Cops Put GPS Tracker On Man's Car, Charge Him With Theft For Removing It (arstechnica.com) 286
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: Back in 2012, the US Supreme Court ruled that it's illegal for the police to attach a GPS tracking device to someone's car without a warrant. But what if you find a GPS tracking device on your car? Can you remove it? A little more than a year ago, the state of Indiana charged a suspected drug dealer [Derek Heuring] with theft for removing a government-owned GPS tracking device from his SUV. This month, the state's Supreme Court began considering the case, and some justices seemed skeptical of the government's argument. "I'm really struggling with how is that theft," said Justice Steven David during recent oral arguments.
At trial, Heuring's legal team argued that the search had been illegal because the police didn't have probable cause to believe their client had committed theft. The defense pointed out that the device could have fallen off the car by accident or simply malfunctioned. Even if Heuring did take the device off the vehicle, he couldn't have known for sure that it belonged to the government. It wasn't exactly labeled as the property of the Warrick County Sheriff's Office. Most important, it's not clear that taking an unwanted device off your car is theft -- even if you know who it belongs to. With the case now at the state Supreme Court, the stakes are high. If Heuring can show that the police lacked probable cause to search his house, he could get all of the evidence gathered in the search thrown out -- not only evidence of GPS device theft, but evidence of drug dealing, too. In July, an appellate court ruled against Heuring, "leading to the case reaching the Indiana Supreme Court earlier this month," the report says. "Initially, multiple justices seemed skeptical of the idea that taking a tracking device off your own car amounted to theft."
"If somebody wants to find me to do harm to me and it's not the police and they put a tracking device on my car and I find a tracking device and I dispose of it after stomping on it 25 times, I would hope they would not be able to go to a local prosecutor and somehow I'm getting charges filed against me for destroying someone else's property," Justice David said.
At trial, Heuring's legal team argued that the search had been illegal because the police didn't have probable cause to believe their client had committed theft. The defense pointed out that the device could have fallen off the car by accident or simply malfunctioned. Even if Heuring did take the device off the vehicle, he couldn't have known for sure that it belonged to the government. It wasn't exactly labeled as the property of the Warrick County Sheriff's Office. Most important, it's not clear that taking an unwanted device off your car is theft -- even if you know who it belongs to. With the case now at the state Supreme Court, the stakes are high. If Heuring can show that the police lacked probable cause to search his house, he could get all of the evidence gathered in the search thrown out -- not only evidence of GPS device theft, but evidence of drug dealing, too. In July, an appellate court ruled against Heuring, "leading to the case reaching the Indiana Supreme Court earlier this month," the report says. "Initially, multiple justices seemed skeptical of the idea that taking a tracking device off your own car amounted to theft."
"If somebody wants to find me to do harm to me and it's not the police and they put a tracking device on my car and I find a tracking device and I dispose of it after stomping on it 25 times, I would hope they would not be able to go to a local prosecutor and somehow I'm getting charges filed against me for destroying someone else's property," Justice David said.
Miranda was an asshole too (Score:5, Interesting)
Ernesto Miranda was an asshole, but his case [wikipedia.org] gave us Miranda rights.
Maybe, this likely drug-dealer will establish an important precedent too...
If his removal of it is theft, in some prosecutor's wild imagination, is not installing it in the first place a trespass [wikipedia.org]?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Miranda was an asshole too (Score:5, Interesting)
Not even close to relevant to this case.
In order for the police to be able to charge him with a crime is for the person in question to go before a judge where he is then ordered to allow the police to have a well identified tracker attached to his property.
Under no circumstances can you ever make it so that people have to be paralyzed in fear of reprisal by the state when they are about to protect their identity or privacy from unidentified perpetrators, devices, and services. There is absolutely no sanity to any of this, period! It is a literal sign of how ridiculous it has gotten and much people like you are apologists for the police state! How is he supposed to know that that tracker was a tracker, placed by a legitimate officer of the law complete with a signed warrant by a valid judge with the appropriate authority/jurisdiction to issue said warrant.
Why are citizens required to be damn near fucking omniscient when the law is concerned while law enforcement can arrest you for fucking resisting arrest... meaning arrest you for nothing. You can be arrested for exercising your rights and you right to life is second to their personal fear.
It is my hope that every police state apologist gets their ass shot by a police officer in fear of their life so that they live the rest of their life with a literal pain in their ass placed there by the very people they apologized for due to constitutional violations!
