4 ms·
Had 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
by huffmsa 7y ago
Had 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.)
- Faark 7y ago> how soon before the civilian ones resemble the police ones This doesn't feel like a strong argument. A police uniform doesn't become useless just because bad guys could wear the same.
- yaur 7y agoI believe that the point of the theft charge was to get a search warrant, which they did. Regardless of if he “walks” on the theft charge it seems unlikely that the evidence they gathered when serving that warrant will be thrown out.
- huffmsa 7y agoIt should be, but legal precedent is a bit of a mixed bag on the admissibility of evidence collected during the execution of an invalid warrant. If a judge finds that it's not the polics'd fault that the warrant was invalid, they can use it. If it was there fault, it's probably inadmissible.
- lotsofpulp 7y agoHow convenient for the justice system to have a built in plausible deniability. A few winks and nods when asking for the warrant and all is admissible.
- bluGill 7y agoI've always thought that all evidence is admissible. However without a proper warrant the officer collecting evidence is guilty of a felony more sever than the crime he is investigating. The only flaw I see is how to get the state to prosecute officers of this crime...
- hanniabu 7y agoIf they obtained these evidence illegally then it shouldn't be admissible in court.
- huffmsa 7y agoU.S. v. Leon (1984) disagrees with you. Added a "good faith" exception to the 4th amendment. Meaning that, if the police were acting on a warrant they believe they obtained correctly, the evidence they collected usually is admissible. In this case, both they and the judge thought disabling an unknown tracking device was probable cause to search for the device. During that search, the police found drugs and drug paraphernalia.
- rolph 7y ago5th amendment comes to mind, as in you are not under obligation to provide incriminatory evidence