7 ms·

The article describes a case where an innocent man had to spend a week in jail. Eventually, he was released and the presumed actual perpetrator was caught. The

The article describes a case where an innocent man had to spend a week in jail. Eventually, he was released and the presumed actual perpetrator was caught. The lead seemed to come from the location data, so it wasn’t useless at least. But the so called justice system says that it got it right here. The innocent man lost his job when he couldn’t work for a week. Depending on his situation he could miss rent and be evicted too. Why do we have a system that says justice was served? It’s cruel and unfair. This dragnet police tactic will scoop up more bystanders and probably convict more than a few innocents as well. I like the timeline feature- it has been genuinely helpful for remembering when I did things months ago. The tie in with photos is also a fun way to remember trips. It’s sad that the cost of these features is to roll the dice on getting arrested because a crime was committed nearby.

JumpCrisscross 7y ago
> Why do we have a system that says justice was served? Suggest specific improvements and call them into your representatives. The closer you can make your proposals to a bill, the more likely it is that the problem becomes an issue. In this case, I’d argue we need publicly-subsidised attorneys for wrongful arrest. It should also be unlawful to dismiss an employee because they were arrested and never indicted. Giving people the right to notify employers, upon arrest, barring a specific request by the police (approved by a court), would also be prudent.
- floren 7y ago
  > It should also be unlawful to dismiss an employee because they were arrested and never indicted. This would be huge. It's illegal to fire someone because they got called up on jury duty, and if someone is arrested but later found innocent the same rules should apply: in both cases you're involuntarily assisting the criminal justice system :)
- est31 7y ago
  > Giving people the right to notify employers Why not ask your lawyer to do it for you? You already have the right to make a call to a lawyer.
  - vuln 7y ago
    I would be willing to be that 90% of the population getting locked up do not have a lawyer on retainer and use public defenders. Which you must wait for one to be provided to you then wait for said representation to reach out to you. That’s days if not longer in jail just waiting. Unless you have money then you won’t spend a moment in jail. Yet again the wealthy have a different set of rules because they can pay their way out of anything.
    - est31 7y ago
      That's a good point, thank you. So I guess such a right would indeed be useful.
    - kevingadd 7y ago
      Beyond this in some areas due to lack of funding & supply there aren't even enough public defenders. It can take people weeks to get one at all and the one they get will barely have enough time to represent them.
- isoskeles 7y ago
  > It should also be unlawful to dismiss an employee because they were arrested and never indicted. I disagree. The cost of bad policing shouldn't be paid for by businesses. The police should bear the consequences, not have yet another victim (some business) to burden with more punishment.
  - maxheadroom 7y ago
    >The police should bear the consequences... When, in the history of ever (in America), have the police borne the consequences for anything? It's always been either the taxpayer (in pay-outs) or no one (when the officer simply moves to another jurisdiction to keep on keeping on). Although, the premise is idyllic, it would never happen.
  - deogeo 7y ago
    > bad policing But arresting someone reasonably suspected of some crime isn't bad policing, even if they are later found to be innocent. That is why arrest and trial are separate.
    - RHSeeger 7y ago
      I think part of the problem is that there's a lot of actors in law enforcement for which "reasonably suspected" isn't important; "can we make it stick" is. Past that, they don't even bother to consider if it might be the wrong person. There's a LOT of good cops, lawyers, judges, etc. However, the bad ones can have such devastating effects on their victims, that all of them need to be watched (controlled? not sure what the right word is here) more than would be necessary for other areas.
    - isoskeles 7y ago
      Let's agree to disagree. I think that detaining an innocent person against their will is bad policing.
      - deogeo 7y ago
