponsible it is to make an app like this which recklessly reports results without providing information on their accuracy and reliability. Of course the app will disclaim any sort of liability, but common sense tells you there will be life-and-death situations such as this where incorrect results will have consequences.
- anikamariam 11y ago
  as far as the courts, cops, prosecutors, and juries are concerned... this is state of the art tracking technology and more than enough reason to search someone's house. This would be enough for a probable cause for a search if the cops decided they wanted one. The cops were being nice in this case because it seems they believed the couple's story and were just being diligent in detaining them for awhile It WAY passes the bar for reasonable suspicion for detention which is a very, very low bar. A hunch is enough for reasonable suspicion. Having sophisticated tracking tech point to someone is way more than enough
wwweston 11y ago
> How dumb would the officer look if he let a suspect destroy evidence, escape, or otherwise pull something on the claim that they have to pee? There's a lot of ways in which the American system is deliberately set up to let some of the guilty go free and requires a certain degree of responsibility for those detained, charged, or imprisoned in order to preserve a set of rights that are important related to basic human dignity. So yeah, particularly in situations like this, I'm comfortable saying sure, risk the possibility that (as yet established) evidence might be destroyed or that subjects of interest might escape detention. Strict detention practices should be sustained by meeting a high standard for suspicion. But maybe better than that would be if we could have a system that included both reasonable pursuit of justice and a respect of basic rights. Seriously. Is it really impossible to give detainees and opportunity to urinate while protecting evidence? I doubt it. Search the damn bathroom, then search the detainee. Then, unless you've found anything that absolutely requires further undisturbed careful investigation and documentation, escort them to the bathroom for a reasonable amount of time. Part of the job. Particularly when you don't know that they're guilty of anything.
- anikamariam 11y ago
  what the hell are you talking about? no one cares how you think the laws should be. The laws are the way they are. The police can detain you if they have reasonable suspicion to believe you are involved in a crime in any way this was 100% legal according to the laws. no one cares what your fantasy interpretation is
  - jdenning 11y ago
    Since you're posting with a newly made account, I'll assume that you're new here and direct you to the comment guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html TLDR - Please watch the tone of your comments (EDIT: here and in other comments on this topic). Thanks! """ Be civil. Don't say things you wouldn't say in a face-to-face conversation. Avoid gratuitous negativity. When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. E.g. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3." """
manarth 11y ago
There's nothing in the article to say that the residents were arrested. An arrest is the threshold for controlling someone's legitimate actions: if the police don't have enough evidence to arrest the person, then they shouldn't be limiting their movements. That is the whole point of arrest (and the related burden of proof required to make an arrest). To restrict someone's actions without legal authority - such as arresting them - is illegal.
- refurb 11y ago
  An arrest is the threshold for controlling someone's legitimate actions No it's not. You can be legally detained. For example, if a cop stops you for speeding, he won't arrest you, but you will be detained until he gets the information he needs and gives you a ticket. That's why you're supposed to ask "Am I free to go?". If you are legally detained, the answer is "no".
  - manarth 11y ago
    That's a good point, thanks. I ended up having a look through the differences between detention and arrest (finding different thresholds, e.g. "reasonable suspicion" vs "probable cause"[1], and that "20 minutes or so is a reasonable timeframe for detaining someone" [2]). [1] http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/arrest-vs-detention-how-tell-whether-you-ve-been-arrested-simply-detained.html http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/arrest-vs-detention-h... [2] http://criminal-law.freeadvice.com/criminal-law/arrests_and_searches/arrest-detention.htm http://criminal-law.freeadvice.com/criminal-law/arrests_and_...
- anikamariam 11y ago
  Holy shit civics education is pretty bleak in high school these days huh? everyone commenting on this is so ignorant you all must be teenagers the cops dont have to arrest you to control you. They can detain you whenever they want and barely need any reason at all. A hunch is sufficient to detain you for pretty much as long as they want if their hunch continues. fuckin privileged teenagers
  - 11y ago

duaneb 11y ago

I think this in itself proves that the technology is far from state-of-the-art. Google and Apple are not in the business of providing canonical evidence and should not be.

mentat 11y ago

There's no way it would hold up in court. Perhaps the court of public opinion but nowhere else.

