Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, this depends. On the way to an emergency? Of course they should. And people should pull over. And only sometimes while on the job. For example, if they catch someone for speeding and happen to go through a red light, I don't find that to be a grave thing. Speeding is easily a public hazard. Going off to investigate a theft where the thief has left the property, though? No need to run the light as the delay won'…
They have protocols for that and generally follow them.
Indiana man charged with theft for removing police tracking device from car
191–200 of 223 posts
Re: Indiana man charged with theft for removing police tracking device from car
#192Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can't say that media and public shame are worse than the abuses of the criminal justice system. Your life may get turned upside down if you are simply accused of some crimes (especially sexual crimes), but you may very well bounce back. Getting rightly accused of possession of light drugs and ending up in prison is a much worse outcome, and it happens to many, many times more people. And unlike the celebrities th…
>Getting rightly accused of possession of light drugs and ending up in prison is a much worse outcome, and it happens to many, many times more people. Can we just agree that both are a perversion of our justice system? Blackstone's formula, "Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer" was very influential do the people who designed our initial legal system. The reason it is important is that…
Also, the prevalence of this problem you are raising is extremely small in reality. The opposite is still much more likely - people who are guilty of various crimes who escape unpunished both by the justice system but also from public scrutiny.
Re: Indiana man charged with theft for removing police tracking device from car
#193Earlier quoted context omitted.
The crime is irrelevant. The discussion is whether you are guilty or not as an individual. If you willing commit a crime (regardless of how you feel about the law) then you are rightfully punished. The problem is when you're innocent and still get punished anyway.
Well, if you stole a pack of gum and are executed for it, that's still a problem, even though you're technically guilty. And again, in the real world, there are maybe hundreds of people suffering public outrage even though they are innocent, and there are tens of thousands of people who are serving extremely harsh sentences for minor crimes. The first is regrettable, the second is a major societal issue.
The US justice system is built on this foundation of letting the guilty go if it means avoiding a single innocent from being wrongfully convicted. Now you might say that social outrage isn't a big deal but considering the permanent nature of the internet and pervasiveness of social media, it's the same branding as a ex-con, if not worse since govt records at least have some controls on who can see them.
I agree that criminal sentencing and prison reform is needed, but that's a different discussion compared to how we treat the innocent.
Re: Indiana man charged with theft for removing police tracking device from car
#194Re: Indiana man charged with theft for removing police tracking device from car
#195Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
#196If 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…
Re: Indiana man charged with theft for removing police tracking device from car
#197If 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.
Cops are supposed to be professionals, with keeping the civil order of their state and/or county and/or municipality as their full-time job, but the authority to arrest criminals historically extends from the sheriff of the county, to every person whom he or she may designate, either orally or in writing. If the sheriff asked for assistance from an ordinary person, and they effected an arrest, that was legally an official act of the sheriff. Similar extension-of-authority constructs exist for a municipal mayor/council, state governor, and federal president.
Without a preexisting order to assist, as one might have as a municipal cop or full-time county deputy, there is no official cover for an arrest, and the person making one would have personal liability, if they made a mistake. That privilege of immunity for mistakes made during establishment or maintenance of civil order is supposed to keep professional cops from being too fearful of civil liability lawsuit to do their jobs effectively. I would argue that they are now not fearful enough to conduct themselves in a manner consistent with their positions in the community, as part of it, simply being persons who have been given a standing order to assist the office of the president/governor/sheriff/mayor in their duty to keep civil order. They have now set themselves apart from the communities in which they live, behind the cordon of their thin blue lines, as adversaries to those whom they see as enemies of civil order.
As such, they have become blind to those occasions on which their actions are actually upsetting to the civil order. In other words, they get into some crazy bullshit legal arguments, and sometimes get away with it.
The privilege they enjoy is actually in having their personal actions taken as extensions of a higher lawful authority, rather than as their own.
It is established that the state has the authority to require that motor vehicle owners permanently affix a license plate to their vehicles, which remains the property of the state, and not remove it, and to return it to a designated authority on demand. But this is all written into public law. You can't just arbitrarily extend that power to some cop shop's magnetic GPS tracker. If you want it to be a crime to remove it, you have to write that into its own law. Otherwise, you have to follow the same law for theft (or unlawful conversion) as everyone else. And that opens up a reciprocal liability for putting your property on someone else's property without their authorization.
I suppose the opsec moral of the story is to drop found trackers onto the public road, or report it as lost property, instead of leaving it inside a locker. Putting a classified ad for lost property in the public notices section of the local paper for three consecutive weeks might have been a fun experiment in "fruit of the poisoned tree" lawyering.
Re: Indiana man charged with theft for removing police tracking device from car
#198Re: Indiana man charged with theft for removing police tracking device from car
#199That said, if you find a GPS tracker on your car, which you take off and keep in your house full of drugs, it might be a bit late for you. I'm not suggesting the police used the GPS tracker to locate him, but who would keep a device like that, even if you were fairly* sure it was off? Park next to a city/police/firefighter/EMS vehicle and stick it over there. Or just chuck the thing on the side of the road and be done with it.
This is a fairly rural area, but I suspect in a larger city the police wouldn't even need a GPS tracker to maintain a rough idea of your comings and goings. They'll just scan the license plates ~20+ times a day as various police vehicles drive by, and use that data to build a map of your travels.
Re: Indiana man charged with theft for removing police tracking device from car
#200Earlier quoted context omitted.
> However you may feel about the theft charge, if you find a tracker on your car, don't take it off. Yes, but ... > It's an occasion to call the police. If you are a drug dealer it is an occasion to hide your supply extra hard. And use a second car/taxi for your drug dealing while using the compromised car for perfectly legal things like an upstanding citizen.
> If you are a drug dealer it is an occasion to hide your supply extra hard. I suspect he did. Most likely the police planted the glass pipe that was found when searching for the tracking device so that they could obtain permission from the judge for the second search.
There is low conditional probability that a drug dealer smart enough to locate and remove a GPS tracker would put it in the same physical locker compartment as a crack pipe after taking it off.
Were I the judge, I would be especially wary of "automatic probable cause" objects that were coincidentally found with the search warrant target, namely "drug paraphernalia", "the distinctive odor of marijuana", and "the K-9 unit alerted".
Ask to see the glass pipe they found. Ask to see the photograph of it in situ next to the tracking device. Compare it very closely to evidence taken from previous drug cases. When the cops are unable to back up their bullshit story, throw their whole case out and cite someone for perjury.