Police Busted When Tracking Device Found On Car

uh oh notes a story from Down Under where a police investigation came to a screeching halt as a man being investigated by the police found tracking devices in two of his cars, ripped them out, and listed them on an auction site. "Ralph Williams, of Cromwell, said he found the devices last week in his daughter's car, which he uses, and in his flatmate's car after the cars were seized by police and taken away for investigation."

Why sell them? Then you admit they were there...

[QuasiEvil]

I would have simply removed them, disabled them, taken them out on some back road, and run over them a few times, followed by a thorough beating with a sledgehammer. The police won't admit they were there, so why should you? Then they'd have to admit to them to get them back, and you could plausibly say you never knew they were there, and thus couldn't be held responsible for their disappearance.

Now if you want to get really funny, leave them powered up and transmitting on aforementioned backroad for a few minutes, make sure they get at least one location transmission off, and then beat the crap out of them.

Re:Can you legally sell them

[sepluv]

In general, in common law jurisdictions, I think if someone leaves there property on your land (which is a similar sutuation), it is still owned by them. You are supposed to try to return it or, at least, keep it for so many years in case they ask for it back.

Assuming the police are responsible though, and they aren't admitting it is theirs, I'd imagine it is fair game. They can hardly complain about him selling their property if they deny it belongs to them.

Re:Sue the police?

[This_Is_My_Happening]

At what point does it become viable to sue the police for their lies and denials on this case?

Uh, what? You can't sue someone just for lying to you, and even if you could why would you want to? The cops didn't slander him or ruin his name. In fact it was his own decision to make a spectacle out of the situation, not the police's. Would you have preferred the police be less discreet and just follow the guy everywhere in a marked cruiser?

And what kind of law requires a warrent to do something, except when the police are claiming they are in a hurry and don't need a warrent if they think the judge will be on their side?

Laws that understand that a judge isn't always available when there actually is an urgent sitation. Believe it or not police do have to be hurry every once in a while. For a larger city with plenty of judges it's not a problem to reach one 24/7, but what about smaller areas where a warrant at 3am means having to wrest an old man out of bed?

I bet 90% of the time, the police intend to be in a hurry, and don't even consider asking for the warrent.

And I bet 90% of such ridiculous statistics are made up without any grounding in reality whatsoever.

Re:they will become mandatory sometime too

[obarel]

The insurance industry would love that as well.

- We only cover your car if you drive according to the law. Three years ago you were going 2mph above the speed limit, hence you invalidated your policy and we are not obliged to pay.
- Why didn't you notify me then?
- According to the policy, we're not obliged to do that either.
- Are you obliged to do anything?
- Maybe, but we're not obliged to answer that question.

Re:Sue the police?

[sedmonds]

You do realize that Canada has similar "exigent circumstances" laws, right? And that your rights with respect to the police are not absolute, in fact evidence tainted by violation of your rights may be used against you in court? And that constitutional challenges to laws may only be made if you have standing - you must have been wronged by the law to challenge its constitutionality (well, and Parliament may request the judiciary give an opinion on a bill or law).

Re:Sue the police?

[jedidiah]

...it's like what McCain said about torture.

Sometimes, the good guys need to break the rules in order to do the right thing. This
doesn't mean that disrespect for the rules in general should be ensrined into the law
or SOP. If the situation is really serious enough that you need to ignore the usual
rules then you need to be prepared to take any of the consequences for breaking them.

This is especially true for anyone that is supposed to be "setting an example".

If you are a cop and aren't willing to take the consequences for breaking the rules,
then it's pretty obvious that the situation doesn't warrant breaking them. Being too
lazy to get a judge's signature is not a good excuse. Writting the law so that cops
can be lazy as a matter of routine is not good.

This is the part of "being Dirty Harry" that tends to get missed.

Re:Sue the police?

[tomhudson]

"but what about smaller areas where a warrant at 3am means having to wrest an old man out of bed?"

Then you wake them up. Or you do your job properly, and plan better, so you don't have to go and bother someone at 3am.

Fascist Police tactics not so funny

[Jeremy_Bee]

This is a funny story and all, but isn't anyone worried by this part?

The Summary Proceedings Act, which covers tracking devices, says a warrant should be obtained for a tracking device but an officer can install one without a warrant if there is not time and the officer believes a judge would issue a warrant.

I mean that puts Australia more towards the Fascist end of the scale than even the US doesn't it?
(and that's hard to do)

Since when is surveillance ever an issue of immediacy? You usually engage in it over a protracted period in order to slowly gather evidence. Also a warrant hardly ever takes more than a day or even a few hours to get in any country I ever heard of. Anyhow, what Judge is going to refuse a warrant for a bugging device considered so important by the Police that they have already installed it?

