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

Cops Used Flock to Track a Man Across State Lines for a Pretextual Weed Search

404media.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 214 posts

Re: Cops Used Flock to Track a Man Across State Lines for a Pretextual Weed Search

#41

Post by insanitybit »

giantg2 wrote: post #22
MSFT_Edging wrote: post #11

This is the big problem with mass surveillance as a whole. With enough time, they'll find some pretext to bring you in, even if the original crime they want you for is weak. This will ruin lives, even if they're eventually let go. Jobs lost, evicted from homes, cars towed, pets surrendered and put down. Lives will be completely derailed, police and judges will not be held accountable. The wrongful arrestees will stil…

"Even if they're wrong, you can't shoot back." Depends on the situation. You'd absolutely be arrested. Get in front of a jury of 12 people and you might have a chance if you have enough evidence for a self-defense claim and the cop acting outside of the law.

Only if the jury believes in nullification, which isn't common. The jury is instructed to follow the law. The selection process asks "even if you think they were right, if it's against the law and they were guilty would you issue a guilty verdict?" and people answer "yes" consistently.

Re: Cops Used Flock to Track a Man Across State Lines for a Pretextual Weed Search

#42

Post by ericcholis »

segmondy wrote: post #31
MSFT_Edging wrote: post #11

This is the big problem with mass surveillance as a whole. With enough time, they'll find some pretext to bring you in, even if the original crime they want you for is weak. This will ruin lives, even if they're eventually let go. Jobs lost, evicted from homes, cars towed, pets surrendered and put down. Lives will be completely derailed, police and judges will not be held accountable. The wrongful arrestees will stil…

Someone that is innocent is going to get killed soon because flock flagged them incorrectly. I recall reading the auto journalist that got flagged for a stolen car while test driving a car. We have seen how often pull over/arrests can derail when a stupid cop that is aggressive pulls out their weapon first, fires fast and then investigates last. An innocent person that reacts wrongly is eventually going to make the n…

https://www.jalopnik.com/2219072/auto-journalist-harassed-by...

Link for the curious

Re: Cops Used Flock to Track a Man Across State Lines for a Pretextual Weed Search

#43

Post by forlorn_mammoth »

TZubiri wrote: post #25

I don't quite get the thesis of the author here. Regardless of the view that one may have on Cannabis laws, they are illegal, if the system is correctly detaining people that break those laws, and you have a problem with that, is the problem with the enforcement system or the law? If you don't like some aspect of this, should you be campaigning for removal of flock cameras? Or campaigning for cannabis rights and Cont…

The two hang together. You campaign in your state to legalize something. Some other state, where you have very little influence, goes the other way.

It isn't just cannabis.

what if the law categorizes abortion as felony/murder?

what if the law categorized certain types of sexual behavior as felony?

Re: Cops Used Flock to Track a Man Across State Lines for a Pretextual Weed Search

#44

Post by [deleted] »

TZubiri wrote: post #25

I don't quite get the thesis of the author here. Regardless of the view that one may have on Cannabis laws, they are illegal, if the system is correctly detaining people that break those laws, and you have a problem with that, is the problem with the enforcement system or the law? If you don't like some aspect of this, should you be campaigning for removal of flock cameras? Or campaigning for cannabis rights and Cont…

[deleted]

Re: Cops Used Flock to Track a Man Across State Lines for a Pretextual Weed Search

#45

Post by FireBeyond »

giantg2 wrote: post #22
MSFT_Edging wrote: post #11

This is the big problem with mass surveillance as a whole. With enough time, they'll find some pretext to bring you in, even if the original crime they want you for is weak. This will ruin lives, even if they're eventually let go. Jobs lost, evicted from homes, cars towed, pets surrendered and put down. Lives will be completely derailed, police and judges will not be held accountable. The wrongful arrestees will stil…

"Even if they're wrong, you can't shoot back." Depends on the situation. You'd absolutely be arrested. Get in front of a jury of 12 people and you might have a chance if you have enough evidence for a self-defense claim and the cop acting outside of the law.

I'd highly doubt that. I've actually been on scene of a few LE-involved shootings (ex-paramedic).

If LE "just" shoots at you (i.e. you're not actively firing or an immediate threat - and without commenting on the "should" of that) then... you might be "fine", once you're disabled.

If you're actively firing at LE, they're going to hit you with "overwhelming force" (ever seen a news story where there's 50+ bullet holes in a car, or a suspect shot 15 times, by police? That's "overwhelming force") and any survival on your part is going to be sheer dumb luck and "not very likely".

