Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Courts

Court Says Removing a Police GPS Tracker From Your Car Isn't Theft (vice.com) 137

Posted by msmash from the how-about-that dept.
Karl Bode, reporting for Vice: Back in 2012, the US Supreme Court declared it was illegal for law enforcement to attach a GPS tracker to a suspect's car without first getting a warrant. But in 2018, cops in Indiana charged a suspected drug dealer with theft after he removed such a tracking device from his SUV, triggering a legal debate over whether you can legally remove such devices. As it turns out, you most assuredly can. A new unanimous ruling from the Indiana Supreme Court has declared that the suspect in question did not "steal" the government-owned device, and that law enforcement should have known better before bringing the charges. The case started back in July of 2018, when the Warrick County, Indiana Sheriff's Office obtained a warrant to attach a GPS tracking device to an SUV belonging to Derek Heuring, after receiving a tip from a confidential information who claimed he used the vehicle to sell meth.

While the attached device delivered Heuring's location data to police for around a week, it stopped transmitting shortly thereafter -- leading police to suspect it had been removed. Police waited another 10 days to see if the device would start transmitting again, then applied for a new search warrant to search both Heuring and his parents' homes. Under US law, law enforcement has to show probable cause that a crime has been committed before performing a property search. In Heuring's case, police declared that the probable cause was the suspicion that Heuring had committed a crime by removing the device, something the court was skeptical of from the start.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Court Says Removing a Police GPS Tracker From Your Car Isn't Theft More

Court Says Removing a Police GPS Tracker From Your Car Isn't Theft

Comments Filter:

  • If it were, it would be entrapment anyway. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by RightSaidFred99 ( 874576 ) on Wednesday February 26, 2020 @04:46PM (#59770266)
    Since defendant wouldn't have 'stolen' the tracker unless police literally entrapped him to by putting the tracker on his car. Said defendant would not likely have broken into the police station to steal the tracker, so it was the very fact they put it on his car that led him to do it.

    • That isnâ(TM)t entrapment at all. Entrapment is a really high bar to clear. You have to demonstrate that law enforcement basically gave you no choice. They have to explicitly suggest committing the crime to you, and then fairly strongly coerce you to do it. Simply putting you in a situation where committing a crime is easy (as this would be were it actually a crime) is not enough. For example, a fed walking up to someone and asking if they have drugs to sell is not entrapment as no coercion occurs

      • Re: If it were, it would be entrapment anyway. (Score:4, Interesting)

        by dwillden ( 521345 ) on Wednesday February 26, 2020 @05:05PM (#59770376) Homepage
        But by placing their property on his property without his permission it is in fact entrapment. They may have a court's permission to place it on his vehicle. But he has every right to remove an object that does not belong from his property. Trying to charge him with theft for doing so is entrapment. They didn't have to ask his permission to place it there but he has no obligation to leave it if found.

        • Re: If it were, it would be entrapment anyway. (Score:4, Insightful)

          by AK Marc ( 707885 ) on Wednesday February 26, 2020 @06:08PM (#59770656)
          Definitely not Entrapment. Entrapment is coercing/enticing someone into a crime. Dropping a $10 on the sidewalk, then charging someone with theft for picking it up is **NOT** entrapment. A cop standing by saying "You should take that $10 is an enticement to commit crime, that becomes entrapment.

          This is "not theft" because if I stick a $10 in your pocket, you spending "not your money" didn't take it from me. I took it from myself. They should arrest the chief of police for stealing the tracker by legally giving it to a drug dealer.

          You can't give something to someone then later, without an explicit contract, attach conditions. The police gave a gift (legally, transferring possession to a drug dealer), then revoked the gift and claimed it was stolen.

          That's not "entrapment", that's simply not a crime, and the police should be prosecuted for filing a false police report.
          • I don't know, I'd find it pretty enticing to remove some device randomly attached to my property.

            • Re: If it were, it would be entrapment anyway. (Score:4, Interesting)

              by AK Marc ( 707885 ) on Wednesday February 26, 2020 @08:21PM (#59771334)
              But removing the property isn't a crime, so it's not entrapment.

