Arthur T Knackerbracket has found the following story:
An Indiana man may beat a drug prosecution after the state's highest court threw out a search warrant against him late last week. The search warrant was based on the idea that the man had "stolen" a GPS tracking device belonging to the government. But Indiana's Supreme Court concluded that he'd done no such thing—and the cops should have known it.
Last November, we wrote about the case of Derek Heuring, an Indiana man the Warrick County Sheriff's Office suspected of selling meth. Authorities got a warrant to put a GPS tracker on Heuring's car, getting a stream of data on his location for six days. But then the data stopped.
Officers suspected Heuring had discovered and removed the tracking device. After waiting for a few more days, they got a warrant to search his home and a barn belonging to his father. They argued the disappearance of the tracking device was evidence that Heuring had stolen it.
During their search, police found the tracking device and some methamphetamine. They charged Heuring with drug-related crimes as well as theft of the GPS device.
But at trial, Heuring's lawyers argued that the warrant to search the home and barn had been illegal. An application for a search warrant must provide probable cause to believe a crime was committed. But removing a small, unmarked object from your personal vehicle is no crime at all, Heuring's lawyers argued. Heuring had no way of knowing what the device was or who it belonged to—and certainly no obligation to leave the device on his vehicle.
An Indiana appeals court ruled against Heuring last year. But Indiana's Supreme Court seemed more sympathetic to Heuring's case during oral arguments last November.
"I'm really struggling with how is that theft," said Justice Steven David during November's oral arguments.
The appeals court[*] decision is available online as a pdf.
Also at: Washington Post and The Indiana Lawyer.
[*] Updated at 2020-02-26 01:16:51 UTC. Previously, this link suggested it was to the decision by the Indiana Supreme Court. This was, in fact, a link to the decision from the Indiana Appeals Court. We regret the error.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 25 2020, @10:04PM (1 child)
But soon enough it will violate the EULA and result in repossession of your vehicle.
You have been warned!
(Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Thursday February 27 2020, @02:13AM
SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by fustakrakich on Tuesday February 25 2020, @10:20PM (13 children)
They already have kill switches.
Must have been an old car
So, will SCOTUS come to the rescue on this one?
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday February 25 2020, @11:18PM (6 children)
Luckily, beat cops don't have access to the kill switches, yet.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 3, Touché) by fustakrakich on Tuesday February 25 2020, @11:23PM
They do, but the range is very limited, and they make a great deal of noise.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday February 26 2020, @04:17PM (4 children)
But they do have night sticks and clubs?
Why are they called "beat" cops anyway? I've always wondered.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Wednesday February 26 2020, @06:08PM (3 children)
Purest speculation from the word origin tracing beat beatan to the Dutch bitjen (bite) into a proto-Indo-European "to split"
It was splitting up an area (like a city) into regions (think whipped separation). Each had their sectored ('split/bitten/separated') area to patrol.
They also had to be at places at times to link up with supervisors and after the telephone to receive calls for service on a rhythmic basis. (follow a rhythmic pattern with timing).
Of the two guesses I think that splitting up the areas to patrol is probably closer.
This sig for rent.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday February 26 2020, @07:02PM
Old TV shows and movies often depicted cops "walking the beat." Regardless of the true origin, the double-entendre with beatings doubtless contributed to the popularization of the term in certain circles.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday February 26 2020, @07:28PM (1 child)
Splitting heads open could be another interpretation. You have to consider what is the more likely and credible interpretation.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Wednesday February 26 2020, @10:10PM
Well you can't break some eggs without beating them into an omelet, either. Maybe the police always had eggs for breakfast.
This sig for rent.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 25 2020, @11:45PM (5 children)
It was a 1999 Ford Expedition. So yes, an old car -- it actually predates uncrippled civilian access to GPS (with a typical error of about 50m horizontally it was pretty much useless for road navigation and probably of limited utility for tracking individual movement).
(Score: 2) by ledow on Wednesday February 26 2020, @12:02PM
I'd like to know how any GPS in the car is related to what the police can access remotely.
