Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Indiana man charged with theft for removing police tracking device from car

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 223 posts

Re: Indiana man charged with theft for removing police tracking device from car

#61

Post by aasasd »

stevenwoo wrote: post #30
2804t3qwp wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd like to hear more about this if you don't mind expounding on it some. I realize that in a certain light that's how it looks (I'm no stranger to a lot of what used to be called conspiracy theories, including the long history of illegal surveillance) but honestly it's always looked to me like the powers that be, in America, genuinely try to operate in a benign fashion. I realize that's not the same as operating in…

This was covered in popular culture most famously by The Wire, written by retired police beat reporter David Simon, it's called "juking the stats", each police district is judged by different crime stats, and promotions are based on those stats, so naturally everything evolves to optimized for better stats. Not only that, on the judicial side in America over the past 50 years, funding has not kept up with the increas…

> each police district is judged by different crime stats, and promotions are based on those stats, so naturally everything evolves to optimized for better stats

I thought Russia was pretty far on the scale of messed up for having that system, but apparently it's up there with the freedomland.

Judges here like the wording of ‘there's no reason to doubt the testimony of the officer’, but how can you not doubt it when the police has an interest in the outcome—by design, at that.

Re: Indiana man charged with theft for removing police tracking device from car

#62

Post by fargle »

freeopinion wrote: post #52
lazyguy2 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you hide something on my car to spy on me then it's not reasonable to expect it back if I find it. Charging somebody with theft for something like this is effectively rewarding the police for being incompetent. One of the worst mistakes in modern government is pretending that the people 'serving' have more rights and privileges then everybody else. They should have less.

I'd settle for experimenting with "same". If a regular citizen can't plant a bug, neither can police. If police can conduct a stakeout, so can regular citizens. They just have to follow the same process. That might include going in front of a judge and getting a warrant. If a regular citizen could break up a bar fight, the police should be able to take the same actions. If police can set up a sting operation, so shou…

amen.

and if magnetic shit falls off my car, that's the breaks, suckers.

Re: Indiana man charged with theft for removing police tracking device from car

#63

Post by m463 »

baroffoos wrote: post #27
caseysoftware wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just stick an Amazon or Google logo on it and people will buy it and place it themselves..

But that also lets me order more Doritos hands free!

I wonder if you could eat doritos hands free too? Could you have a dorito launcher that would hit your mouth every time?

On the other hand, it might be risky to combine voice command with dorito's launch since they both use the same orifice for I/O.

Re: Indiana man charged with theft for removing police tracking device from car

#65

Post by ryacko »

rosybox wrote: post #56

However you may feel about the theft charge, if you find a tracker on your car, don't take it off. It's an occasion to call the police. Someone is either committing a crime by tracking you illegally or you're letting the police know you found their tracker. Maybe they'll remove it, as once the tracker is known to exist it's useless. If you want to go the route of civil disobedience and take it off on moral grounds, y…

They'll say the tracker must because of [dumb semi-plausible reason], nod at you, and keep it. Take it to a lawyer.

Re: Indiana man charged with theft for removing police tracking device from car

#66

Post by zenexer »

> [Deputy Attorney General Jesse Drum] said trackers placed by the government under a warrant are distinct from those placed by private citizens. Removing a device from a car where it has a legal basis to be “deprives the police of its use,” he claimed, and constitutes a crime.

That argument doesn't make sense if the suspect doesn't know that it belongs to police. Presumably, the suspect wouldn't have known in this scenario, and chances are a meth dealer has non-law-enforcement entities after them in addition to the police. It could've just as easily been a disgruntled "customer" or competing dealer who placed the device.

If I see a tracking device on my car, it's getting removed. For me, that'd mean contacting the police and asking them to look into it, but I'm sure plenty of people would simply remove it themselves. Why would that be a crime?

Re: Indiana man charged with theft for removing police tracking device from car

#67

Post by mikorym »

There is a law in South Africa called "Die Mandament van Spolie" or otherwise "spoliasie". It is not the same as spoliation in English; spoliation is the spoiling of evidence.

Spoliasie, however, means that you can't take away an existing right, an existing usage by someone, without somehow proving through the process of the law that that person is not entitled to that right.