              And yes, the police can argue that the drug dealer should be prosecuted for a crime they enticed them to commit, because the police didn't entice them to commit a crime. The police have successfully argued something is not a crime and is a crime at the same time. Like arresting people for "resisting arrest" when they weren't being arrested, until they resisted.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Paxtez ( 948813 )

          Sorta.

          If someone puts a bag on money on your property/house/sidewalk/car/etc. it is technically theft to not return it. If the bag of money said "Property of Foo Bank Inc.", you could be found guilty.

          So if the tracker said "Property of Stupid Police Department", it might have gone a different way, but it was unabled. So if the guy removed it, he doesn't know was it an ex, fellow drug dealer, the cops, the feds? So in this case it would be tough to not steal it.

          The problem the courts had was mostly be the

          • In fine /. tradition, I've barely scanned the summary, much less read the article..

            But did he actually return it at any point? Or did he smash it, put it on a 18 wheeler, drop it in the ocean, etc or in some other way destroyed or permalost it could they now go after him for destruction of government property or some such BS charge? Or is the fact that he had no idea as to who it belonged to remove that as well, even if he were to take the stand and admit under oath he smashed it with a sledge hammer Galla

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by Paxtez ( 948813 )

              I didn't see in the article if it was ever recovered. He didn't return it because that was the whole PC for the warrant. I didn't see if they found the tracker when they did they performed the search warrant, so I'm presuming they did not because that would be more interesting.

              Smashing/hiding property vs theft is an interesting situation. If you bury an item not belonging to you in location that you don't even know, I think they would charge you with theft (you stole the thing. Then you disposed of it.).

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by sjames ( 1099 )

                They abandoned it on his property with no ownership information on it. So there was no theft at all.

            • If it doesn't have a return address attached to it, how does one return it?

            • The transmitter WAS found on the property of the accused drug dealer during the search. I think it was in the garage? Not sure.

              The reason this is under appeal:

              When the transmitter shut off, the cops went for a second warrant, a search warrant based on reasonable suspicion of theft of the tracker. Warrant was issued and the cops searched the house "for the transmitter" but, lo and behold, they found cash and drugs. The suspect was arrested for drugs, paraphernalia, and theft of the transmitter.

              Defendant

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by msauve ( 701917 )
            "So if the tracker said "Property of Stupid Police Department", it might have gone a different way, but it was unabled. "

            Why? It's not like he pawned it. He just took it off his car and put it in his house. Both are his private property, so what's the difference? In any case, he didn't in any way steal it. It was given to him.

            If someone deliberately leaves something on my property without my permission and an understanding otherwise, I have every right to consider it a gift, and do with it what I will. He

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by Paxtez ( 948813 )

              I'm sorry, I'm not trying to be a jerk. But did you read the rest of the comment you quoted me from?

              Legally speaking. No, things left on/in your property are not gifts, you do not own them.

              Our state law: https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov... [hawaii.gov]

              Relevant section:
              "(3) Appropriation of property. A person obtains, or exerts control over, the property of another that the person knows to have been lost or mislaid or to have been delivered under a mistake as to the nature or amount of the property, the identity of the

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by sjames ( 1099 )

                The thing is, he did NOT know that it was lost or mislaid. In fact it wasn't lost or mislaid. The police knowingly and deliberately placed it on his car and left it there. There was no mistake in delivery, they meant it to be on his car. So that section of law is not relevant.

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by msauve ( 701917 )
                Ah, so you don't understand English, or even relatively simple legalize, and what "knows to have been lost or mislaid or to have been delivered under a mistake" means. Hint: it doesn't apply to someone deliberately placing something on someone else's property.

                I'm assuming you're not so stupid to claim that the cops made a mistake, or lost, or mislaid the GPS tracker when they deliberately put it on his car. Want to take a second chance?

                And, he's in Indiana, so what's with quoting Hawaiian law???

              • No they aren't gift, but this case isn't theft or appropriation either.

                And if I call the specific facts of the case, a picture of the device was put on Facebook, which the police were monitoring, and should count as notice under the statute. Also the device was unmarked, there was no reasonable way for him to discover the legal owner. And neither did the police knock on his door and ask for their device back. And this failure was not because they didn't know where it was, but because the didn't want to com

            • Why? It's not like he pawned it. He just took it off his car and put it in his house. Both are his private property, so what's the difference? In any case, he didn't in any way steal it. It was given to him.