        But how could it be avoided? The police don't operate on 'guilty' and 'innocent', but on 'suspect' - even if they do everything right, they'll occasionally arrest someone that will later turn out to be innocent. If they're responding to an emergency, they simply don't have time to determine guilt with much accuracy, and are just focusing on protecting possible victims. And if they're arresting someone being prosecuted for some crime, well it's unavoidable that occasionally someone won't be found guilty for what they stood trial for - that's the whole point of a trial. However, I agree that if that should happen, the detained should be compensated for the harm they suffered, even if the police (and prosecutors!) acted reasonably. I should clarify that I don't mean to imply the US police and public prosecutors meet these reasonablenes criteria - from what I hear, the deck is stacked heavily against anyone being prosecuted for a felony, guilty or not.
- rexpop 7y ago
  My representatives do not listen to me.
  - loteck 7y ago
    They probably do, but they also have to listen to hundreds of thousands of others just like you, and pick which opportunities to act on. Can you understand why they may both listen to you and not take action on your concern?
    - rexpop 7y ago
      Their responses are often unrelated, or antithetical to my stated position. I think they have an inaccurate classifier.
      - JohnFen 7y ago
        You should know how these things work. When you contact your representative with an opinion, they just add one to their tally of how many voters expressed the same opinion. The totals for how many voters expressed which opinions are what carries the most sway with them. Whether or not those tallies are in alignment with the general public is not relevant. So, when you contact them, you'll get a canned response telling you what their current stance is, regardless of whether that's the same as yours. But make no mistake, your opinion was added to the count. This sort of thing is why phone banks and contact-your-representative campaigns are so common. In bulk, they're effective and can change policy even in ways that most of their constituents don't agree with. They're only looking at the numbers of contacts they've received.
        rexpop 7y ago
        You have just described my experience to me. > Whether or not those tallies are in alignment with the general public is not relevant. Is this not grossly pathological?
        7y ago
- JohnFen 7y ago
  > It should also be unlawful to dismiss an employee because they were arrested and never indicted. Replace "indicted" with "convicted" and I agree. Further, it should by unlawful to refuse you housing because you were arrested even if you weren't convicted (this is common practice right now).
aplummer 7y ago
Could this have been avoided if the suspect himself had the same access to his own sensor data? Like an alibi? I read this whole thing as the technology is there to prevent innocent people to jail, and the processes haven't caught up.
- shereadsthenews 7y ago
  You do have access to your location history from Google. https://www.google.com/maps/timeline https://www.google.com/maps/timeline
  - aplummer 7y ago
    Thats a cool site I didn't know about, however I assumed the innocent suspect wasn't logged into google maps, and that the reporting was done by the device separately.
    - kevingrahl 7y ago
      Afaik you don’t have to be using Maps for Google to track your location. If you have location tracking turned on in your Google account and are for example logged into android Google will get your GPS even if you’ve never used Maps.
  - bestnameever 7y ago
    only if you have that feature turned on. Google also records data outside of maps and timeline, IIRC. I imagine you can always access your complete location history by exporting it from Google's take out feature.
    - tgsovlerkhgsel 7y ago
      From the article, it sounds like the history you have access to is the same that was used for the dragnet searches.
      - 7y ago
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
jammygit 7y ago
It sounds like the easy solution is to increase surveillance further. I hope that better solutions are sought after than this however
luxuryballs 7y ago
wow if it really was only that and a similar car that had him locked up for a week... makes you wonder if he contacted a lawyer immediately or what, that’s crazy
giancarlostoro 7y ago