A good example of this is an access gate used by multiple people. If you change the lock or remote, and someone else uses the gate—rightfully or not—then you are at risk of transgressing this feature of the law. Interestingly enough, there has been a case where the gate was electronic and a case where the gate was manual and in the two different cases the judges actually ruled differently in the two cases. One case of changing access credentials without giving access to other users was "spoliasie" and one wasn't—obviously also complicating subsequent interpretation of the law.

In fact, since you cannot take the law into your own hands, a thief could theoretically after having stolen your car and if you take back the car somehow, sue you for spoliasie. The key here is that the police is supposed to go and apprehend the suspect and bring back your car.

Of course, practically, such a case would never go to court. But before you think the "theory" of this is crazy, consider this: How do you know who has a right to usage of which items and personal properties? In fact, maybe you lent the "thief" your car (and maybe the "thief" is even your friend) and suddenly you decided you didn't like this friend anymore and called the police and told them this person stole your car. Maybe it's a silly example, but the point is that it's tricky to just impede existing usage without proper consideration.

The principle is that an existing right should be respected until shown to be an unlawful usage and hence not a valid right. By the way, IANAL.

Re: Indiana man charged with theft for removing police tracking device from car

#68

Post by pmiller2 »

wahern wrote: post #48
stevenwoo wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This was covered in popular culture most famously by The Wire, written by retired police beat reporter David Simon, it's called "juking the stats", each police district is judged by different crime stats, and promotions are based on those stats, so naturally everything evolves to optimized for better stats. Not only that, on the judicial side in America over the past 50 years, funding has not kept up with the increas…

A great, empirically based, comprehensive look at the devolution of criminal justice in the U.S. can be found in "The Collapse of American Criminal Justice" by the late criminal law scholar William Stuntz. TL;DR: The trend started nearly 200 years ago, though for various reasons it accelerated in the mid 20th century. Some reviews: "The book is eminently readable and merits careful attention because it accurately des…

Coincidentally, ~200 years ago is about when the modern concept of a police force originated. Make of that what you will.

Re: Indiana man charged with theft for removing police tracking device from car

#69

Post by dbcurtis »

lazyguy2 wrote: post #46
WalterBright wrote: post #41

If someone drops something in my car, and I unwittingly drive off with it, it is still not mine. But I did not steal it. If the person asks for it back, and I refuse, then I am stealing it. All the police had to do was knock on his door and ask for it back. If he refused, that's grounds for theft. If he denied knowledge of it (like if it had just fallen off somewhere) that doesn't sound like sufficient grounds for a…

If you hide something on my car to spy on me then it's not reasonable to expect it back if I find it. Charging somebody with theft for something like this is effectively rewarding the police for being incompetent. One of the worst mistakes in modern government is pretending that the people 'serving' have more rights and privileges then everybody else. They should have less.

> One of the worst mistakes in modern government is pretending that the people 'serving' have more rights and privileges then everybody else.

The correct term to use here is "powers". The people have "rights". The people delegate, through the constitution, certain "powers" to the government. The government, in turn, delegates some of those powers to the police. The police do not have "rights". The government does not have "rights". The government and police have "powers", and are supposed to exercise those powers within specified limits.

What is under discussion here is the limits of those powers.

Re: Indiana man charged with theft for removing police tracking device from car

#70

Post by Xelbair »

tsimionescu wrote: post #59
2804t3qwp wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd like to hear more about this if you don't mind expounding on it some. I realize that in a certain light that's how it looks (I'm no stranger to a lot of what used to be called conspiracy theories, including the long history of illegal surveillance) but honestly it's always looked to me like the powers that be, in America, genuinely try to operate in a benign fashion. I realize that's not the same as operating in…

> honestly it's always looked to me like the powers that be, in America, genuinely try to operate in a benign fashion Chomsky has a good point about this, that often the most heinous crimes in history have been done with a genuine belief that they are done for good. So, intentions should play a limited role in your judgment of someone's moral outcome. On the other hand, there have been clear cases where the powers th…

Or even international interventions like:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_Guatemalan_coup_d%27%C3%A...

Where USA destabilized 3rd world government for profit of fruit company.

USA was never a "good guy", they were, and still are, just a lesser evil - especially if compared to soviet union, or now - china.

Post reply on HN