3 ms·

Big fan of court ordered warrants as a way to limit law enforcement here. That said, warrants protect law enforcement like searching someone's house. It seems

by TZubiri 4mo ago

Big fan of court ordered warrants as a way to limit law enforcement here. That said, warrants protect law enforcement like searching someone's house. It seems that some less intrusive powers like running someone's plate has been given to the police with lower controls. And it makes sense right? If every judge needed to approve every potential plate check, it might be too much for daily operations. So option A, push towards everything being protected under warrants. Sure, option B, how about protection mechanisms that sit somewhere in the middle? For example, what if some powers were audited (sounds like they are logged already) on a probabilistic basis. What if judges could inspect some fraction of searches after the fact, and ask for justification afterwards. Of course this would have no effect on the actual search, but it would have long term effects on future searches. Even if 1% of lesser searches are audited, I'm sure most policemen would be much more weary about using them for personal matters like stalking women.

BrenBarn 4mo ago
There are other options. One is to allow them to be audited not just by judges but by various "watchdog" groups which themselves go through some kind of vetting process. If you think police would be wary if they knew judges were watching 1% of their videos, imagine how they'd feel if they knew the ACLU had the option of watching every single one. The other side of it, though, is enforcement, and to me this seems like what's mostly lacking. It remains to be seen what will happen with this case but the article mentions a variety of actions over a period of time 1. he tracked six separate people 2. he ran license plates for these people 140 times 2. he searched the database while off duty 3. he called the ex-boyfriend 4. he said "This is the only time I'm going to be nice about this" which pretty clearly is threatening statement For this he was charged with. . . two Illinois class-3 felonies, which from what I see online means each charge can get you 2-5 years in prison. So he's looking at 10 years max, if he gets convicted with the charges as they stand. What each individual misuse of the tracking was charged as a separate offense? What if the standard of proof for officer misconduct was drastically lowered, so that, for instance, they could be fired or incur significant financial penalties with a much quicker process? And if the full criminal process does go through, as far as I'm concerned, a police officer who misuses their position in this manner should probably be wearing an ankle monitor for the rest of their life and/or have to register in a manner similar to sex offenders. We are way too lenient with the punishments for misuse of authority.
ckrusk 4mo ago
I am sure an automated report to the chief/captain would solve most of this and making sure that every query/report had an associated case/complaint number too. real crimes attached to real searches.

by TZubiri 4mo ago

BrenBarn 4mo ago

There are other options. One is to allow them to be audited not just by judges but by various "watchdog" groups which themselves go through some kind of vetting process. If you think police would be wary if they knew judges were watching 1% of their videos, imagine how they'd feel if they knew the ACLU had the option of watching every single one. The other side of it, though, is enforcement, and to me this seems like what's mostly lacking. It remains to be seen what will happen with this case but the article mentions a variety of actions over a period of time 1. he tracked six separate people 2. he ran license plates for these people 140 times 2. he searched the database while off duty 3. he called the ex-boyfriend 4. he said "This is the only time I'm going to be nice about this" which pretty clearly is threatening statement For this he was charged with. . . two Illinois class-3 felonies, which from what I see online means each charge can get you 2-5 years in prison. So he's looking at 10 years max, if he gets convicted with the charges as they stand. What each individual misuse of the tracking was charged as a separate offense? What if the standard of proof for officer misconduct was drastically lowered, so that, for instance, they could be fired or incur significant financial penalties with a much quicker process? And if the full criminal process does go through, as far as I'm concerned, a police officer who misuses their position in this manner should probably be wearing an ankle monitor for the rest of their life and/or have to register in a manner similar to sex offenders. We are way too lenient with the punishments for misuse of authority.

ckrusk 4mo ago

I am sure an automated report to the chief/captain would solve most of this and making sure that every query/report had an associated case/complaint number too. real crimes attached to real searches.