              And it gave the police a chance to find out whether his house moved.

              If the police had wanted their device back, they could have knocked on his door and said "Sorry, but we put a GPS tracker on your car and now it seems gone, did you find it by any chance?" In which case he would have said "Sure, stay outside for a minute and I pick it up from my basement".

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by sjames ( 1099 )

            But leaving unattributed cash on your property is abandonment, so you get to keep it.

            To be safe, you should gather it up and hold it for a while in case someone comes forward to claim it. The length of time required before it is yours free and clear varies, so if unsure, consult a lawyer (which I am not).

            As for disposing of such found property, the duty of care is quite low for abandoned property, so I doubt he would have been in any real trouble for just throwing it away.

            He in no way stole the device. If t

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by Paxtez ( 948813 )

              Well I'm arguing about a labeled camera, the courts already decided about an unabled one.

              I think you would have a tough time arguing that a GPS tracking device attached to your car with a police department label on it was abandoned.

              Also, to be really safe, you turn it into a local police station, some places require this by law for claiming found property.

              In this situation I agree with the court (obviously), the "theft" is a bit of a stretch, but not 100% crazy. Might come down to the exact wording of the

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by sjames ( 1099 )

                I would say that without a label, theft is out of the question. 100% crazy. With a label, he might be civilly liable for it's value if he didn't return it when asked, as long as it wasn't left long enough to be considered abandoned.

                Of course, even for that, the police would have to show that it didn't simply fall off on the street somewhere or just fail in place, but would have no probable cause for a warrant.

                They could test it in court since that case is untested, but I suspect their only real recourse if

                • Re: (Score:2)

                  by Paxtez ( 948813 )

                  I was thinking a situation where the unlabeled tracker was securely attached and the house was under surveillance. They see him go fiddle with where it is and the tracker then turns off. The police approach tell him "Ok, that tracker device is ours (hopefully ordered by a court), we need it back.". Dude refuses with "finders keepers bro!"

                  I can see a situation where that could be theft depending on the wording of your local laws. Since there is now supporting evidence (video, tracking data, the spontaneou

      • You have to demonstrate that law enforcement basically gave you no choice.

        No. That's not the definition of entrapment.

        In order to show entrapment, you have to establish that they caused you (i.e., talked you into, coerced you, whatever) to do something that you would not normally do. They don't have to force you in some way to do it. (Though that's entrapment, too.)

        For example, if you were not an habitual thief, if they talked you into something, or otherwise caused you to do something, that could be prosecuted as theft, but you are not in the habit of stealing things, that

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by flex941 ( 521675 )
          I wouldn't ordinarily remove GPS trackers from my cars because ordinarily they wouldn't be there. I can pretty much conclude that would somebody do that (place an GPS tracker on my car) I'm pretty much forced into removing it as I don't like foreign objects on my property. They caused my action, really. So still feels entrapment. A bit stretch, maybe, but entrapment nevertheless. Yes I would have a choice of not removing it from my property, but that would not be my instinct and as you say - it is not neces

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Kjella ( 173770 )

      Since defendant wouldn't have 'stolen' the tracker unless police literally entrapped him to by putting the tracker on his car. Said defendant would not likely have broken into the police station to steal the tracker, so it was the very fact they put it on his car that led him to do it.

      "They made it so easy for me" is not a valid defense against theft. This is a misunderstanding of the entrapment defense, they can put out as juicy a bait as they like. If you bite, you're still guilty. Of course what they declared here is that there was no theft, this is like sticking something in my coat pocket and charging me with theft for removing it. The case is so absurd that just the fact it took so long to get it thrown out shows most courts will play along with anything the boys in blue come up wi

      • "They made it so easy for me" is not a valid defense against theft. This is a misunderstanding of the entrapment defense, they can put out as juicy a bait as they like. If you bite, you're still guilty.

        I think a better distinction would be the police leaving an amazon package on a porch. If you walk up and take it, that's theft. If you're walking by and an undercover cop tells you to go take the package off the porch or something bad will happen to you, that's entrapment.

        • But what they have done here is put a package on YOUR porch... and left it there for a month.

