3 ms·

No, in New Bedford, the "conversation" was not admitted into court [1]. Oakland is the "one" case I mentioned [2]. Do you have a source for the Connecticut case

by verteu 3y ago

No, in New Bedford, the "conversation" was not admitted into court [1]. Oakland is the "one" case I mentioned [2]. Do you have a source for the Connecticut case? [1] "New Bedford utilized ShotSpotter, and the following was recorded by the gunfire detection system: “‘Oh my God! You're crazy!’ and then ‘Jason don‘t!’ several times, followed by a number of gunshots. After the gunshots, a female was heard yelling ‘You . . . missed and they shot him!’ ‘You're going to jail!”’. A motion to suppress this evidence was granted in Denison’s case, as the judge ruled that the ShotSpotter recording violated the Massachusetts Wiretap Act" https://readingroom.law.gsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3920&context=faculty_pub https://readingroom.law.gsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=... [2] https://casetext.com/case/people-v-johnson-5116 https://casetext.com/case/people-v-johnson-5116

Retric 3y ago
That's what I get from faulty memory. However, evidence is still being used even when it's not directly brought up in court. "In the 2015 Massachusetts case, the court refused to allow the introduction of ShotSpotter audio after the defendant argued the audio was captured and obtained in violation of that state’s wiretap laws. Police in that case requested and received an extended audio clip from the company that captured people discussing the shooting, including one calling out the defendant’s name." In theory any evidence from those audio recordings is tainted and no longer admissible, therefore police should want to avoid listing to any of it. But... by not bringing it up in court police can use parallel construction to get around those issues.
- verteu 3y ago
  edit: Good point, I agree that parallel construction is an important concern, especially since there's so little transparency in police investigations. One possible solution is to force them to limit the duration recorded to only a few seconds. (I previously thought that's how ShotSpotter worked. Turns out they've kept days of audio before, apparently for "debugging purposes.") > Drug crime is known to be fairly evenly distributed across different incomes, arrests are extremely biased. Keep in mind that the reverse is true for gun crime, where low-income minority communities suffer from the lowest clearance rates.
  - Retric 3y ago
    Audio evidence is being used such as in the Massachusetts case. PS: You are quoting my previous post not an edit: "Drug crime is known to be fairly evenly distributed across different incomes, arrests are extremely biased." is from further up the thread.
    - verteu 3y ago
      Yes, I know that part is a previous post. You also heavily edited GP, but current state of comments is reasonable now.
- wl 3y ago
  Those "extended audio clip[s]" don't seem to be available anymore as a matter of policy after 2019, following an external privacy audit done by the Policing Project at NYU Law. It also seems that police don't have access to audio outside of gunshot incidents. https://www.policingproject.org/shotspotter https://www.policingproject.org/shotspotter https://www.shotspotter.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/ShotSpotter-Privacy-Protections-Overview-2021-01-21.pdf https://www.shotspotter.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/ShotS...

by verteu 3y ago

Retric 3y ago

That's what I get from faulty memory. However, evidence is still being used even when it's not directly brought up in court. "In the 2015 Massachusetts case, the court refused to allow the introduction of ShotSpotter audio after the defendant argued the audio was captured and obtained in violation of that state’s wiretap laws. Police in that case requested and received an extended audio clip from the company that captured people discussing the shooting, including one calling out the defendant’s name." In theory any evidence from those audio recordings is tainted and no longer admissible, therefore police should want to avoid listing to any of it. But... by not bringing it up in court police can use parallel construction to get around those issues.

verteu 3y ago
edit: Good point, I agree that parallel construction is an important concern, especially since there's so little transparency in police investigations. One possible solution is to force them to limit the duration recorded to only a few seconds. (I previously thought that's how ShotSpotter worked. Turns out they've kept days of audio before, apparently for "debugging purposes.") > Drug crime is known to be fairly evenly distributed across different incomes, arrests are extremely biased. Keep in mind that the reverse is true for gun crime, where low-income minority communities suffer from the lowest clearance rates.
- Retric 3y ago
  Audio evidence is being used such as in the Massachusetts case. PS: You are quoting my previous post not an edit: "Drug crime is known to be fairly evenly distributed across different incomes, arrests are extremely biased." is from further up the thread.
  - verteu 3y ago
    Yes, I know that part is a previous post. You also heavily edited GP, but current state of comments is reasonable now.
wl 3y ago
Those "extended audio clip[s]" don't seem to be available anymore as a matter of policy after 2019, following an external privacy audit done by the Policing Project at NYU Law. It also seems that police don't have access to audio outside of gunshot incidents. https://www.policingproject.org/shotspotter https://www.policingproject.org/shotspotter https://www.shotspotter.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/ShotSpotter-Privacy-Protections-Overview-2021-01-21.pdf https://www.shotspotter.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/ShotS...