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

191–200 of 214 posts

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

#191

Post by SoftTalker »

skinfaxi wrote: post #175
SoftTalker wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't have to prove your innocence; innocence is assumed. The prosecution has to prove you guilty, and inform the defense of all the evidence that they have. If they have evidence that exonerates you, they would be stupid to even bring a case to trial as it would be a waste of everyone's time.

We live in a world where, routinely, police plant evidence and prosecutors fail to bring forth exonerating evidence. They don't have to be stupid when they are being deceptive. Search "Brady violation" on youtube for some examples.

Of course. Our entire concept of government relies on everyone acting in good faith, even with checks and balances. Reality is often messier.

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

#192

Post by BobaFloutist »

kyleee wrote: post #188
MSFT_Edging wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Police dogs are another insane thing we allow. You can be mauled by a police dog and if you hit the dog, you get an assault on a police officer charge. It's bad enough a cop can permanently disable you if you can't follow 3 conflicting orders being yelled, but they can also send an animal who literally doesn't know better.

And the absurdity of a dog sniffing around the car for contraband. Crazy that’s allowed and taken seriously by the justice system

Well the courts said they need probable cause for a search, so they needed an on-demand probable cause generator, or else they wouldn't be able to do pretextual searches on "randomly" stopped minorities anymore, which would be a violation of they(the police)'re civil rights.

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

#193

Post by tastyfreeze »

ang_cire wrote: post #185
tastyfreeze wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, it was technically theft. Officers found the vehicle at his house shortly after it was reported missing. Not really an opportunity to return it. If all laws were prosecuted to the exact letter of the law we would not need juries. The DA will prosecute any case that they feel has enough evidence to secure a conviction, as this case had. It is the juries that determine if prosecution in each case is "just". Steal…

> If all laws were prosecuted to the exact letter of the law we would not need juries. The DA will prosecute any case that they feel has enough evidence to secure a conviction, as this case had. It is the juries that determine if prosecution in each case is "just". I think you're think of grand juries . They decide if there is enough evidence to go to trial, I.e. if the prosecution is just. Even without grand juries,…

I was referring to both grand and petit jury in general but yes, that is correct.

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

#194

Post by jordanb »

crooked-v wrote: post #92
jordanb wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The bail jumping charge was dismissed; Abrams-Phillips was found guilty only of weed possession in the case, according to the court records. Apparently the bail jumping charge was weak? That seems like a black-and-white situation to me so no idea what the details were, but there was clearly something wrong with that charge. If the charge was so weak then they probably couldn't get a warrant to arrest him outright?…

Reading between the lines, I would bet the bail jumping charge was based on him crossing state lines back and forth, and was dismissed by the court when it became clear he wasn't actually running away anywhere. Thus the cops hunting for any and all petty bullshit to punish him with instead, like the marijuana possession.

That makes sense yes.

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

#195

Post by rglover »

dataflow wrote: post #57

I'm so confused, how is this creating a pretext ? A pretext is a false reason. Like if they searched for one reason but they really did it for a different one. But that's not what I'm reading here? It seems they suspected something, they used that exact reason to perform a search, and that's exactly what they found. Terrible reason, okay, but why are they being accused of lying ? If a thief threatens you saying you l…

The pretext is that his travel to another state was assumed to be to buy weed. They appear to be relying on his existing warrant and criminal record to justify having used Flock data to not just locate him, but manufacture probable cause.

Unless they have direct evidence (photo from Flock of him ripping bong hits in his car at a light) prior to the stop to attach probable cause to, it's a pre-crime judgment.

IANAL (if you are, feel free to poke holes), but I wouldn't presume it unlikely he walks under the 4th amendment, even if it's through appeals.

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

#196

Post by rglover »

TZubiri wrote: post #173
site-packages1 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The issue isn't prosecution for illegality, among other things it's the anti-Fourth-Amendment methods for constructing the case. So, I'm going to campaign for government entities to follow the Constitution (as amended).

Which of the events would be in violation of the 4th amendment here?

A reply to another comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49189750

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

#197

Post by queenkjuul »

bluegatty wrote: post #165
queenkjuul wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Flock is not helping cops be 'dirty cops' or anything. Yes it very much is, there's plenty of evidence Note that all the other charges against this person were dropped.

No, there's nothing specific or inherent about Flock that is specifically helping cops bad bad. This is not like something that helps them cover their tracks, or hide behind some tool. I don't like Flock, but it's the 'surveillance state' part of it that is bad. In terms of 'cops being bad cops' - that's a separate thing. Also - Flock for sure should not be allowed to be used in this kind of speculative kind of thing…

So "this kind of speculative thing" isn't cops being bad cops?

What about when they stalk and pull over women they're infatuated with? That's not being a bad cop? You know they do that, right?

This literally does help them hide behind some tool. They can get away with all sorts of rights violations by the nature of "we didn't collect the data, we bought it" in the first place.

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

#198

Post by btbuildem »

willy_k wrote: post #134
Windchaser wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Man outlines how hardened criminals take down Flock cameras, detailing it step-by-step: https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/comments/1v78ihu/...

Hopefully none of those hardened criminals know that a circular saw is the fastest way by far to cut through posts!

Kickback would be bad if it binds in the kerf - I think sawzall is better/safer for cutting pipe that's under load.

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

#199

Post by dataflow »

rglover wrote: post #195
dataflow wrote: post #57

I'm so confused, how is this creating a pretext ? A pretext is a false reason. Like if they searched for one reason but they really did it for a different one. But that's not what I'm reading here? It seems they suspected something, they used that exact reason to perform a search, and that's exactly what they found. Terrible reason, okay, but why are they being accused of lying ? If a thief threatens you saying you l…

The pretext is that his travel to another state was assumed to be to buy weed. They appear to be relying on his existing warrant and criminal record to justify having used Flock data to not just locate him, but manufacture probable cause. Unless they have direct evidence (photo from Flock of him ripping bong hits in his car at a light) prior to the stop to attach probable cause to, it's a pre-crime judgment. IANAL (i…

> The pretext is that his travel to another state was assumed to be to buy weed. [...]

> Unless they have direct evidence [...] it's a pre-crime judgment.

But how does it being pre-crime judgment etc. imply it is a pretext too?

Just look up the definition:

- A pretext is "a false reason given to hide the real motivation behind an action." [1]

- A pretextual stop is "pull(ing) people over for minor rule violations [...] as an excuse to conduct a search and go fishing for other crimes." [2]

Notice it says "false", "hide", and "other crime"? And not merely "bad reason" to "serve as an excuse" to "search for any crime"?

Here, they appear to have done exactly what they claimed they their intentions were, and as a result discovered exactly what they suspected. Is anyone disputing this? If this was a "pretext", then what the heck are we alleging were their "real" motivations and "other" crimes? How could they have possibly been more honest in their intentions?

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretext

[2] https://www.policingproject.org/pretextual-traffic

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

#200

Post by tavavex »

BobaFloutist wrote: post #192
kyleee wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And the absurdity of a dog sniffing around the car for contraband. Crazy that’s allowed and taken seriously by the justice system

Well the courts said they need probable cause for a search, so they needed an on-demand probable cause generator, or else they wouldn't be able to do pretextual searches on "randomly" stopped minorities anymore, which would be a violation of they(the police)'re civil rights.

The best thing is that the dog's actions are taken seriously from a judicial standpoint, yet the dog obviously can't be held responsible, so if there's wrongful action, no one is ever at fault!
Post reply on HN