3 ms·

These require Probably Cause, right? I'd assume so since they also seem a bit dangerous if they hit a human.

endianswap 13y ago
IANAL but evading/fleeing the police is unlawful in most US jurisdictions (if not all, and there's a felony variant in most) which sounds like it meets the bar for probable cause (though I'm not sure probable cause is required for use of this in all UW jurisdictions, hasn't there been very recent activity on vehicle tracking devices in appelate courts?)
- nilved 13y ago
  It's not fleeing or evading if they're not trying to detain you, which itself "requires" "probable cause."
  - gcr 13y ago
    Why would they fire bullets at you if they aren't trying to detain you? To me, that speaks less of "Sir Please Come With Us Quietly" and more of "This Ain't Working, Let's Cut Our Losses And Try To Disable Their Escape"
    - baddox 13y ago
      Why would they fire real bullets at people they're not trying to detain? It's a good question, but they definitely do.
      - jlgreco 13y ago
        What exactly is the fear here, they are going to accidentally hit a different car? Not really a big deal, considering during normal chases they accidentally hit other cars... with their car. Is the fear that they are going to sticky innocent law-abiding drivers on purpose? Well they already follow people and pull people over without reason, so I'm not seeing this as something new in that regard.. though this of course leaves a better audit trail.
        nilved 13y ago
        That they're going to use this for illegal purposes, just like all of their other equipment.
        jlgreco 13y ago
        Right, I'm getting that, but what exactly is the fear? Can you give me a specific scenario?
sliverstorm 13y ago
Anyone fleeing the police in a news-worthy chase is actively committing a number of fairly grave crimes. Usually excessive speeding (5mph over isn't grave, but 60mph over is), reckless driving, willful endangerment of others... you don't need "probable cause" when it's happening right there in front of you.

IANAL but evading/fleeing the police is unlawful in most US jurisdictions (if not all, and there's a felony variant in most) which sounds like it meets the bar for probable cause (though I'm not sure probable cause is required for use of this in all UW jurisdictions, hasn't there been very recent activity on vehicle tracking devices in appelate courts?)

nilved 13y ago
It's not fleeing or evading if they're not trying to detain you, which itself "requires" "probable cause."
- gcr 13y ago
  Why would they fire bullets at you if they aren't trying to detain you? To me, that speaks less of "Sir Please Come With Us Quietly" and more of "This Ain't Working, Let's Cut Our Losses And Try To Disable Their Escape"
  - baddox 13y ago
    Why would they fire real bullets at people they're not trying to detain? It's a good question, but they definitely do.
    - jlgreco 13y ago
      What exactly is the fear here, they are going to accidentally hit a different car? Not really a big deal, considering during normal chases they accidentally hit other cars... with their car. Is the fear that they are going to sticky innocent law-abiding drivers on purpose? Well they already follow people and pull people over without reason, so I'm not seeing this as something new in that regard.. though this of course leaves a better audit trail.
      - nilved 13y ago
        That they're going to use this for illegal purposes, just like all of their other equipment.
        jlgreco 13y ago
        Right, I'm getting that, but what exactly is the fear? Can you give me a specific scenario?

sliverstorm 13y ago

Anyone fleeing the police in a news-worthy chase is actively committing a number of fairly grave crimes. Usually excessive speeding (5mph over isn't grave, but 60mph over is), reckless driving, willful endangerment of others... you don't need "probable cause" when it's happening right there in front of you.