5 ms·
That part doesn’t sound right: > trackers placed by the government under a warrant are distinct from those placed by private citizens. Removing a device from a
by cm2187 7y ago
That part doesn’t sound right:
> trackers placed by the government under a warrant are distinct from those placed by private citizens. Removing a device from a car where it has a legal basis to be “deprives the police of its use,” he claimed, and constitutes a crime.
You have no way to tell a police tracker from a stawker’s one. How can removing it possibly constitute a crime?
- faceplanted 7y agoYeah, how can that law have Mens Rea if you can't possibly know, then again it's the police so justice doesn't always apply.
- HelloNurse 7y agoThey'll start placing "property of XY police department" stickers on the devices.
- TeMPOraL 7y agoAnd so will the stalkers.
- amelius 7y agoHe should have mailed the device to the police. Then again, even if he disposed the device, the police should have been able to track it down.
- caf 7y agoOr just stuck it on a cop car.
- dsfyu404ed 7y agoRandom semi trailer would have definitely thrown them for a loop when it drives 8hr straight out of their jurisdiction. Shipped to Mexico would have been a good one as well.
- huffmsa 7y agoHad he been made aware of the tracking device, like one is with an ankle monitoring bracelet, then sure, removal is cause for an arrest on theft, destruction of property, etc. However, since he was not made aware of the device, he has no obligation to be compliant. If the police were tapping someone's phone and they threw away the phone, for whatever reason, would they be in a similar situation? If they avoided a human surveillance detail, would they be in a similar situation? Likely no and no. So while the police did things correctly, getting warrants, etc, the suspect was still entirely unaware of any need to comply. The guy should walk. Edit: addendum If the device had been labeled "Property of {X} Police, do not remove", then they'd have a better case. Same way the police are supposed to (but don't) announce themselves before kicking down your door. You're not more important than the citizenry you serve.
- chrismcb 7y agoThey claim that a police tracker is obviously different than a civilian one. Didn't say how. But if it becomes illegal to remove a police tracker, how soon before the civilian ones resemble the police ones?
- huffmsa 7y agoThat assumes civilians are aware of what "civilian" trackers look like. Not a reasonable assumption.
- Nasrudith 7y agoYeah - assuming there is any difference is frankly highly ignorant of industrialization and supply chains. Manufacturers are highly encouraged to go general purpose with everything unless it is restricted. That is how economies of scale work essentially. A given model say a M1911 Pistol may still be in use by the military but it has been a civilian item for over a century at this point. Barring say labeling like serial numbers and look ups or red handed catching of thieves there is no reasonable way to say if a given specimen in a pawn shop is stolen. A predator drone however is clearly military only for now and a pawn shop dealing with it is obviously selling stolen goods illegally. (After all civilians manufactured them in the first place.)
- gwd 7y ago> How can removing it possibly constitute a crime? I think what's worse is that this opens up a 4th Amendment "exploit". Want to search someone's house but don't have a enough evidence to get a warrant? 1. Put a $20 bill where the suspect will find it. 2. Wait for the suspect to pick it up. 3. Accuse them of stealing the $20, get a warrant to search their home.