This also showcases how innocent until proven guilty is not honored at all. Don't throw me in jail just because you're investigating me, throw me in jail if I run off out of town or do something sketchy to interfere with the investigation. If I am not guilty I wont be running out of town, but I sure wont be talking to you without a lawyer no matter what[0]. [0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE
- shhehebehdh 7y ago
  I think this problem is best solved by requiring that the state make amends for arrests which turn out to be incorrect. You lose your job? State funds two months of severance (more if there’s an economic downturn and it’s harder to find a job). Evicted? State provides relocation assistance. Etc. this would also probably be a great disincentive for false arrests. Of course there could be unintended consequences, including the state putting more effort to make square pegs fit in round holes.
  - syshum 7y ago
    I think this problem is best solved by 1. Honoring the plain text, and original intent of the Constitution 2. Holding law enforcement personally liable for their mistakes (i.e ending immunity) 3. Ending the rubber stamp warrant process where law enforcement routinely lies to obtain warrents 4. Ending the moronic 3rd party doctrine exemption to the 4th amendment What I do not think it s a resolution is putting the tax payers on the hook for monetary compensation for the bad actions of law enforcement, that provides zero incentive for law enforcement to change their aggressive, unconstitutional, and authoritarian methods, policies and procedures
kevingadd 7y ago
In a case like this where he ended up getting released a week later and experienced extreme hardship, you'd think he could've gotten out on bail (even if there was an ankle tracker or something). Instead in most regions, bail and trackers are both revenue-generators for the people involved, so people rot in jail for no reason. Imagine if the person wrongly imprisoned in jail has a kid or parent to care for, not only is that dependent abandoned for a week but afterward there's no money to feed them with. It's truly inhumane.
- klyrs 7y ago
  > so people rot in jail for the love of money. ftfy
akira2501 7y ago
> Why do we have a system that says justice was served? Because it was. There was a criminal investigation, it was processed judiciously, and as a result the man was cleared and released. None of this was based upon a _single_ piece of evidence, but multiple facts that supported each other. The only "injustice" I can detect is that he wasn't bailed out while waiting for a trial.. but the article suspiciously doesn't touch on that subject, so I have nothing to go on there. > It’s cruel and unfair. If he has a civil issue with his employer or with the state or it's officers, then that's a separate question and he absolutely has the right to pursue it for remedy if he chooses. > This dragnet police tactic will scoop up more bystanders and probably convict more than a few innocents as well. You make it sound as if the police _only_ used location data to make this case and the arrest. The article shows that they didn't and further shows that the actual murderer had used Mr Molina's car to commit the murder. It's nothing like what you describe.
- AlexCoventry 7y ago
  > he absolutely has the right to pursue it for remedy if he chooses. How do these cases usually work out? If he was held on a reasonable suspicion, is there any possibility of legal remedy?
crazygringo 7y ago
It's illegal for an employer to fire someone if they're selected for jury duty. It's insane that it's legal for an employer to fire someone for being arrested, before being convicted. The same protection should apply in any case where the government is the one forcibly removing you from being present at your workplace through no wrongdoing of your own.
godelski 7y ago
The thing I find sad about this is that Blackstone's Formulation[0] has been part of American common law for a long time (innocent until proven guilty). It was influential to founders like Franklin and Adams. It is clearly something we need to defend. Law isn't perfect, and we need to decide when it breaks down which mode of failure it has. Blackstone would say that it should fail that guilty people go free as opposed to failing and having innocent people have that freedom stripped from them (on the principle that freedom is such a valuable thing). [0] "it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer" (Franklin's rephrasing)
syshum 7y ago
too bad the 4th amendment, which is suppose to bar these very type of generalized warrants and searches, is not respected by the courts at all, and has soo many "exceptions" that it might as well not even be present anymore.