Re:Miranda was an asshole too (Score:5, Insightful)
I disagree. There is perfect logic here, it is just the logic of the police state, the logic of power. It says that you are wrong whenever you do anything the police does not like and the police is right and never commits any crimes, regardless of what they do. Laws are just tools to oppress citizens more effectively in this context and become subject to whatever perverted interpretation the police likes and have no connection to "right" or "wrong" anymore. The police becomes the enemy of every citizen and a group to fear.
Incidentally, the next stage is fascism. Remember that Hitler was _voted_ into power.
Re:Miranda was an asshole too (Score:5, Informative)
> Remember that Hitler was _voted_ into power.
Sort of, but not quite.
NSDAP (the Nazi Party) won a plurality of seats in the Reichstag (Parliament), but was unable to form a majority government because the Communists won the second-greatest number of seats, and while neither party won a majority, they collectively won enough seats for neither one to be able to muster enough support from the other parties to form a working majority.
I don't remember the exact details (I'm sure someone else can elaborate), but basically the Nazis did their best to paralyze the government. Eventually, there was an alleged terrorist attack (actually staged by the Nazis themselves) that convinced (independent) President Hindenburg to name Hitler as "Chancellor" in exchange for the Nazis agreeing to form a coalition government with other parties. At the time, Chancellor was a largely symbolic and ceremonial role.
The Nazis then did what would, in computer security terms, be classified as a complex multi-stage exploit. They systematically got Parliament to pass a series of laws that appeared reasonable and innocent on their own... but collectively, allowed the Nazis to seize power and neuter their opponents before anyone had time to react against them when Hindenburg died (of old age) in office.
Basically, the Reichstag passed a bunch of laws that the Germans didn't mind giving to Hindenburg (a revered war hero whose repuration was pretty much bulletproof, even among Germans who didn't agree with him), then passed a bunch of laws giving tremendous power to the President's Cabinet (also seen as relatively safe, because Hindenburg made a point of picking Cabinet members who tended to squabble with each other so he could appear to be less partisan and more impartial), and finally passed a law declaring that if the President died in office, the Chancellor would immediately become the President. Hindenburg died, Hitler assumed the powers of President (while nominally remaining Chancellor), quickly replaced the Cabinet members with Nazis, and practically overnight set into motion a plan that rapidly and systematically entrenched Nazi authority over everything.
Trivia: in the election where the NSDAP finally managed to win an actual majority of seats in the Reichstag, the Nazis were STILL opposed by more than half of Berlin's voters. They basically took over a capital city whose residents viewed them as barbarian hicks, and who were literally SEETHING with rage when the Nazis made their party symbols the official symbols of Germany itself and forced Berliners to display them publicly.
More trivia: even at the height of their power, there were limits to what the Nazis could get away with. When word got out about the policy of killing terminally ill and disabled patients, there were large public protests even in cities like Munich, which was LITERALLY the cultural and political center of the perceived Nazi heartland. Average Germans might have willingly looked the other way as people they disliked were rounded up and sent to concentration camps, but they absolutely drew the line when their grandmother, crazy uncle, or handicapped child or nephew ended up dying (along with the entire population of whatever medical facility they were being treated at) literally a few days after they were last seen in perfect health, from some alleged disease that normally takes weeks or months to kill amidst multiple rumors that the government was killing off "burdensome" patients.
The point is, even at the height of Nazi power, their power over Germany itself wasn't *quite* absolute, even though it might have seemed like it from the standpoint of any one individual German (who would have been unceremoniously killed without a second thought by the Nazis). Part of the reason WHY it was possible to De-Nazify Germany after WWII was because even though a majority of Germans were openly (if not enthusiastically) complicit in the Nazis' power, there was still a very large plurality of Germans who completely HATED the Nazis during the war, and hated them even MORE after the Nazis essentially brought about the complete and total destruction of their country, including its defeat and partition among the four allied powers.
Re: (Score:3)
He formed a minority government with 33% of the votes. 2nd strongest faction got only 20%. So yes, he was voted into power, just not with a majority. That makes the whole risk worse, not better.
Reference (this is _not_ rocket Science!): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
The fact that he got any votes at all should be very disturbing to everybody.
Indeed. And that I just got down-moderated for stating historical facts is also pretty disturbing.
