Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

DOJ Tells ALL Federal Cops to Get a Warrant for Stingray Use

posted by takyon on Friday September 04 2015, @12:22PM   Printer-friendly
from the stung dept.

frojack writes:

According to the Washington Post all federal law enforcement agencies will need to get a warrant before using a Stingray. (Actual Policy Statement).

The Justice Department unveiled a policy Thursday that will require its law enforcement agencies to obtain a warrant to deploy cellphone-tracking devices in criminal investigations and inform judges when they plan to use them.

The department's new policy, announced by Deputy Attorney General Sally Quillian Yates, should increase transparency around the use of the controversial technology by the FBI and other Justice Department agencies.

... The new policy waives the warrant requirement for exigent circumstances. These include the need to protect human life "or avert serious injury," prevent the imminent destruction of evidence, the hot pursuit of a fleeing felon, or the prevention of escape by a convicted fugitive from justice.

The FBI had imposed their own internal warrant requirement back in April.

But the policy does not apply to State, and Local agencies that have been given Stingrays with instructions to keep them secret, even to the extent of dismissing charges rather than admit some evidence was gathered by questionable legal means.

So will ill gotten information now flow in reverse, from local to federal authorities? Will the Feds start practicing "Parallel Construction" using, but hiding, the information supplied by local police?

Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
DOJ Tells ALL Federal Cops to Get a Warrant for Stingray Use | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 17 comments | Search Discussion
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: 3, Insightful) by hemocyanin on Friday September 04 2015, @04:19PM

    by hemocyanin (186) on Friday September 04 2015, @04:19PM (#232310) Journal

    True. Remember that the Federal Government defines "imminent" to mean "maybe, sometime in the unforeseeable future" so the entire question here is: what do the Feds mean when they use any common word? To trust the Feds to use language to mean what it means, is to be supremely gullible.

    But this rhetorical tactic is totally misleading. The memo is authorizing assassinations against citizens in circumstances far beyond this understanding of "imminence". Indeed, the memo expressly states that it is inventing "a broader concept of imminence" than is typically used in domestic law. Specifically, the president's assassination power "does not require that the US have clear evidence that a specific attack . . . will take place in the immediate future".

    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/feb/05/obama-kill-list-doj-memo [theguardian.com]

    Certainly local cops will take a page from that lesson and simply redefine imminent to mean its opposite.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Insightful=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  
    Total Score:   3  

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 04 2015, @04:39PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 04 2015, @04:39PM (#232323)

    I don't care what they mean. My constitutional rights are non-negotiable.

    • (Score: 2) by TheGratefulNet on Friday September 04 2015, @04:42PM

      by TheGratefulNet (659) on Friday September 04 2015, @04:42PM (#232330)


      I don't care what they mean. My constitutional rights are non-negotiable.

      you are correct; but not in the way you think. or want.

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."