This seems to be a deliberate loop-hole in the law to allow for warrant-less surveillance. The very fact that a regular police force investigating a fairly low-level crime uses this tactic kind of implies that this is fairly widespread or typical behaviour as well.

Yet another reason never to go to Australia. ;-)

Re:Sue the police?

[TriezGamer]

Newsflash: Not all Americans are in support of American foreign policy.

Re:they will become mandatory sometime too

[T5]

Have you never heard of OnStar [onstar.com]? That fits exactly what you describe - a perceived additional sense of security and safety by having a corporate entity (or a law enforcement or other governmental agency with or without a warrant) track your every move and even listen in on your conversations remotely. The courts have sided with disallowing OnStar's use for listening in on conversations inside the vehicle, but all it will take is one judge and that's out the window. OnStar's just one more good reason not to purchase a GM vehicle.

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." --attributed to Benjamin Franklin

Re:Sue the police?

[vtcodger]

***You being a Canadian and all it is really none of your business.***

There was a time when a lot of Americans figured that we should mind our own damn business. No more -- perhaps regretably. Back then I'd have agreed with you I think.

As long as George the Clueless, Dick Cheney and the 49 mental midgets in the senate who back those two clowns 98% of the time think it is perfectly OK to mind other country's business, we Americans really shouldn't complain about foreigners expressing a bit of distaste for our dear leader.

I suppose that it would be OK for you to criticise the Canadian Prime Minister if you want to. I'll save you the trouble of looking his name up. It is Stephen Joseph Harper. (But Harper is actually a right winger by Canadian standards, so maybe you ought to settle for saying something nasty about the weather up there or curling or Celine Dion.)

Re:Sue the police?

[Vellmont]

Sometimes, the good guys need to break the rules in order to do the right thing.


The problem with that statement is that the "bad guys" think they're the "good guys", and will do the same thing.

I don't exactly know which statement you're talking about McCain and torture... but I guess I liked it better when he was saying (to paraphrase) that "we don't torture because we don't want our guys to be tortured." That was a few years ago, and he's become more wishy-washy since then.

Re:Good going from the PR dept.

[iabervon]

It's well-known that the police have and use tracking devices; they can get warrants for them and present the results as evidence in trials. And just because he has a couple of them doesn't mean that the police actually placed them where he says he found them. Maybe somebody at the police station where he picked up the cars was careless with inventory, and he swiped a couple.

New Zealand != Australia

[Remusti]

Your post would work very well if the devices were in Australia and not New Zealand. *golf clap*

Re:Good going from the PR dept.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah... A guy who is already under investigation is going to STEAL SOMETHING FROM THE POLICE???? Are you on crack?

Especially something that has little to no value to anyone else. I can just see the look on the buyers face after he gets his new shipment from eBay, turns it on, and has cops at his door within an hour because, you know....it's a tracking device.

AC

Re:Can you legally sell them

[Anonymous Coward]

>How's that for a toothless system?
Yes, it's pretty stupid. Why don't you stop wasting your time and money impounding their equipment and just let them grow? It's completely harmless.

Re:Sue the police?

[notthe9]

The problem with that statement is that the "bad guys" think they're the "good guys", and will do the same thing.

It's no so much that the bad guys think they're good that's the problem. It's that this is how good guys become bad guys.

Re:Why sell them? Then you admit they were there..

[Opportunist]

Why so puny? Take an interstate delivery truck.

Since I'm currently a wee bit pissed at McDonalds, I'd tack it to their trucks and let them explain to the cops why such a highly suspicious guy like me spends so much time driving to and from their depots.

Re:Would've been hilarious if...

[Luthair]

Its probably safer to not be found planting a device on a police car if you're currently under investigation for torching a cruiser.

Re:Fascist Police tactics not so funny

[DerekLyons]

I mean that puts Australia more towards the Fascist end of the scale than even the US doesn't it? (and that's hard to do)

Actually, it's trivial to be more towards the Facist end of the scale than the US. (Since on that scale the US barely even twitches the meter.)
 
This isn't a consequence of the current goverment of either state, but a consequence of political innocents repeating the propoganda they've swallowed - even when it contains words they don't know the meaning of. Like for instance, Facist.

Re:Can you legally sell them

[arth1]

While you're being facetious, if you do find something securely attached to your car, (Not just sitting on it, which could have been set there temporarily, actually attached to the car.) it is in fact yours unless someone can step forward and claims it.