Re: (Score:3)
Why? The rhetoric he used to get into power was by no means an indicator of the nut bag he was or the crap he would get up to once in power. I am sure there are a LOT of people who voted for someone and later thought, "Oops, maybe I shouldn't have voted for him".
Trump springs to mind, although apparently no one voted for him, so it's amazing how he won the elections.
I'm pretty sure there are more examples out there.
It's easy
Re: (Score:3)
The disturbing thing is that 33% of the voters did not look or found what they saw quite acceptable.
The internet or WWW did not exist at that time.
You voted for the flags marching in front of your house, the guy talking in a pub or beer brewery, or what was printed in news papers, or what you hear on the radio, or simply what your father or husband tells you to vote.
Do you actually know anyone who is informing himself over a candidate? I don't.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Miranda was an asshole too (Score:5, Insightful)
How is he supposed to know that that tracker was a tracker, placed by a legitimate officer of the law complete with a signed warrant by a valid judge with the appropriate authority/jurisdiction to issue said warrant.
I find this the most puzzling. There are numerous cataloged incidents of them being placed by jealous spouses using GPS tracking devices and private detectives (who use GPS tracking devices)... I understand automotive manufacturers also routinely install them for your own good
.
Why in the seven galaxies would I assume this monitoring device was placed by the benevolent authorities?
Re: (Score:2)
Hear, hear!
(too dangerous for modpoints)
Re:Miranda was an asshole too (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, but that has no bearing on the case. The tracker was there lawfully, yes. But the owner, checking his car, found something funny. and removed it from their vehicle. Which is normally a lawful thing to do as well - you find something stuck to your vehicle and remove it. And in the case of some third party GPS tracker, this is legal.
The police didn't like it, found the tracker and found a quantity of drugs. The reason this is such a pain is because of that - if the tracker was shown to be have been lawfully removed, the the search for the tracker would now be unlawful, and the drugs they found during the search would have been the result of an unlawful search.
Thus, the prosecution is having to twist and mince things around because the case against the drug dealer would collapse if the search was found to be illegal.
It's just like the odd case where in Michigan, a mechanic can start doing na job, not finish it, and now claim the work was "performed". This came about because the owner of the vehicle went in for a tire rotation, and the lugnuts for the left front wheel were not attached. The wheel then fell off the vehicle less than a block away causing the driver to lose control and crash the car. The case was decided for the plaintiffs, so the plaintiffs got the cost of the replacement car paid for. However, they incurred legal fees and a statute in Michigan regarding vehicle service and repair was invoked. however the Michigan Court of Appeals twisted the case around to say the work was "performed" (even though it was not completed) and thus does not qualify under the statute (which said if the work wasn't performed then they could recover damages and legal fees). So thus legal contortions were done which basically says they could "perform" work by starting it, but not finishing it. So you could go in for a brake job, they could remove a tire, then just bill you as is for the work "performed", even though the brakes haven't actually been changed - the the first step in the brake job was done.
And while I don't like drug dealers, I believe in this case it's another bending the law style thing and the search was illegal. Because there are many reasons why the tracker could've failed. Justice would prevail if the court required that if you want to claim theft, the owner would have to be made aware that hte device was placed lawfully on their vehicle and they are to not remove it. (Yes, this would defeat the purpose of putting a tracker on the vehicle. That's my point - if you want to claim theft, then the person finding it needs to know it was supposed to be there.)
Re: (Score:2)
It's just like the odd case where in Michigan, a mechanic can start doing na job, not finish
What is a "na" job?
Re:Miranda was an asshole too (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
It's just like the odd case where in Michigan, a mechanic can start doing na job, not finish it, and now claim the work was "performed".
I don't know the case law, & IANAL, nor anyone you should seek for legal advice; but, there was a case in the news locally about a contractor who'd taken $X0,000 dollars down for a job they refused to finish, and the local police were reluctant to pursue charges since the job was partially complete. Evidently, cases that involve proving how much was done in exchange for how much was paid are big headache and tough to adjudicate,
There's a better conviction record to be had for the DA who plea bargains e
Re: (Score:2)
Look into how the Baltimore PD to see a rare instance when a drug task force was actually investigated. (They were dealing, and were using trackers to assist in theft from other dealers)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
So if I want to stop people removing my GPS trackers I will put a sticker on them, awesome idea.
Typical police bullshit. ftfy.
