Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Saturday August 29 2015, @03:42PM   Printer-friendly
from the turning-tide-stranding-stingrays dept.

A group of defense attorneys, including a public defender, will review over 1,900 cases in which Stingray cellphone tracking technology was used secretly. They plan to ask judges to throw out "a large number" of criminal convictions based on Stingray evidence. From USA Today:

Defense lawyers in Baltimore are examining nearly 2,000 cases in which the police secretly used powerful cellphone tracking devices, and they plan to ask judges to throw out "a large number" of criminal convictions as a result. "This is a crisis, and to me it needs to be addressed very quickly," said Baltimore's deputy public defender, Natalie Finegar, who is coordinating those challenges. "No stone is going to be left unturned at this point."

The move follows a USA TODAY investigation this week that revealed that Baltimore police have used cellphone trackers, commonly known as stingrays, to investigate crimes as minor as harassing phone calls, then concealed the surveillance from suspects and their lawyers. Maryland law generally requires that electronic surveillance be disclosed in court.

Finegar and others said they do not know how many criminal cases they ultimately will seek to reopen because of the secret phone tracking, but she expects it to be "a large number." The public defender's office is reviewing a surveillance log published by USA TODAY that lists more than 1,900 cases in which the police indicated they had used a stingray. It includes at least 200 public defender clients who were ultimately convicted of a crime.

Stingrays are suitcase-sized devices that allow the police to pinpoint a cellphone's location to within a few yards by posing as a cell tower. In the process, they also can intercept information from the phones of nearly everyone else who happens to be nearby.

[...] "This has really opened the floodgates," Baltimore defense lawyer Josh Insley said. He said he could start filing challenges to some of his clients' convictions by next week.

A spokeswoman for Baltimore's State's Attorney, Tammy Brown, said prosecutors will evaluate each challenge on its own merits. She agreed that prosecutors are required to tell defendants when the police use a stingray, but "we need to get that information first."

Overturning a criminal conviction is no small task. Before they can even ask judges to take that step, defense lawyers have to comb through the surveillance log to figure out which of their clients were targets of the phone tracking, then contact them in prison. "It's probably going to be a long process," ACLU attorney Nathan Wessler said. "But now at least you have defense lawyers who know what happened to their clients and can invoke the power of the courts to make sure that the Constitution was complied with."

Via The Register.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 29 2015, @04:20PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 29 2015, @04:20PM (#229446)

    so instead of turning on a computer in the police HQ, logging in to the mobile-phone-operator surveillance webportal,
    entering some phone number and getting a geo-location, call and receive history,
    the police need to sign-out the stingray suitcase, get a police-car key, maybe fill up the tank,
    stop for some donuts and then drive around guessing the location of the alleged perpetrator?

  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 29 2015, @05:32PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 29 2015, @05:32PM (#229479)

    The former requires an administrative court order - its not a warrant, but it is paperwork intended to exert some level of accountability on the police. Using a secret tool that they think they have carte blanche on to the point of being permitted to deny that it even exists under oath, that's both a lot more convenient and it kinda feeds into the power trip that attracts way too many people to the job.

    I remember when the FBI got that automatic, centralized tracing stuff of all telecoms put into federal law and how worried we all were that being able to press a button from a comfy desk would lead to all kinds of abuses. How far the bar has fallen....