JumpCrisscross 7y ago

> Why do we have a system that says justice was served? Suggest specific improvements and call them into your representatives. The closer you can make your proposals to a bill, the more likely it is that the problem becomes an issue. In this case, I’d argue we need publicly-subsidised attorneys for wrongful arrest. It should also be unlawful to dismiss an employee because they were arrested and never indicted. Giving people the right to notify employers, upon arrest, barring a specific request by the police (approved by a court), would also be prudent.

floren 7y ago
> It should also be unlawful to dismiss an employee because they were arrested and never indicted. This would be huge. It's illegal to fire someone because they got called up on jury duty, and if someone is arrested but later found innocent the same rules should apply: in both cases you're involuntarily assisting the criminal justice system :)
est31 7y ago
> Giving people the right to notify employers Why not ask your lawyer to do it for you? You already have the right to make a call to a lawyer.
- vuln 7y ago
  I would be willing to be that 90% of the population getting locked up do not have a lawyer on retainer and use public defenders. Which you must wait for one to be provided to you then wait for said representation to reach out to you. That’s days if not longer in jail just waiting. Unless you have money then you won’t spend a moment in jail. Yet again the wealthy have a different set of rules because they can pay their way out of anything.
  - est31 7y ago
    That's a good point, thank you. So I guess such a right would indeed be useful.
  - kevingadd 7y ago
    Beyond this in some areas due to lack of funding & supply there aren't even enough public defenders. It can take people weeks to get one at all and the one they get will barely have enough time to represent them.
isoskeles 7y ago
> It should also be unlawful to dismiss an employee because they were arrested and never indicted. I disagree. The cost of bad policing shouldn't be paid for by businesses. The police should bear the consequences, not have yet another victim (some business) to burden with more punishment.
- maxheadroom 7y ago
  >The police should bear the consequences... When, in the history of ever (in America), have the police borne the consequences for anything? It's always been either the taxpayer (in pay-outs) or no one (when the officer simply moves to another jurisdiction to keep on keeping on). Although, the premise is idyllic, it would never happen.
- deogeo 7y ago
  > bad policing But arresting someone reasonably suspected of some crime isn't bad policing, even if they are later found to be innocent. That is why arrest and trial are separate.
  - RHSeeger 7y ago
    I think part of the problem is that there's a lot of actors in law enforcement for which "reasonably suspected" isn't important; "can we make it stick" is. Past that, they don't even bother to consider if it might be the wrong person. There's a LOT of good cops, lawyers, judges, etc. However, the bad ones can have such devastating effects on their victims, that all of them need to be watched (controlled? not sure what the right word is here) more than would be necessary for other areas.
  - isoskeles 7y ago
    Let's agree to disagree. I think that detaining an innocent person against their will is bad policing.
    - deogeo 7y ago
      But how could it be avoided? The police don't operate on 'guilty' and 'innocent', but on 'suspect' - even if they do everything right, they'll occasionally arrest someone that will later turn out to be innocent. If they're responding to an emergency, they simply don't have time to determine guilt with much accuracy, and are just focusing on protecting possible victims. And if they're arresting someone being prosecuted for some crime, well it's unavoidable that occasionally someone won't be found guilty for what they stood trial for - that's the whole point of a trial. However, I agree that if that should happen, the detained should be compensated for the harm they suffered, even if the police (and prosecutors!) acted reasonably. I should clarify that I don't mean to imply the US police and public prosecutors meet these reasonablenes criteria - from what I hear, the deck is stacked heavily against anyone being prosecuted for a felony, guilty or not.
rexpop 7y ago
My representatives do not listen to me.
- loteck 7y ago
  They probably do, but they also have to listen to hundreds of thousands of others just like you, and pick which opportunities to act on. Can you understand why they may both listen to you and not take action on your concern?
  - rexpop 7y ago
    Their responses are often unrelated, or antithetical to my stated position. I think they have an inaccurate classifier.
    - JohnFen 7y ago
      You should know how these things work. When you contact your representative with an opinion, they just add one to their tally of how many voters expressed the same opinion. The totals for how many voters expressed which opinions are what carries the most sway with them. Whether or not those tallies are in alignment with the general public is not relevant. So, when you contact them, you'll get a canned response telling you what their current stance is, regardless of whether that's the same as yours. But make no mistake, your opinion was added to the count. This sort of thing is why phone banks and contact-your-representative campaigns are so common. In bulk, they're effective and can change policy even in ways that most of their constituents don't agree with. They're only looking at the numbers of contacts they've received.
      - rexpop 7y ago
        You have just described my experience to me. > Whether or not those tallies are in alignment with the general public is not relevant. Is this not grossly pathological?
        7y ago
JohnFen 7y ago
> It should also be unlawful to dismiss an employee because they were arrested and never indicted. Replace "indicted" with "convicted" and I agree. Further, it should by unlawful to refuse you housing because you were arrested even if you weren't convicted (this is common practice right now).

aplummer 7y ago

Could this have been avoided if the suspect himself had the same access to his own sensor data? Like an alibi? I read this whole thing as the technology is there to prevent innocent people to jail, and the processes haven't caught up.

shereadsthenews 7y ago
You do have access to your location history from Google. https://www.google.com/maps/timeline https://www.google.com/maps/timeline
- aplummer 7y ago
  Thats a cool site I didn't know about, however I assumed the innocent suspect wasn't logged into google maps, and that the reporting was done by the device separately.
  - kevingrahl 7y ago
    Afaik you don’t have to be using Maps for Google to track your location. If you have location tracking turned on in your Google account and are for example logged into android Google will get your GPS even if you’ve never used Maps.
- bestnameever 7y ago
  only if you have that feature turned on. Google also records data outside of maps and timeline, IIRC. I imagine you can always access your complete location history by exporting it from Google's take out feature.
  - tgsovlerkhgsel 7y ago
    From the article, it sounds like the history you have access to is the same that was used for the dragnet searches.
    - 7y ago