How is this theft? (Score:2)
Doesn't theft require the intent to "permanently deprive" the owner of the object [or is that only in the UK?]? As long as he kept the tracker to hand back to the police, he hadn't permanently deprived them of it.
There are references to destroying the tracker, but that appears to be a hypothetical by the judge.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hate to nitpick, but... (Score:2)
They are required to explain your rights to you 'before questioning', not 'at time of arrest'.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, no (Score:3)
As someone who has actually BEEN interrogated by both local police and FBI agents I can tell you that you are wrong. The goal of the Miranda warning is to prevent coerced confessions and as such is centered around the idea of 'custodial interrogations'. IT IS WHOLLY INTENDED TO STOP POLICE MISCONDUCT, not to encourage you to preserve your 5th Amendment right not to self-incriminate.
1. They don't "always ask you questions immediately after, or often during, the arrest" with the exception of asking for iden
Re: (Score:3)
Being brought in for questioning is not an arrest, so you can't speak to what happens during arrest, only what happens when you are brought in for questioning.
Bullshit. They ask questions like have you been drinking? Where did you get served your las
Re: (Score:3)
So.....? (Score:3)
Police State (Score:5, Interesting)
This is literally what a police state looks like. People being charged for laws that are impossible for them to even know they have broken. Secret Interpretations, Zero fucking due process, and Kangaroo courts.
Until law enforcement, their supervisors, and complicit judges start seeing jail time for very obvious gross contravention of the Constitution this will never change.
America has become weak, and the entire world sees it very clearly... and a coward is respected by no one! All it takes to appease the citizens is for violators to get a slap on the wrist. No one changes who or how they vote, they don't even talk about it in debates... but they sure do scream about how "tough they are on crime" though. Have you figured it out yet???
Elections have consequences (Score:5, Insightful)
If people want this to change they have to stop voting for tough on crime candidates. That means no Joe Biden, no Pete Buttigieg (look at his record, not his words) and no Donald Trump. It means progressives like Sanders and Warren.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Elections have consequences (Score:5, Insightful)
Even then, you need to resist the natural urge for vengeance. The focus needs to be on deterrence and rehabilitation - even the most violent criminal has at least the potential to reform. A lot of people just never get past the most childish conception of a justice system, where criminals are tortured somehow and everyone else gets to feel satisfied at knowing bad people are hurting.
Even if they have no potential for reform (Score:2, Troll)
If we know somebody is too dangerous to let out that's fine, but at that point they should be treated as a mental patient.
If the goal of humanity isn't to transcend (Score:2)
I grew up on 60s sci-fi. Hopeful stuff. Star Trek stuff. Yes, it's sci-fi, but the idea is sound. It's something worth striving for.
Also I'm fairly introspective. I wonder what could push me over the edge. I wonder why it is I'm me and not a blood crazed psycho. Like you I don't believe in magic. That leaves a material universe where evil doesn't exist as something supernatural.
What's more I don't even have to guess at what makes some of those psychos.
Two different problems here... (Score:3)
The first problem is that, as Fyodor Dostoevsky said, "The degree of civilization in a society can be judged by entering its prisons." Don't think it's ok to treat people badly even though you are a good person. If you treat people badly, you're a bad person. Don't think it's about them, it isn't. It's about you.
The second problem is that we are surprisingly bad at figuring out who is guilty, and of what. Even in capital cases (usually murder and kidnapping), where the standards of proof are supposed t
Re: (Score:2)
There have been dozens of cases where we were "absolutely sure" complete with jury trial and multiple appeals leading to death row and yet new information exonerates them years later. Sometimes prosecutors are so absolutely sure that they fight to keep people imprisoned even when DNA evidence absolutely excludes them. In other cases, they're far too dead to release them.
Re: (Score:2)
If you can only jump up and down on one side of the scales, no matter how hard you jump, you are never going to get "actual, real justice." Not to mention that justice is blind, neurotic and schizophrenic; we are best off encouraging her to swing her sword at as few people as possible.
Depends on what you mean by "tough" (Score:5, Insightful)
As the saying goes, don't ask for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee. If you don't know, this phrase means that anything that happens to any man, for any reason, diminishes the whole of humanity. It's a statement on human worth. Saying that people, no matter how terrible or lowly, have intrinsic value that nothing can or should ever take away.