I have a GPS, built right into the on-board entertainment. There is literally no way, however, to access that car remotely. About the closest you could get in theory would be a Bluetooth connection, but my car doesn't offer Bluetooth, only connects to registered devices, and doesn't offer any service by audio over Bluetooth, and doesn't have any other way to "talk home" (even the "air bag deployed" emergency contact requires my phone to be tethered to it to operate). Even if I want to "update", it's an SD card in a slot, not over-the-air.
My car is a 2018 model.
So unless these guys are literally hacking cars from 5m away without arousing suspicions, via unpublished compromises, the provide GPS history over the Bluetooth, they wouldn't be able to do much with my car. Police DO NOT have access to most cars. Maybe some stupidly designed ones, but that's an entirely other matter and criminals worth catching tend not to be too stupid.
There's a reason they plant their own tracker on it, rather than rely on the car to do anything.
Stop buying stupidly designed cars, or conflating "GPS" with "talk-home computers communicating over 4G back to a central station, 24 hours a day". The latter is a problem. The former is just a satnav.
(Score: 3, Informative) by epitaxial on Wednesday February 26 2020, @03:04PM (3 children)
GPS is a one way protocol. Your car also needs a 3G modem or something else to phone home.
(Score: 3, Funny) by DannyB on Wednesday February 26 2020, @04:19PM
You're confusing people with facts.
Technology is like magic to most people.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday February 26 2020, @07:04PM (1 child)
I quit following the development in OBD-II, but IIRC OBD-III was supposed to include some level of wireless data offloading from the vehicle while in motion - don't know if that's rolled out yet or not.
Based on the way things have been going, I believe I'll be buying mostly older cars instead of newer ones from now on.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 26 2020, @10:27PM
When I was in college studying Automotive Technology (Basically advanved mechanics towards dealing with emissions systems, or on another track, advanced body repair/replacement) we had a long discussion on OBD technology, from pre-OBD, like what Bosch, GM, and Ford were using in the 1970s/1980s to OBD-I from the mid 80s to 1994-95 and OBD-II which was from 1992-1993 upwards (most models didn't switch until the 1994/95 hard mandate, and the Japanese were kept less apprised of changes, which is why Toyota discontinued the original pickup in 1994, having discovered after updating their ECU that it was not compliant with alterations to the standard between their last meeting on it and its release, notably mandating the connect be inside the passenger compartment and that it had to be a specific connector design.) Cars which had chassis changes before 1995 got OBD-II between 1 and 2 years early, as well as cars which had to migrate from the automatic seatbelts to airbags (I don't remember the exact year that was mandated.) Since that time airbag, ecu and safety requirements have been the major forced change for many models of cars.
Getting back to the point at hand, OBD-III (Or IIb/Wireless as it was sometimes called) was going to mandate a cellular transmitter in the car ECU which would periodicly phone home to the government with your latest emissions readings and in the event your car started failing smog, immediately require a smog check instead of the current system of every 1-2 years that most metropolitan areas or states have. Due to cost and concerns over surveillance aspects it was not implemented at that time (late 90s to early-mid 00s) although the canbus aspects became mandated as the single protocol for all later OBD-II vehicles, which now encompasses many motorcycles as well as tractor trailers, although not all of the systems are OBD compliant (I am also unsure of the connector status on trucks, but motorcycle connectors are still varied and proprietary.)
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Mykl on Tuesday February 25 2020, @10:29PM (6 children)
I really struggle with how that appeals court could have conceivably thought that removing a small unmarked device from your car could be considered theft, particularly when the suspect actually kept the device anyway! It seems to me that the appeals court decided that they needed to make sure that the guy was found guilty because the cops found meth, regardless of how they did so.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday February 25 2020, @11:21PM (5 children)
The original and appeals court weren't concerned with law or rights, they were concerned with punishing a man in possession of Meth - and forcing his appeals to the Supreme Court ensured that punishment was maximized on a wrongful conviction. Too bad there's no restitution to balance the scales.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Booga1 on Wednesday February 26 2020, @01:11AM (4 children)
I don't disagree with your statement, but the court system is unbelievably overloaded many jurisdictions. There is a tendency to move things as quickly as possible, especially when there's evidence to prove a case. Often, the higher you go on appeals the deeper the look at the technicalities and specifics of individual portions of the case.
