Earlier quoted context omitted.
IANAL My understanding is that it's the Police's property. If you find it, you can probably legally remove it from the car, but you can't keep it or prevent the Police from recovering it. This might be interesting to you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theft_by_finding
Since you don't know whose tracker it is maybe the best thing to do is "lose" it again. Drop it down the nearest drain so you can plausibly say you never saw it and it must have fallen off.
Indiana man charged with theft for removing police tracking device from car
81–90 of 223 posts
Re: Indiana man charged with theft for removing police tracking device from car
#82"They sought warrants to search Heuring’s home and the barn, alleging that there was probable cause that a crime had been committed — that Heuring had committed theft by taking off the GPS tracker. While searching the barn, they found the tracker in a bathroom locker. They also found evidence of drug use: a glass pipe. A subsequent search, granted by a judge based on the paraphernalia, uncovered bags of methamphetami…
On the other hand, any police willing to act so unethically might also be willing to plant evidence out of careerism or pure malice. There is plenty of precedent for both. Who is to say that the tracker actually was found in a locker, or the drugs and guns? Presumably they already knew where he lived.
Want to fix problem at source?
Re: Indiana man charged with theft for removing police tracking device from car
#83Put a faraday cage around the tracker instead
Re: Indiana man charged with theft for removing police tracking device from car
#84If 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.
Re: Indiana man charged with theft for removing police tracking device from car
#85Earlier quoted context omitted.
IANAL My understanding is that it's the Police's property. If you find it, you can probably legally remove it from the car, but you can't keep it or prevent the Police from recovering it. This might be interesting to you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theft_by_finding
Since you don't know whose tracker it is maybe the best thing to do is "lose" it again. Drop it down the nearest drain so you can plausibly say you never saw it and it must have fallen off.
Re: Indiana man charged with theft for removing police tracking device from car
#86Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
Police de facto have more rights because they can expect lenient punishment (or no punishment) for crimes they commit even when out of uniform. You can argue until you're blue in the face about de jure rights but those don't matter very much when a cop pulls you over and fears for his life.
Re: Indiana man charged with theft for removing police tracking device from car
#87Earlier 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…
Re: Indiana man charged with theft for removing police tracking device from car
#88All debates aside, who finds a police tracking device on their car and continues to maintain a large stash of meth and paraphernalia?
Re: Indiana man charged with theft for removing police tracking device from car
#89Disgusting abuse of power manages to catch a criminal. Is that our only metric for success now? Putting people in prison? Might as well shred the constitution, apparently we're ready to burn everything it stood for to prevent people from getting high. I know I sound dramatic but it is honestly impossible to overstate how damaging to privacy rights and how much horrific police militarization can be directly and indire…
Worse is the whole guilty until proven innocent scenario the media (and our society) has created. All it takes is being a suspect once to have your life turned inside out. For years people will suspect you of whatever horrors were committed by someone else. The founding fathers are rolling over as they say if they heard where this country has gone.
Re: Indiana man charged with theft for removing police tracking device from car
#90Earlier quoted context omitted.
While there is no catching a criminal in this situation. Asset forfeiture is abused. This is where police take items, usually cash, and keep it. There is no trial, just a seizure of property. https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/12/1/16686014/p... It's a good example of what I mean. There are others, I'm just not going to post them all. The police seem to optimize for stats and profit. And the cities/counties…
This is a fair criticism, and in line with the comment I replied to, but I still don't know if I agree with the overall sentiment of cynacism. While I'll give you the leaks about Prism/Five Eyes/Mail Espionage (the original government surveillance!), etc. the same documents are in line with what a pattern of being motivated by a fear of being unprepared to defend the greater society from upheaval would look like. Obv…
Three years ago, I was you. I thought I wasn’t blind to the problems in the US, but that we fundamentally had a solid system that did its best. Insofar as racial injustice permeated the system, that was a product of racist cops/prosecutors, but a problem that would solve itself as better, younger people, with fewer prejudices, slowly rotated in. I realized I was wrong after Trump became president.
Not the way you might think, though. It wasn’t the series of stories of the things Trump did (and does) that showed me how wrong I was. It was the stories about the things people conveniently started blaming on Trump. Now that we had a legit villain in the White House, the press started dredging up horror stories—but as often as not, from before the administration took power!
So I started reading. And I read about how qualified immunity means cops can do anything to you as long as a court hasn’t previously ruled is unconstitutional. I read about how courts will not decide on constitutionality if they don’t have to—meaning that finding qualified immunity means that the constitutionality wouldn’t be ruled on, leaving the act legal!
I found out that prosecutors will charge defendants with absurd numbers of crimes that they know they can’t prove in order to force a plea deal, because they know the vast majority of defendants can’t afford the legal representation to avoid conviction.
I found out that if you do have means of hiring competent counsel, it is not unheard of for the government to freeze your assets, alleging they proceeded from your crime, so you can’t pay for your defense.
In other words, I found out the US criminal justice system is a giant machinery that takes in people and spits out shattered lives, and that your best hope in life is that its Eye of Sauron won’t turn to look at you.
So how did it get that way? I’ll propose three theories and hopefully explain why the last one is the one I subscribe to.
First, the American people may just be evil. But I don’t buy that, because nations aren’t evil, and everyday people just want to get by. Also, they live under this system; it’s a particularly stupid sort of evil that harms itself.
Second, the American people are oblivious. This one is true, but insufficient. By a “hilarious” cultural “accident”, the vast majority of the system’s horrors fall on the powerless and the poor (by "coincidence", minorities, particularly African American); the rest of society tends to live in a reasonable world. However, that doesn’t explain why things are bad for the victims; cops and prosecutors should be no more likely to be evil than the rest of the population, and yet they are the ones turning the gears of the meat grinder.
Third: the system structurally encourages the behavior. That’s the one everyone is arguing for. Measuring conviction rates (how insane is that?), needing to be seen as tough on crime, those provide the push. Then, removing the guardrails of prosecutorial accountability (prosecutors are almost never sanctioned, even in egregious cases of misconduct) and police restraint leads to the rest.
We are putting good people in a position where the only rational thing to do is to destroy lives to make a number go up, and we remove or don’t enforce the rules that would give any semblance of fairness. Inevitably, the most successful ones will be the ones operating outside the expected rules. As for the ones who refuse, their motivations don’t matter; the system will grind them down as surely as it will grind down its other victims.