Re: Cops Used Flock to Track a Man Across State Lines for a Pretextual Weed Search

#46

Post by preg_match »

bko wrote: post #17
hwillis wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. those charges were dismissed 2. the article address that specifically: > The case is an example of Flock cameras being used to arrest a wanted alleged criminal suspected of committing a violent crime. But it is also an example of police surveillance overreach *in that the cameras were specifically used to create a pretext to tack on additional petty crimes* based primarily on where a person’s vehicle had traveled.

I think using technology to capture alleged criminals is a good thing.

I think everyone agrees. Where the disagreement lies is if this is how the technology is actually used, and the answer seems to be: no.

Regardless, even if the technology was used currently purely for good, when you’re “pro surveillance” you’re actually arguing it will always be used for good, even in some hypothetical future with hypothetical politics. That’s a very hard sell.

Re: Cops Used Flock to Track a Man Across State Lines for a Pretextual Weed Search

#47

Post by btbuildem »

insanitybit wrote: post #41
giantg2 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Even if they're wrong, you can't shoot back." Depends on the situation. You'd absolutely be arrested. Get in front of a jury of 12 people and you might have a chance if you have enough evidence for a self-defense claim and the cop acting outside of the law.

Only if the jury believes in nullification, which isn't common. The jury is instructed to follow the law. The selection process asks "even if you think they were right, if it's against the law and they were guilty would you issue a guilty verdict?" and people answer "yes" consistently.

No one who has answered "no" made it thru the selection process, so there might be some survivor bias at play here.

Re: Cops Used Flock to Track a Man Across State Lines for a Pretextual Weed Search

#48

Post by Ccecil »

WarmWash wrote: post #27
Ccecil wrote: post #20

Based on my observations (news reports, local chatter, etc) it seems that every state that borders a state with legal Cannabis does this. Idaho does this very frequently (since just about every border is a legal source). They take advantages of the bottlenecks on highways and have cameras and/or officers there. If it is Flock, interagency communications, license plate readers or just "enhanced stops" for things like…

They did this in my state, and now that other state has been legal for over a year and a half, but the cameras are all still there

North Idaho started adding license plate readers and cameras back in the early 2k's using funding given out after 9/11.

Locally there was a recent pushback on them and the sheriff basically said "They've been there forever" and "Don't worry...it's just us with the footage"

Re: Cops Used Flock to Track a Man Across State Lines for a Pretextual Weed Search

#49

Post by fusslo »

rileymat2 wrote: post #2

I am misunderstanding the article, if "The searches came to light in a Wisconsin criminal complaint against Edward Abrams-Phillips, who was wanted for bail jumping on domestic violence charges." he was wanted, why do they need a pretext for the stop?

Ok, the article is confusing but the complaint is a little better.

> The vehicle was registered to Edward 12-01-1993. Edward had an active Brown County felony warrant with nationwide extradition.

so he wasn't just wanted but also had an active warrant.

> Multiple Deputies checked the area but were unable to locate the vehicle at that time

Police tried arresting him before, but couldn't find him. The police then used flock to find a pattern of coming/going over the state line. I'm guessing they stationed someone nearby to wait for a flock alert and arrest him.

The following is total speculation on my part: The police are including the "Based on prior flock hits, the vehicle travels to Michigan frequently which is a known source State for Marijuana as it is legal there." to build probable cause for searching the car and finding the marijuana.

Otherwise the only PC is: "He declined consent to search his vehicle. However, DeputyKowalski informed him he would be conducting a search of his vehicle due to the odor of marijuana".

Maybe the olfactory skills of officers are so dubious that courts need more facts than just an odor? That'd be my guess.

direct link to the complaint (it's also embedded in the article) https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/28537132/2025cf000671...

Re: Cops Used Flock to Track a Man Across State Lines for a Pretextual Weed Search

#50

Post by Hugsbox »

bko wrote: post #15
MSFT_Edging wrote: post #11

This is the big problem with mass surveillance as a whole. With enough time, they'll find some pretext to bring you in, even if the original crime they want you for is weak. This will ruin lives, even if they're eventually let go. Jobs lost, evicted from homes, cars towed, pets surrendered and put down. Lives will be completely derailed, police and judges will not be held accountable. The wrongful arrestees will stil…

Maybe they can start enforcing the law when it comes to blatant offenders that terrorize large cities. Illegal blocking of sidewalk selling fake handbags, selling untaxed marijuana on street corners, violating traffic laws on e-bikes. A lot of wood to chop before they get to my jay walking so I think I’m safe for the time being. But I welcome more enforcement

This comment is satire, correct?
Post reply on HN