This is why more advanced societies give murders Playstations. We don't yet really know why people murder and why they don't. We can guess, but we're really just pulling shit out of our asses when we try to answer the base question, "What makes one man a murderer and another an upstanding citizen". After all, If we could answer, mechanically, what does it then we could just make a few adjustments to a murderer's brain and send them on their merry way.
So at our current tech level yes, we're stuck locking up violent offenders for decades or sometimes indefinitely.
But that doesn't mean we should quietly arrange for them to be tortured.
As a society we're past the point where we don't have the resources to make their lives as comfortable as possible. And indeed this is the most humane thing to do. Yes, it's not safe to let them out. We know what the recidivism rates are.
But think of it this way: If you agree that a person can be tortured for some reason, then why can't I substitute that reason? If you've diminished the value of human life to the point where torture is on the table, real torture, not just confinement because the person is a menace to society, then congrats, you've diminished the value of all human life, including your own.
So don't ask for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for _you_.
Re: (Score:2)
Execution for your crimes is not torture. I would argue I'm being more humane putting you down then locking you up for life. Especially in USA jail.
I do agree torture diminishes us all but execution for your crimes is not torture. It's acknowledgement that you are unfit for society and are beyond our means to integrate into society at large. Better off using the resources on the future (children) then wasting it on adults that have made their choices.
Re: (Score:2)
Execution is rather hard to take back if we're later proven wrong.
Um... saying that it's better to kill you (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What you should want is that people actually get caught for those crimes. Long prison terms don't work as a deterrent as long as people figure they won't be caught.
Re: (Score:2)
Depends on the type crime. I definitely want a judge to be tough on people who commit violent crimes, crimes against children, etc. Giving someone years in prison for a little bit of a controlled substance...not so much.
I think you're missing the point, the judicial system should uphold the rule of law. It's for the legislative system (aka political), to determine if something should be a criminal offence and harshly it should be punished.
Re: (Score:2)
We still need judges to have discretion since often prosecutors fail to use theirs. Reality has a way of coming up with a nearly infinite variety of circumstances that lawmakers didn't or couldn't anticipate that may aggravate or mitigate a crime.
Many laws are written under the assumption that a judge will take care of the corner cases.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Elections have consequences (Score:5, Insightful)
and we've been packing the courts with conservative "tough on crime" justices for decades.
Solution:
1. Ban judicial elections. Judges should be professional jurists, not populists.
2. Stop voting for "tough on crime" politicians. If you get a flyer in the mail for a politicial endorsed by the police, vote for the other guy.
3. Ban both private prisons and prison guard unions.
4. End the War on Drugs. Drug addictions should be treated by doctors not prisons.
Re: (Score:2)
People do not get it.They believe the lies and they are living in fear. Remember that Hitler was voted into office in a democratic process. Sure, it was only 33% and he formed a minority government, but his most important step into power was entirely legal and driven by that 33% complete morons with not the slightest idea how dangerous he was.
Re: (Score:2)
No, only idiots like you think that is what that means.
No, I don't (Score:3)
These are all just wedge issues to distract you from economic priorities so the 1% can take everything from you. If they succeed You will die dirt poor and in pain, of a completely preventable disease (possibly one from contaminat
Re: (Score:2)
Don't forget, Trump has rambled on more than one occasion about taking people's guns away, and he wants to spend a big pile of your money on a wall that can be defeated with a ladder or a sawzall,
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This is literally what a police state looks like. People being charged for laws that are impossible for them to even know they have broken. Secret Interpretations, Zero fucking due process, and Kangaroo courts.
Until law enforcement, their supervisors, and complicit judges start seeing jail time for very obvious gross contravention of the Constitution this will never change.
Totally agree. That's why I'm concerned about the impeachment path. Maybe Trump is guilty, maybe not. However if we can't see the full evidence and large aspects of the process are secret, plus limits about what can be asked of the accusers in cross examination, it's impossible for the whole process to be considered valid. More like the Salem witch trials than just the facts ma'am. Should such a tainted process succeed it will surely be called a coup by roughly half the population and sets a dangerous
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Police State (Score:4, Informative)
Historically (i.e. during Clinton's impeachment and many previous examples) the investigative process WAS carried out with the accused, or their representatives both present and participating in the proceedings being allowed to call witnesses and mount a defense. And YES I was alive for Clinton's impeachment. I remember it fairly well. This isn't even close to that. And just so you know, I believe the impeachment of Clinton was a HUGE mistake, even if it was more fairly conducted, I thought so then, and I still believe it was a mistake now.