Here's a quick run down of how thing can go in a case like this.
Trial:
Defendant: "The cops had no reason to search my place."
Judge: "They had a warrant and they found evidence. Guilty!"
First appeal:
Defendant: "The warrant shouldn't have been issued!"
Judge: "Looks like they filed all the paperwork, so the decision stands."
Second appeal:
Defendant: "The judge that issued the warrant didn't verify the paperwork properly."
Judge: "Looks like the judge reviewed everything and we're not going to second guess them. The decision still stands."
Supreme court appeal:
Defendant: "We don't think the appeals court was using the right standards to review the paperwork for the warrant."
Justices: "You're absolutely right. The original warrant should never have been issued. The evidence gained from those warrants most be thrown out. The lower appeals court must review the case again with that in mind."
(Score: 4, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday February 26 2020, @01:44AM
Hey, I just had a Guardian Advocate hearing today - we got a whole 10 minutes of the Judge's time, and he even thought to ask what our lawyer did about requirements for the Guardians... after he got done rubber stamping them.
This is why you need a decent lawyer, who will put in the time to put the arguments together in a way that gets them heard in the available time - preferably shopped to the correct judge who will sympathize.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 4, Interesting) by epitaxial on Wednesday February 26 2020, @03:06PM (2 children)
If the courts start disagreeing with the cops too much then the cops throw a hissy fit and threaten to stop doing their jobs. It's the same reason why cops rarely get charged with crimes and if they do its always a grand jury who chooses to dismiss the case.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday February 26 2020, @07:09PM (1 child)
True story: two greasers in a stolen Mustang hit and ran on me one morning - I got a decent look at their faces, but nothing more.
Two weeks later, same two greasers are weaving through morning rush hour traffic on Biscayne Boulevard, presumably in another stolen car, this time with a 5 year old standing up on the front center console between them. I phone Miami police dispatch, get put directly through to the cops who work stolen cars (based on recent experience) and am told, point blank, by officer XYZ that "we don't really bother to catch car theives, the judges just kick them back onto the street since it's a non-violent crime."
Non-violent, crashing into me spinning my car into oncoming traffic and a city bus? Yeah, way to polish that image Miami.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by Booga1 on Thursday February 27 2020, @04:20AM
Miami certainly isn't alone. Check out this guy: Seattle City Attorney asks for freedom for man convicted 72 times [komonews.com]
So, the judge gives the guy a one year jail sentence. Both the city prosecutor and the public defender complain that the judge should have just let the guy go, again. The guy gets out of jail after six months(pretty standard) and two days later throws coffee on a two year old in a stroller [komonews.com]. He gets jailed again, but gets felony charges dropped because the coffee wasn't hot. Since then he's been gotten out, arrested, and convicted for more crimes. Grand total of 75 convictions and counting...
With crap like that going on, it's not surprising sometimes the cops get fed up. They do the work bringing people in, just to see them turned right back out on the street.
- -
The problem I heard about in Miami, though, was that they stopped arresting the crooks so the crime statistics look better. That way it doesn't scare off the tourists.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 25 2020, @10:32PM
I apologize in advance for R'ing TFA, but the linked decision is from July 2019. I know TFS doesn't actually state which decision is available online, but it heavily suggests it concerns the February 2020 one.
So on the remote possibility that somebody actually wants to read the real decision, let's try linking to that decision [in.gov] too, shall we?
(Score: 2) by Kymation on Tuesday February 25 2020, @10:42PM (2 children)
The link to the PDF of the decision goes to the decision of the appellate court, not to the decision of the supreme court as would be expected.
Yes, I know, I read the documents linked in the article, against all precedent and common sense. Mea culpa.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 25 2020, @10:52PM (1 child)
Both the appellate court decision and the recent supreme court decision are linked in the summary, however the link text leaves much to be desired.
