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

111–120 of 223 posts

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

#111

Post by icebraining »

m463 wrote: post #58
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.

> the people 'serving' have more rights and privileges then everybody else I was told the difference between a policeman and a citizen (via citizen's arrest) is that a policeman can arrest someone for a misdemeanor.

According to Wikipedia, misdemeanors are OK too, as long as they were committed in the presence of that citizen.

I think the real difference is that the cops have qualified immunity, meaning they aren't at fault even if the arrest turned out to be unjustified, and regular citizens do not.

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

#112

Post by thomasfedb »

nothrabannosir wrote: post #93
wodenokoto wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So police and firefighters shouldn’t be allowed to run red lights?

Not OP, but: not per se , no. Only in the pursuit of some specific task which requires them to do that. Just like a citizen can run a red light if they have to rush someone to a hospital. Or at least I’d hope they can.

It's probably a defence rather than being directly permissable.

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

#113

Post by tehwebguy »

Aloha wrote: post #86
x220 wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Not by intention however, but I'd mostly agree they do in practice.

It is entirely intentional.

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

#114

Post by huffmsa »

cm2187 wrote: post #95

That part doesn’t sound right: > 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. You have no way to tell a police tracker from a stawker’s one. How can removing it possibly constitute a crime?

Had he been made aware of the tracking device, like one is with an ankle monitoring bracelet, then sure, removal is cause for an arrest on theft, destruction of property, etc.

However, since he was not made aware of the device, he has no obligation to be compliant.

If the police were tapping someone's phone and they threw away the phone, for whatever reason, would they be in a similar situation?

If they avoided a human surveillance detail, would they be in a similar situation?

Likely no and no.

So while the police did things correctly, getting warrants, etc, the suspect was still entirely unaware of any need to comply.

The guy should walk.

Edit: addendum

If the device had been labeled "Property of {X} Police, do not remove", then they'd have a better case.

Same way the police are supposed to (but don't) announce themselves before kicking down your door.

You're not more important than the citizenry you serve.

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

#115

Post by brobdingnagians »

This is the interesting statement to me:

> “But something is left on your car — even if you know it’s the police that are tracking you, you have an obligation to leave it there and let them track you?”

If you can compel someone to leave surveillance on private property, where does this precedent make a distinction. Could they leave surveillance cameras in your home and compel you to leave them there?

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

#116

Post by chrismcb »

huffmsa wrote: post #114
cm2187 wrote: post #95

That part doesn’t sound right: > 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. You have no way to tell a police tracker from a stawker’s one. How can removing it possibly constitute a crime?

Had he been made aware of the tracking device, like one is with an ankle monitoring bracelet, then sure, removal is cause for an arrest on theft, destruction of property, etc. However, since he was not made aware of the device, he has no obligation to be compliant. If the police were tapping someone's phone and they threw away the phone, for whatever reason, would they be in a similar situation? If they avoided a hum…

They claim that a police tracker is obviously different than a civilian one. Didn't say how. But if it becomes illegal to remove a police tracker, how soon before the civilian ones resemble the police ones?

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

#117

Post by yaur »

huffmsa wrote: post #114
cm2187 wrote: post #95

That part doesn’t sound right: > 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. You have no way to tell a police tracker from a stawker’s one. How can removing it possibly constitute a crime?

Had he been made aware of the tracking device, like one is with an ankle monitoring bracelet, then sure, removal is cause for an arrest on theft, destruction of property, etc. However, since he was not made aware of the device, he has no obligation to be compliant. If the police were tapping someone's phone and they threw away the phone, for whatever reason, would they be in a similar situation? If they avoided a hum…

I believe that the point of the theft charge was to get a search warrant, which they did. Regardless of if he “walks” on the theft charge it seems unlikely that the evidence they gathered when serving that warrant will be thrown out.

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

#118

Post by huffmsa »

yaur wrote: post #117
huffmsa wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Had he been made aware of the tracking device, like one is with an ankle monitoring bracelet, then sure, removal is cause for an arrest on theft, destruction of property, etc. However, since he was not made aware of the device, he has no obligation to be compliant. If the police were tapping someone's phone and they threw away the phone, for whatever reason, would they be in a similar situation? If they avoided a hum…

I believe that the point of the theft charge was to get a search warrant, which they did. Regardless of if he “walks” on the theft charge it seems unlikely that the evidence they gathered when serving that warrant will be thrown out.

It should be, but legal precedent is a bit of a mixed bag on the admissibility of evidence collected during the execution of an invalid warrant.

If a judge finds that it's not the polics'd fault that the warrant was invalid, they can use it. If it was there fault, it's probably inadmissible.

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

#119

Post by huffmsa »

chrismcb wrote: post #116
huffmsa wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Had he been made aware of the tracking device, like one is with an ankle monitoring bracelet, then sure, removal is cause for an arrest on theft, destruction of property, etc. However, since he was not made aware of the device, he has no obligation to be compliant. If the police were tapping someone's phone and they threw away the phone, for whatever reason, would they be in a similar situation? If they avoided a hum…

They claim that a police tracker is obviously different than a civilian one. Didn't say how. But if it becomes illegal to remove a police tracker, how soon before the civilian ones resemble the police ones?

That assumes civilians are aware of what "civilian" trackers look like.

Not a reasonable assumption.

Post reply on HN