I get your spinning this as being like a "grand jury" proceeding, but it's so far removed from that process to be laughable. Grand Jury's meet in secret, not public and there are grave repercussions for leaking what happens in a grand jury. This whole thing has been leaking like a sieve, no repercussions. The jury is composed of people who are peers of the accused, again not true of this proceeding. This isn't even close to a fair investigation. But you cannot impeach in that way can you? The reason we even have public hearings is to try to get the public on board with this, so far this tactic hasn't moved the needle, with Trump's approval ratings staying nearly rock steady (if not rising slightly). The show is about public opinion, it's not really working, it's just polarizing the electorate.
The current impeachment circus is purely one sided with definite limits placed on the opposing party and without the presence of the president's legal team (beyond being able to watch the *public* hearings like the rest of us). This is a sham... There is no reason it needed to be done this way, the president's legal team could have been invited, included and allowed to participate at all levels if this really was a quest for the truth and not purely a political hatchet job. Don't fool yourself, this isn't fair at all.
However, the question is really if this is a mistake. IMHO this is a worse mistake than the Clinton impeachment, mostly because of the way this is being done makes it obvious that the motivation is political, not some noble effort to save the country from the man they elected as president. This is political scorched earth election year politics and nothing more. Trump will be in office his full term, this won't change that.
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Police State (Score:4, Informative)
However if we can't see the full evidence and large aspects of the process are secret
Trial hasn't started yet. These are hearing. Criminal, civil, and legislative hearings are sometimes closed door. Your expectations that this operate like a court room are a bit misplaced at this stage.
it's impossible for the whole process to be considered valid.
It's legally valid if the Congressional procedures and the Constitution are in support of it. We'll likely see the Supreme Court to see a case related to this impeachment process. It will be interesting to see if SCOTUS takes the case or lets half of the American people consider the impeachment to be a "hoax".
Should such a tainted process succeed it will surely be called a coup by roughly half the population
That kind of talk is how we get dictators. If we ignore the rule of law, the Constitution, and remain ignorant of legislative process, then we open the door to emotional popular appeal installing a new authoritarian regime.
This circus side-show will pass, and just like Clinton's it will fade from memory.
sets a dangerous precedent as what one 'side' does the other frequently does in return.
There should be no mistake that impeachment is a political process. It is a battle between branches of the government, for primarily political reasons. It is expected that it be partisan in at least some aspects, although enough public pressure can sway members on either side. It's dramatic and made to be entertaining specifically for that reason. Each side wants to get you and me engaged in the process in order to influence members of the opposing side.
If the Senate feels that acquittal has no consequence to reelection in their own district, then they can safely vote along party lines. But really these politicians are going to vote depending on which way they think the wind is blowing. Party loyalty has no value if you lose your seat over it.
And apathetic voter base that is largely ignorant of the internals of D.C. politics is a huge advantage to each party's central organization and deal making. When the media stirs up voters things get a little wild and unpredictable. Either way this impeachment goes, a lot of long time politicians are going to lose their seats in the next two elections. It's that disruptive.
The solution is less secrecy and more transparency.
I agree in principle. A democracy is impossible without transparency. At some stage, likely the Senate trial, we need to see all the cards on the table from both sides. And see the White House present a cogent defense, and the House present an unhindered prosecution. Sadly even after the House votes to impeach, we'll see partisan sabotage before and during the impeachment trial from the minority opposing it.
If your evidence can't hold up to that standard then it's too weak.
Much of the hearings are about collecting votes on the floor of the House, rather than collecting evidence. We'll get to a stage where the evidence is presented along with the charges. Until there is a floor vote on impeachment, there is no specific charges from the House.
If it feels a bit like a fishing expedition, well that's because it is. And I see no other way this could work without hearings. (Special Counsel investigations are a relatively new concept, we don't rely on them exclusively for impeachment evidence gathering)
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. This his how the law degrades from a convention to make people able live together in peace to pure oppression tool that has absolutely nothing to do with right or wrong. BTW, next stage after a police states is a fascist society. Seems the US is keen on making that experience as well, however little it has to recommend it.
Re: (Score:2)
for emphasis would you prefer ALL CAPS?!
Re: (Score:2)
for emphasis would you prefer ALL CAPS?!
Actually, I would prefer all caps for emphasis.