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

jammygit 7y ago

It sounds like the easy solution is to increase surveillance further. I hope that better solutions are sought after than this however

luxuryballs 7y ago

wow if it really was only that and a similar car that had him locked up for a week... makes you wonder if he contacted a lawyer immediately or what, that’s crazy

giancarlostoro 7y ago

This also showcases how innocent until proven guilty is not honored at all. Don't throw me in jail just because you're investigating me, throw me in jail if I run off out of town or do something sketchy to interfere with the investigation. If I am not guilty I wont be running out of town, but I sure wont be talking to you without a lawyer no matter what[0]. [0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE

shhehebehdh 7y ago
I think this problem is best solved by requiring that the state make amends for arrests which turn out to be incorrect. You lose your job? State funds two months of severance (more if there’s an economic downturn and it’s harder to find a job). Evicted? State provides relocation assistance. Etc. this would also probably be a great disincentive for false arrests. Of course there could be unintended consequences, including the state putting more effort to make square pegs fit in round holes.
- syshum 7y ago
  I think this problem is best solved by 1. Honoring the plain text, and original intent of the Constitution 2. Holding law enforcement personally liable for their mistakes (i.e ending immunity) 3. Ending the rubber stamp warrant process where law enforcement routinely lies to obtain warrents 4. Ending the moronic 3rd party doctrine exemption to the 4th amendment What I do not think it s a resolution is putting the tax payers on the hook for monetary compensation for the bad actions of law enforcement, that provides zero incentive for law enforcement to change their aggressive, unconstitutional, and authoritarian methods, policies and procedures

kevingadd 7y ago

In a case like this where he ended up getting released a week later and experienced extreme hardship, you'd think he could've gotten out on bail (even if there was an ankle tracker or something). Instead in most regions, bail and trackers are both revenue-generators for the people involved, so people rot in jail for no reason. Imagine if the person wrongly imprisoned in jail has a kid or parent to care for, not only is that dependent abandoned for a week but afterward there's no money to feed them with. It's truly inhumane.

klyrs 7y ago
> so people rot in jail for the love of money. ftfy

akira2501 7y ago

> Why do we have a system that says justice was served? Because it was. There was a criminal investigation, it was processed judiciously, and as a result the man was cleared and released. None of this was based upon a _single_ piece of evidence, but multiple facts that supported each other. The only "injustice" I can detect is that he wasn't bailed out while waiting for a trial.. but the article suspiciously doesn't touch on that subject, so I have nothing to go on there. > It’s cruel and unfair. If he has a civil issue with his employer or with the state or it's officers, then that's a separate question and he absolutely has the right to pursue it for remedy if he chooses. > This dragnet police tactic will scoop up more bystanders and probably convict more than a few innocents as well. You make it sound as if the police _only_ used location data to make this case and the arrest. The article shows that they didn't and further shows that the actual murderer had used Mr Molina's car to commit the murder. It's nothing like what you describe.

AlexCoventry 7y ago
> he absolutely has the right to pursue it for remedy if he chooses. How do these cases usually work out? If he was held on a reasonable suspicion, is there any possibility of legal remedy?

crazygringo 7y ago

It's illegal for an employer to fire someone if they're selected for jury duty. It's insane that it's legal for an employer to fire someone for being arrested, before being convicted. The same protection should apply in any case where the government is the one forcibly removing you from being present at your workplace through no wrongdoing of your own.

godelski 7y ago

The thing I find sad about this is that Blackstone's Formulation[0] has been part of American common law for a long time (innocent until proven guilty). It was influential to founders like Franklin and Adams. It is clearly something we need to defend. Law isn't perfect, and we need to decide when it breaks down which mode of failure it has. Blackstone would say that it should fail that guilty people go free as opposed to failing and having innocent people have that freedom stripped from them (on the principle that freedom is such a valuable thing). [0] "it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer" (Franklin's rephrasing)

syshum 7y ago

too bad the 4th amendment, which is suppose to bar these very type of generalized warrants and searches, is not respected by the courts at all, and has soo many "exceptions" that it might as well not even be present anymore.