anikamariam 11y ago
i can cite 100s of cases where way weaker evidence held up in court with NO PROBLEM

andreasvc 11y ago

> High-tech state-of-the-art tracking technology from Google and Apple indicates that these people are somehow involved in the disappearance of a missing person. It is rather odd that you insist on this when you know it to be false. The technology is not state-of-the art because it is missing the crucial feature of telling you how confident it is in its assessment. These people were clearly not involved and the tracking app was simply malfunctioning. In my opinion this clearly shows how irresponsible it is to make an app like this which recklessly reports results without providing information on their accuracy and reliability. Of course the app will disclaim any sort of liability, but common sense tells you there will be life-and-death situations such as this where incorrect results will have consequences.

anikamariam 11y ago
as far as the courts, cops, prosecutors, and juries are concerned... this is state of the art tracking technology and more than enough reason to search someone's house. This would be enough for a probable cause for a search if the cops decided they wanted one. The cops were being nice in this case because it seems they believed the couple's story and were just being diligent in detaining them for awhile It WAY passes the bar for reasonable suspicion for detention which is a very, very low bar. A hunch is enough for reasonable suspicion. Having sophisticated tracking tech point to someone is way more than enough

wwweston 11y ago

> How dumb would the officer look if he let a suspect destroy evidence, escape, or otherwise pull something on the claim that they have to pee? There's a lot of ways in which the American system is deliberately set up to let some of the guilty go free and requires a certain degree of responsibility for those detained, charged, or imprisoned in order to preserve a set of rights that are important related to basic human dignity. So yeah, particularly in situations like this, I'm comfortable saying sure, risk the possibility that (as yet established) evidence might be destroyed or that subjects of interest might escape detention. Strict detention practices should be sustained by meeting a high standard for suspicion. But maybe better than that would be if we could have a system that included both reasonable pursuit of justice and a respect of basic rights. Seriously. Is it really impossible to give detainees and opportunity to urinate while protecting evidence? I doubt it. Search the damn bathroom, then search the detainee. Then, unless you've found anything that absolutely requires further undisturbed careful investigation and documentation, escort them to the bathroom for a reasonable amount of time. Part of the job. Particularly when you don't know that they're guilty of anything.

anikamariam 11y ago
what the hell are you talking about? no one cares how you think the laws should be. The laws are the way they are. The police can detain you if they have reasonable suspicion to believe you are involved in a crime in any way this was 100% legal according to the laws. no one cares what your fantasy interpretation is
- jdenning 11y ago
  Since you're posting with a newly made account, I'll assume that you're new here and direct you to the comment guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html TLDR - Please watch the tone of your comments (EDIT: here and in other comments on this topic). Thanks! """ Be civil. Don't say things you wouldn't say in a face-to-face conversation. Avoid gratuitous negativity. When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. E.g. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3." """

manarth 11y ago

There's nothing in the article to say that the residents were arrested. An arrest is the threshold for controlling someone's legitimate actions: if the police don't have enough evidence to arrest the person, then they shouldn't be limiting their movements. That is the whole point of arrest (and the related burden of proof required to make an arrest). To restrict someone's actions without legal authority - such as arresting them - is illegal.

refurb 11y ago
An arrest is the threshold for controlling someone's legitimate actions No it's not. You can be legally detained. For example, if a cop stops you for speeding, he won't arrest you, but you will be detained until he gets the information he needs and gives you a ticket. That's why you're supposed to ask "Am I free to go?". If you are legally detained, the answer is "no".
- manarth 11y ago
  That's a good point, thanks. I ended up having a look through the differences between detention and arrest (finding different thresholds, e.g. "reasonable suspicion" vs "probable cause"[1], and that "20 minutes or so is a reasonable timeframe for detaining someone" [2]). [1] http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/arrest-vs-detention-how-tell-whether-you-ve-been-arrested-simply-detained.html http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/arrest-vs-detention-h... [2] http://criminal-law.freeadvice.com/criminal-law/arrests_and_searches/arrest-detention.htm http://criminal-law.freeadvice.com/criminal-law/arrests_and_...
anikamariam 11y ago
Holy shit civics education is pretty bleak in high school these days huh? everyone commenting on this is so ignorant you all must be teenagers the cops dont have to arrest you to control you. They can detain you whenever they want and barely need any reason at all. A hunch is sufficient to detain you for pretty much as long as they want if their hunch continues. fuckin privileged teenagers
- 11y ago