This is false. If a meter wench put clamps on your wheels, they do not then automatically belong to you. And if someone welds a can of caltraps under the rear bumper of your car (to be shook loose at random), you can not be held responsible for accidents that's caused by them.

And no, if a burglar drops his wallet with $1,000 on your floor, that doesn't make the money yours. He may be guilty of a crime, but that doesn't give you any rights to what's not yours. Crime must not pay, neither for the perpetrator nor the victim (when it becomes profitable to be a victim, people will seek to become one, which increases crime instead of lowering it).

Transference of ownership occurs when both parties agree to it. It's not enough that one person thinks it's an ownership transfer.
What this guy did was theft. The police might or might not have broken a law by placing the devices on his car, but that's irrelevant to the ownership of the devices.

Re:Good going from the PR dept.

[Bazar]

I'll point out for those of us who don't RTFA (in this case, the one linked above)

"Police would not comment because it is an operational matter but in a statement they say the equipment was used according to a court order."

If thats truly the case, then what they did was lawful, and nowhere near as bad as what i suspect happens in America with their patriot act.

Saying that, I'd like to see such a court order before i take them at their word. And if no such order can be produced... peoples heads need to roll.

Re:Can you legally sell them

[History's Coming To]

If I find something electronic that I don't own attached to my car, I call the bomb squad.

And the papers, because they'll want to cover the argument between the military guy with the flack-jacket and the police guy with the red face.

Re:Dumb crooks

[Domo-Sun]

Yes, that is exactly what he should have done. Leave them in, and live life normally. I think this is the best advice, this far in the thread. Though I did like the one about mailing it [slashdot.org], but it's not wise.

In Soviet Amerika...

[Anonymous Coward]

In the USA, if you've found such a device under your car and you remove it:

1) you've interfered with a police investigation. One felony charge for that.

2) you've destroyed or tampered with evidence. Add on another felony charge for that.

3) you've removed police wiretapping or surveillance equipment add a third felony charge for that.

Ooop, three strikes now. You're out.

Re:Why sell them? Then you admit they were there..

[PPH]

Don't disable them. The cops will just do a better job hiding the next set.

They expect you to be where the tracker says you are, so keep them in the car. When it comes time to engage in some activity of questionable legality, take it out. Maybe have a friend carry it in the opposite direction. When you are done, put it back in your car.

This could turn out to be the best alibi you could have.

OTOH, if you aren't doing anything worthy of suspicion, you can really have some
  fun with the cops.

Re:Can you legally sell them

[Anonymous Coward]

In Australia you can be charged with "theft by finding"

It has even been used in a recent high profile case of someone claiming to have found medical records and sold them to the media.
Possession is clearly not 9/10th of the law here.

Not sure if NZ is the same (I wouldnt be surprised if it had something similar)

Re:Can you legally sell them

[andreMA]

My understanding is that he called the police and asked if they'd left anything in his car. They explicitly said "No", disclaiming any ownership. Perhaps the cop who told him that -- acting as an agent for the police department -- should be charged with theft, but the gentleman here was at worst guilty of receiving stolen property. Since he received it in good faith, I don't think any such charge should go anywhere.

Re:Can you legally sell them

[Anonymous Coward]

In the minds of most police, they are not subject to the law.

This is precisely why I never came forward a number of years when I saw driver hit a cop during a traffic stop (how stupid do you have to be to stand in a highway at night in dark clothing, anyhow? especially with flashing lights that impair the vision of driver?). The cop suffered only minor injuries, I read later, and as far as I know they never caught the motorist (who in my opinion should have come forward and sued the police for any damage to his vehicle).

(What I saw of the incident wouldn't have been much help anyhow - it was in my rear-view mirror and I didn't have my license on me at the time. I might have stopped to render assistance, even risking being ticketed for backing up on a highway, but the bastards would have impounded my car. No good deed goes unpunished...)

Re:Can you legally sell them

[DavidTC]

Imagine someone finding an envelope on the ground beside your car, and in order for it not to blow away, they stick it under your wipers. That does not make it yours.

And imagine they found it on the ground and walked up to you, claiming it was theirs, and gave it to you.

Something doesn't become theft on your part because someone gave something to you they didn't have the right to. It's stolen property, but unknowingly possessing or using stolen property is not a crime.

You have to to give it back, but you can operate as if it's yours until them. Otherwise, all transfers of ownership would be impossible, because you'd have to go and check if they actually owned the property, and then if the person they got it from actually owned it, and so on back.

More to the point, the legality of a property transfer has nothing to do with the method of one. Except where there are explicit laws about the transfer, like a house or a car.