Capitalization of only the first letter implies that it is the start of a new sentence, or is a name of a person or other named item. Compare "new coke" to "New Coke". The first is a fresh layer of soot on a tailpipe or similar item, the second is a failed soft drink product from the Coca-Cola company. If I typed "NEW COKE" then I'm pointing out that this layer of soot is somehow important to the discussion.
Re: (Score:3)
No, we defact by the literal definition of "police state" live in a "police state". Let me help you out with the definition since facts and truth are not your friends.
https://www.merriam-webster.co... [merriam-webster.com]
": a political unit characterized by repressive governmental control of political, economic, and social life usually by an arbitrary exercise of power by police and especially secret police in place of regular operation of administrative and judicial organs of the government according to publicly known legal p
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Who cares. We got guns. (Score:4, Insightful)
How is forcing a person to sell something they don't want to sell for a price they don't agree to not a form of taking?
Re: (Score:2)
They can always ask, and I can always tell them to fuck off and try to stay in frame.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Police State (Score:3, Insightful)
They left it in someone else's possession, without any way for that person to know where it came from or who it belonged to.
If that's not abandoning it, then I don't know what is.
Re: (Score:3)
So I can stick a dollar bill under your wiper and charge you with theft if you remove it.
The police abandoned their property by sticking it on someones car just like I abandoned the dollar bill by sticking it on your car.
Send them a bill. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Agreed. Any time you find something on your car that you do not know what it is or how it got there notify the government that they will be getting charged for it every day until they setup an appointment to remove it. Once the appointment is set (must comply withing 1-2 weeks) fees stop but late fees apply. Also penalties for not paying late fees, rental fees, gas fees, gas tax fees, upkeep fees, setup fees, removal fees, internet usage fees, administrative processing fees, and booking fees for appointme
Re: (Score:2)
Dude should have called the bomb squad when he found an unknown device planted in his car. Maybe I should leave an unlabeled electronic widget at the local police office and sue them if damage/destroy/remove it...
Does this work both ways? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Can I put a tracker on a local police vehicle and call the state police when they take it off? No?
RONG!
You will actually find that right after the police remove the tracking device, they will be waiting for your call, and they will thank you for calling.
Re:Does this work both ways? (Score:5, Funny)
Good thinking (Score:2)
I like where your head's at on this.
Re: (Score:2)
You wouldn't be able to obtain a warrant from a judge to track the local police, so the question is moot.
His property (Score:5, Insightful)
You attach something to my car, or leave it on my property, you've given it to me. I'll do whatever the fuck I want with it .
Re: (Score:2)
You attach something to my car, or leave it on my property, you've given it to me.
You don't even own your credit cards.
Re: (Score:3)
Your analogy is "a little" off. It is more like someone buys an iPhone (the police buy GPS Tracker), then purposely places it on your yard (tapes it to your car), then when you notice it and take it in your house they charge you with "theft". Sounds a little like entrapment to me.
Should be settled with the age old precedent... (Score:2)
Re: Should be settled with the age old precedent.. (Score:2)
However this situation is clearly different. The police did not 'misplace' the tracker, nor did they 'lose' it. They INSTALLED it.
In this case it cannot even be presumed that the accused knew that it wasn't their own property. It was on their vehicle, and clearly not something that was 'lost' or 'misplaced.'
Re: (Score:2)
"finders keepers" is not a law...
Actually, it's centuries-old case law [wikipedia.org].
Entrapment. (Score:5, Insightful)
Seems like entrapment. He would not have stolen anything if they had not placed it on his car. For example, I don't think 'bait cars' are entrapment. A reasonable person wouldn't be persuaded to steal a car just because it's unlocked in a parking lot.
This is more like they drove a car onto your lawn, left the car doors open and the keys in the ignition, and as you are driving the car off your yard they arrest you for grand theft auto.
If I remove an ad from my windshield... (Score:2)
...is that also theft?
how can it be thief (Score:4, Insightful)
I cannot see how it can be thief if you remove an unknown object from your vehicle that does not give any owner information so it can be returned
Re: (Score:2)
That is blatantly obvious an no sane person would really question this. If anybody puts something into your car, house, etc. and it is not clearly labelled, you are not only correct to assume it is trash, you are basically required to.