          It could well be considered entrapment. remember these trackers are often wired in to the cars electrical system (to power them). If I found an odd item wired in to my car then I would IMMEDIATELY remove it with the suspicion that it could cause me harm.

          Hence there is an arguable lack of choice.
          However, he should not need that, removing such an item from private property should be an obvious right, and that is what

          • Depends on the state but anything in your vehicle is already in your possession so basically the police transferred possession of the item to him when they left it in the vehicle so not theft. They could have transferred drugs to his possession by leaving them in his car and that would have been entrapment but good luck proving it.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by XXongo ( 3986865 )
              I am amazed and amused by all the slashdot computer geeks commenting confidently and knowledgelessly about the law.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Paxtez ( 948813 )

            To use your example.

            Police puts Amazon package on your porch, with YOUR name = Free stuff for you
            Police puts Amazon package on your porch, with YOUR NEIGHBORS name = Theft if you keep it

            (Which this isn't a great comparison, a case about entrapment could totally be made in my example)

            You are required to make a reasonable effort to return stuff. Keeping a found lost wallet? Theft. Keeping a found bank deposit bag, theft.

            The tracker in this case was unmarked, and they were using the absence of the tracker as

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by AK Marc ( 707885 )

        "They made it so easy for me" is not a valid defense against theft

        Yes, it is. The sign says "take a penny". Then you take a penny. Then they tackle you and prosecute you for theft. That they encouraged you to do it is an explicit defense against theft. If the police encouraged you, it's "entrapement". If the owner encouraged you, it was a gift, not theft.

        By your reasoning, I can sneak a $10 bill into someone's pocket without their knowledge, and then arrest them for theft. Your logic is stupid, and the world is stupider for having heard it.

    • If you find one, don't tip them off by leaving it in your driveway to find. Attach it to a stray dog.

      • A vehicle from out of state passing through on a road trip.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by cusco ( 717999 )

          A boat on the river.

          • By the second bend, or going under the second road bridge, it would be pretty obvious what had happened. If anyone were watching "live". The stray dog would be better - far less predictable.

            Unfortunately, you've tipped them off to you being aware of it's presence. So you now know you're under surveillance.

    • Remove it and leave at the bottom of the driveway. Maybe run over it a few times.

      "Honest your honor I didn't know it was there. It must have fallen off. Maybe the cops did a crappy job of attaching it to my car."

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by lsllll ( 830002 )
        lol. You didn't read the article, did you? Why would you have to go to such an extent and lie to the cops when you can simply take it off, bash it with a sledge hammer, and when the cops show up, tell them to fuck off? After all, that's what the Indiana Supreme Court just ruled.

    • What actual people considered entrapment is entirely legal in USA.

      Hell, CIA/FBI even goes on and tries to entrap people overseas by suggesting to them that it would be a good idea to do knife attacks. for some ass backwards reason your laws are such that it's perfectly legal for your alphabet organizations to go on the internet and find a retard from FINLAND and try to groom them into being a LITERAL FUCKING TERRORIST..

      That the individual is not of sound mental health in the first place is fairly relevant,

  • never could understand (Score:5, Insightful)

    by renegade600 ( 204461 ) on Wednesday February 26, 2020 @04:48PM (#59770282)

    I never could understand how it could have been stolen when the police gave it to him. besides, how could he have returned it if he did not know where it came from? the courts did right this time.

  • This guy is an idiot. (Score:3)

    by burtosis ( 1124179 ) on Wednesday February 26, 2020 @04:48PM (#59770284)
    You don’t just remove it, that gives away your hand. Just take it off for your drug runs, leave it on the rest of the time. “That couldn’t be my car in the video your honor, the prosecutors own GPS data proves me innocent!”

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by hawguy ( 1600213 )

      You don’t just remove it, that gives away your hand. Just take it off for your drug runs, leave it on the rest of the time. “That couldn’t be my car in the video your honor, the prosecutors own GPS data proves me innocent!”

      Or move it to your neighbor's car, and hope he's not one of your customers.

      • Proper thing to do is to turn it in to the police chief.

        You do that by attaching it to his car.

        • This would be a more interesting and fun idea if the police following the original dude weren't investigating drug sales, but instead were part of the vice squad.

