from the doesn't-the-oath-require-the-whole-truth? dept.
In a Baltimore trial courtroom on Monday, a local judge threatened to hold a police detective in contempt of court for refusing to disclose how police located a 16-year-old robbery suspect’s phone.
But rather than disclose the possible use of a Stingray*, also known as a cell site simulator, Detective John L. Haley cited a non-disclosure agreement, likely with a federal law enforcement agency (such as the FBI) and/or the Harris Corporation, since the company is one of the dominant manufacturers of such devices. Stingrays can be used to determine a phone’s location, and they can also intercept calls and text messages.
Baltimore Circuit Judge Barry G. Williams retorted, "You don't have a non-disclosure agreement with the court," according to the Baltimore Sun.
* [Submitter's Note: Surely there's a joke about fishing expeditions to be had there.]
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 19 2014, @10:13PM
This whole thing with the local!! police using potentially illegal methods too "secret" to disclose needs to stop.
Aren't local police accountable to local governments? Has the Federal government co-opted local control of law enforcement?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 19 2014, @10:21PM
Don't mess with the 3rd branch of government boys.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Arik on Wednesday November 19 2014, @10:45PM
This would seem in turn to violate a number of laws, RICO among many others.
It's a real shame we have no law enforcement in this country anymore. A few high profile arrests and a few department heads behind bars would put a stop to it. Getting the evidence thrown out and the perpetrator returned to the streets is not a good enough deterrent for the cops and the prosecutors to straighten up, they will just hide their tracks better next time, and go right on doing what they are doing.
Welcome to the future, America! We have become the worlds largest banana republic.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Thexalon on Wednesday November 19 2014, @10:56PM
All too often, mayors are loathe to question their police chiefs, because pissing off the police is a good way to cause trouble in your city. Some reasons for that:
- Any uptick in any kind of crime will be used to attack the mayor. And an annoyed police force will make sure that something like this is splashed all over the front page of the local newspaper.
- Cops are unionized, and a work-to-rule is not fun for the city.
- Local cops are usually the only physical security available to the mayor. If a mayor has pissed off the cops, and a nutcase or criminal decides to try something, the cops will be less motivated to do their jobs.
- Local cops not-infrequently have dirt on the mayor that they could release.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Wednesday November 19 2014, @11:00PM
This isn't mexico, or a tv show.
You might be surprised to learn how little mayors have to do with police other than nominating the chief.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 20 2014, @02:50AM
RU sure?
(Score: 2, Interesting) by frojack on Wednesday November 19 2014, @10:58PM
The story is written in such a way to make the prosecutor out to be one of the bad guys here.
The worst assumption you can make is that he realized introducing the stingray evidence would piss off the jury so much they would acquit no matter how serious the crime.
Or the prosecutor may have decided to teach his own police force a lesson by surrendering any case where he knows illegal means were used.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 19 2014, @11:30PM
Lol, yet again frojack goes with wishful thinking over straightforward evidence.
This stuff all happened while the witness was on the stand. If the prosecutor was so concerned with aggravating a jury or civil society he would have never submitted the evidence and certainly never put the guy on the stand to do a half-assed testimony about it in the first place.
(Score: 2) by pendorbound on Thursday November 20 2014, @02:32PM
Yes.
(Score: 1) by number6x on Thursday November 20 2014, @09:32PM
Think of how many crimes will not be prosecuted because the local police have been induced to engage in illegal activities.
Society will be much less safe and secure due too the efforts of these federal agencies. It is like they are conspiring to undermine the safety and stability of the nation.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by Snotnose on Thursday November 20 2014, @12:54AM
Once again, I had mod points earlier today for a while. Nothing to mod. Now I want to mod the first poster, and my mod points have expired.
I'm guessing I've used well under 1% of the mod points I've ever been granted. If you're gonna grant me mod points, how about letting them stay in force until I use them?
/ offtopic, I know
// but dammit, every time I wanna mod something I have no points!
/// and when I have points there's nothing I want to mod
When the dust settled America realized it was saved by a porn star.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 20 2014, @02:33AM
The limit is 24 hours to keep people from only using them on hot topics.
(Score: 3) by c0lo on Thursday November 20 2014, @03:00AM
It happens to me as well to have mod points expiring unused
The mechanism: on hot topics I have the tendency to post rather than moderate.
On lukewarm subjects, there's usually nothing exceptional to moderate (what can you moderate in a 10-12 comments that are borderline offtopic?)
Somehow, I think the "karma economy" has some room for improvements. But I'll be sincere: I'm just not sure how (probably because all I can know is derived only from my direct karma economy participation and cannot see a bigger picture).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 20 2014, @04:23AM
I would mod you up but... Ahem
Same goes for me
(Score: 3, Funny) by Whoever on Thursday November 20 2014, @02:02AM
How long before people start appealing convictions based on the presumption that the cops lied on the stand about how they got evidence?
(Score: 2) by sjames on Thursday November 20 2014, @02:51AM
Sadly, it seems like that assumption is not an unreasonable default condition.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 20 2014, @10:50AM
http://www.copblock.org/85284/wrongfully-arrested-motorcyclist-sues-dallas-county-sheriffs-deputy-for-1-million/ [copblock.org]
Eventually Westbrook came up with one, accusing Moore of having a partially obscured license plate. “That was indeed a strange charge for [Westbrook] to make,” says the suit, “considering that before he stopped [Moore], he had radioed his police dispatcher telling the dispatcher the license plate number of [Moore's] vehicle
They lie way too often for me to trust them. But the solution can't be to not trust them. Just have to figure out a way to make cops more trustworthy.
(Score: 1) by CirclesInSand on Thursday November 20 2014, @04:42PM
Not trusting them isn't a solution, it's an observation.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 20 2014, @04:27PM
Probably about the same time they start prosecuting cops for perjury.