"threw out a search warrant" -> links to the recent supreme court decision which overturned the appellate court decision.
"is available online as a pdf" -> links to the appellate court decision which was overturned.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 25 2020, @11:12PM
To expand on this... good hyperlinks should make a reasonable amount of sense out of context. The link text "available online as a pdf" doesn't give any useful information about what you will get if you follow the link.
So instead of "the decision is available online as a pdf [in.gov]", I would write something like "The overturned appellate court decision [in.gov] is available online as a pdf".
Now if we delete the words that aren't part of the hyperlink, we are left with "The overturned appellate court decision", which is a half-decent description of what the link points to.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 25 2020, @11:29PM (2 children)
The Indiana Supreme Court did not rule that removing a tracking device isn't theft.
They have only ruled that the warrant application to search Heuring's home for the GPS tracker did not provide sufficient evidence that any crime whatsoever had been committed.
In particular, "the affidavits do not provide a substantial basis of fact from which a magistrate could find probable cause that the GPS tracking device was stolen," because they failed to provide evidence of the two aspects of a theft, specifically "information that any control over the GPS device was knowingly unauthorized" and "information that there was an intent to deprive the sheriff's department of the GPS device's value or use."
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 25 2020, @11:53PM (1 child)
Why did the guy store the tracker (removed from his car), inside his house/barn? Wouldn't it make more sense to leave it outside so either: the cops could take it back (no search warrant required), or some opportunistic porch pirate could steal it and get it away from there?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Booga1 on Wednesday February 26 2020, @01:21AM
That would be assuming they even knew what it was. The fact that they kept it actually points in favor of them not knowing what it was or who owned it.
That is part of why the ruling went against the police. The average person couldn't reasonably know either of those things since it's just a black plastic box with nothing on it.
(Score: 2) by Mojibake Tengu on Wednesday February 26 2020, @12:08AM (16 children)
Correct procedure for removal of a tracking device under any regime:
Bring device found to the local police to give it over and get a protocol about it.
Respect Authorities. Know your social status. Woke responsibly.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by barbara hudson on Wednesday February 26 2020, @12:29AM (4 children)
SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
(Score: 1) by webnut77 on Wednesday February 26 2020, @09:18AM (3 children)
You're not thinking. What if it is a bomb? You put it on a bus, it detonated, and killed dozens of people. There's a witness to what you did and you're arrested and convicted for murder!
Remember, you're a meth dealer. Someone may be trying to eliminate you as their competition.
(Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Wednesday February 26 2020, @10:18PM (2 children)
SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
(Score: 1) by webnut77 on Friday February 28 2020, @07:06AM (1 child)
Time to engage your brain, Barbra. There are several ways to detonate a bomb: RF trigger, cell phone trigger, notion sensor, timer, etc.
The next door neighbor, fingerprints, fiber evidence, etc. Forensic science is a powerful enabler.
(Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Friday February 28 2020, @05:24PM
If you want to kill your target, you do it when they're most vulnerable - within range of any remote trigger device. While they're trying to get their seat belt on. It's also the best time to carjack someone, for the same reasons - the person is in an indefensible position.
Most bombs don't leave fingerprint or DNA evidence. Forget what you see on TV. That's as bogus as "keep them on the line so we can trace the call." And there's no such thing as fibre evidence - that's been totally debunked in multiple court cases. And eye witnesses are notoriously unreliable. So if you're the bomber you want MORE witnesses, because the more there are, the less likely that they will all agree.
SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 26 2020, @12:35AM (1 child)
Citation(s) needed -- have you checked with every possible jurisdiction?
Separate question, what's the best way to take a tracker to the police station? If it came off my car, I'm not all that keen on doing it myself. Maybe wipe it clean and then mail to the police?
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Wednesday February 26 2020, @07:31AM
Pop it onto a police car.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by PinkyGigglebrain on Wednesday February 26 2020, @12:52AM (6 children)
Or leave it where you found it and call the police to report a possible bomb on your car.
That gets the cops, bomb disposal, ambulance and fire department, plus any reporter/blogger who has a police scanner, making a big scene.