However, these people are Judges and they serve the police state as well. It will be interesting to see how much open dishonesty they are able to manage. The court before had no problem with being completely dishonest and just serving their masters. Usually, a supreme court is
Re: (Score:3)
That is blatantly obvious an no sane person would really question this. If anybody puts something into your car, house, etc. and it is not clearly labelled, you are not only correct to assume it is trash, you are basically required to.
Not necessarily. This varies by jurisdiction. In some cases you're basically required to take anything you can carry to the police department and report it as found property, and if it goes unclaimed then you can come back and pick it up. If a vehicle is left on your land there is a process for claiming it. In California it's a lien process, where you basically charge someone for storage, and you can sell it (or keep it) at the end of the process. In other states the process differs.
He should have returned it (Score:5, Funny)
by attaching it to a cop car.Keep it in a copper box until then.
Re: (Score:2)
Cop catches you attaching something to a police car you'll probably get shot. Not worth it. Should have wrecked it and tossed it in a dumpster.
Re: (Score:2)
In the police state it is not your car anymore (Score:2)
The car obviously belongs to the police and they can do whatever they like to it. If you change anything about the car, even without knowing that it was the police that did this, you are obviously the criminal here.
Incidentally, judge David does not get it. If somebody want to find you to do harm to you and it _is_ the police, you should be perfectly allowed to do this too. In any rational legal system, they abandoned this device when they attached it to the car.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Clever. Had I not posted already, poignantly I suspect, I would be lavishing your keen observation with a fat mod point.
Here's to hoping your depth in the thread does not forgo the moderation it should be showered with.
Overreaching, butthurt police (Score:2)
Not that law enforcement would have any reason to attach a GPS tracker to my car, but if I happened to find one? It's getting attached to a Greyhound bus on it's way across the country, and tough shit if that makes you mad. Hell, maybe I'll go down to the docks and attach it to the hull of a freighter. Or maybe I'll just go down to the local doughnut shop and attach it to a police car.
Charged is not Convicted (Score:2)
Where is the tracker now? I presume they can track it and go get it. Unless the guy was stupid enough to take it into his house or garage.
Could it have fallen off? Could a mechanic working on the car have removed it?
All they have is circumstantial evidence. Which shouldn't be enough to convict.
I know what's next though: laws that say removing a tracker from your car is punishable by up to ten years in prison? That's how they'll
Re: (Score:2)
He should not have to lie or even plead the fifth in this case. The charge is ridiculous.
An opportunity missed (Score:2)
Spoof the GPS and you could have your own remote control cop car. How long do you think they'd follow a ghost?
If it were me (Score:2)
After I'd removed the tracker (wearing gloves), I'd have attached it to the collar of one of the many dogs in my neighborhood whose owners allow them to roam freely.
Oh how dumb the government is (Score:2)
Ok, then I am installing GPS units on every car I see, including government vehicles. This GPS is my property and you cannot remove it because that would be theft! .... so now how stupid does that sound? .....and I bet they prosecute me for putting GPS on government vehicles!!! Can't have it both ways!! No government my f'n vehicle and I can put or remove anything I want from it. If someone I did not authorize puts something in or on my car it is coming off.
Theft: reasonable doubt. Probable cause: yes. (Score:3)
Theft means having the intention of depriving the owner of their property. This means you can legally remove trackers from your car but destroying them or disposing of them where they can't be recovered is theft. The problem is that you're very unlikely to be able to prove beyond reasonable doubt what the tracked person did. All they have in this case is that the tracker stopped working and now they can't find it.
The critical part for the defence is that the failure of the tracker provided the probable cause to search his house (for the tracker) and find drugs. They're going to lose on that because the tracker failing did mean it had probably (more that 50% chance) been discovered. The defence will win on the theft charge, because there's definitely reasonable doubt that the tracker failure implies discovery and destruction/disposal. But I'm sure the defence cares way more about the drugs charges than the theft.
The interesting part will be around the prosecution's argument that the warrant for the tracker changes how theft works, and that removal becomes a crime even if the remover is unaware of the warrant. They better lose hard on that one.
Another worry is the prospect of police using unreliable trackers and then being able to search a suspect's house when they fail. If statistics show this happening then judges should clamp down on such searches. Since the searches are, ostensibly, only to find stolen trackers, maybe evidence of other crimes should become inadmissible in such cases, if the police can be shown to be abusing this loophole.
If I put Coke in someone's fuel tank. (Score:2)
and he has his car town away technically he's stealing my Coke, right?
That was the car ... (Score:2)