        • Proper thing to do is to turn it in to the police chief.

          You do that by attaching it to his car.

          No, it could be a bomb and when it detonates killing the police chief, they arrest you for murder! Remember, he's a drug dealer; it could be a bomb placed there by his competitor to eliminate him.

          The proper thing to do is call the bomb squad and a couple of the local new reporters.

    • You don’t just remove it, that gives away your hand. Just take it off for your drug runs, leave it on the rest of the time. “That couldn’t be my car in the video your honor, the prosecutors own GPS data proves me innocent!”

      It's almost like these people have never watched breaking bad.

    • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • "It was a gift. An anonymous admirer gave it to me by putting it on my car."
  • When he through it into the woods.

  • Better question (Score:5, Insightful)

    by the_skywise ( 189793 ) on Wednesday February 26, 2020 @04:56PM (#59770332)

    Ok - these judges ruled correctly - but who was the idiot judge that approved the warrant to begin with?!

    • addendum - the warrant to search the house - not install the tracker.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by cusco ( 717999 )

      There are no shortage of idiot judges approving search warrants. "Anonymous tips" are a favorite of police, in at least one local case the "anonymous tipster" was the cop's girlfriend reading the script he had prepared (they were only found out because they were so stupid she used her own phone).

  • They donated a free GPS gizmo to him and placed it in his car.

  • If someone puts something on your car, it's yours to do with as you please. (this doesn't include people sitting on your hood)

    A good example of this would be an ad someone stuck on your windshield.

    If you tossed it, could the person who's flyer it was sue you for theft?

    • I don't think that this is theft, but a number of municipalities have rules about finding an item worth more than X value. For example, if a wallet (with no ID) shows up on your lawn and contains $500 you can't just keep it or throw it in the trash. You must give it to the police who hold it in escrow for a given amount of time. If nobody claims it during that period you may be able to make a claim. If it's left there indefinitely, I believe it often becomes property of the city/county/state depending o

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by cusco ( 717999 )

      No, but they could charge you with littering!

  • Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • entrapment (Score:2, Flamebait)

    by aRTeeNLCH ( 6256058 )
    What if the GPS tracker is actually removed and destroyed? By a doctor, because it wasn't a GPS tracker but a bullet? And it wasn't destroyed, but just operated out? And then the police gets a warrant for the removal/ theft of their property, then raid the home of the thief...? A lot of unanswered questions!

  • If they had a warrant wasn't removing it interfering with a police investigation? ;)

  • Police logic (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Locke2005 ( 849178 ) on Wednesday February 26, 2020 @07:33PM (#59771124)
    Attach tracking device with magnet to car. It inevitably falls off. Bingo! They have probable charge to search your house and the houses of all your relatives for the "stolen" tracking device! You can see how this legal theory could be abused if they let them get away with it.

  • microwave it and then put back on the car

  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • ... I would have thrown into a passing train car. Good luck to the cops chasing the tracker 2000 miles as it goes wherever the train goes...

    • They would look it up in GIS and see immediately that it's on a rail line. What you want is to attach it to a long-haul truck headed across the country. Or better yet, headed to another country. Then they may rack up some roaming fees.

  • The summary is overbroad. It would be more accurate to say:

    In one state, the state supreme court has ruled that if an unmarked police tracker is removed, then police do not have probable cause to obtain a search warrant based on theft.

    The 'in one state' is important because the other 49 states often come up with a completely different rule.
  • They just have to pass a law that allows the police to attach a tracking device for such a reason, and, as long as it has identifying information stating that it has been attached according to a properly obtained warrant, it cannot be legally removed. Most criminals would not even know that it had been attached.
  • OK, you've found the tracker (how? good question - how often do you search your car for things magnet-ed to the underside?). So you now know there is surveillance happening, and a search is coming.

    Surely you carry on about your business (as far as the vehicle is concerned), while clearing the house of drugs, warning your associates, etc, and working out how to fuck the pigs over and destroy their case. Then, when you've prepared some nasty legal messes for them, wrap the GPS device in tin foil (so it can n

Slashdot Top Deals

Real Programmers don't eat quiche. They eat Twinkies and Szechwan food.

Close