Then when it gets revealed that the "bomb" is actually a GPS tracking device owned by one of the local police departments it costs the City/county/state a shitload of money, makes that police department look like fools.
And when you do get busted for something you can claim that the evidence was planted/falsified in retaliation for the above mentioned event.
"Beware those who would deny you Knowledge, For in their hearts they dream themselves your Master."
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday February 26 2020, @01:41AM
That is a nice twisted way of handling things. I like it!
(Score: 4, Interesting) by TheGratefulNet on Wednesday February 26 2020, @02:05AM
the intention to rub their noses in it and publicise it: very nice!
but I somehow think they'll try to control the situation and threaten everyone with gag legal letters.
same as using stingrays. they do all they can to NOT let us know that they even exist, let alone that cops use them without caring about our privacy.
...its the modern US way (sigh) ;(
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Wednesday February 26 2020, @08:54AM
I have to applaud your analysis of the situation, and how best to turn it to your advantage.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Wednesday February 26 2020, @03:16PM
I mean, they already tried to charge him with theft for removing it...you don't think they would have the nerve to try to charge him with making a false bomb threat?
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday February 26 2020, @04:22PM
The cops may recognize that this is a car they planted the tracking device on, and advise the bomb squad to blow up the vehicle, after illegally searching it.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 2) by Joe Desertrat on Wednesday February 26 2020, @11:20PM
Better I think to just take it off wherever you found it and leave it in the street. Let it be someone else's problem.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by TheGratefulNet on Wednesday February 26 2020, @02:02AM
fuck that.
biggest hammer I can find.
you leave shit on my car, its now mine. fuck you.
I have zero tolerance for corrupt pigs. the nerve to try to charge the guy with THEFT.
cops really do seem sub-human, when they pull shit like this.
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 26 2020, @06:54PM
Under any regime? Hardly. Plenty of regimes would then drag you into a back room and beat your ass silly for interfering with their authority-given mandate to track you. You might be lucky to only get reeducation camp. Actually you would be lucky to keep breathing. And nobody would dare question them for doing so.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by PinkyGigglebrain on Wednesday February 26 2020, @01:05AM (1 child)
If the lower court ruling had been allowed to stand it would have set a precedent that would be far too easy to abuse.
1. Officer gets a warrant to place a GPS tracking device on the car of subject that they really want to search their home but can't get a warrant.
2. Officer then removes the GPS tracking device while off duty.
3. Officer uses missing GPS tacking device to get a warrant to search the subjects house, which is what they REALLY wanted in the first place.
4. Officer "finds" illegal items/substances in subjects home.
5. Department can then seize subjects property and money, without even having to get a conviction in some jurisdictions.
So, good work by the Appeals Court. Lets hope the next court this goes to also upholds the Appeals Court's decision.
"Beware those who would deny you Knowledge, For in their hearts they dream themselves your Master."
(Score: 2) by dry on Wednesday February 26 2020, @07:54PM
Don't search warrants have to say what they're searching for down there? Here, a while back, there was a case where the cops were searching a house and spotted a grow-op. They had to leave and get another warrant to search for marijuana.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 26 2020, @01:30AM (2 children)
I have an A/C capacitor I can charge with 60kV from a spark plug coil. Find a connector and zap it. But being me, I'd take it apart first.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by bradley13 on Wednesday February 26 2020, @08:01AM (1 child)
There's simply no justification for saying "removal" = "theft". The police may have the right to put it on your car. However, you have every reason to remove a foreign object with you find it. The court rulings are just bizarre.
The second thing that is bizarre: According to TFA, the device stopped reporting in. So the police actually had no knowledge of what had happened, or where it was. For all they knew, it might have fallen off and gotten run over. So: what was the basis for a warrant to search the guy's house?
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 2) by stretch611 on Wednesday February 26 2020, @09:05AM
I agree with you.
But as for a basis for a search warrant, I would assume that the reason they went to his house was that is the last place the gps worked. (I still agree with the court not allowing the warrant, but I hope that is the reason why they went there.)
Now with 5 covid vaccine shots/boosters altering my DNA :P