Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by mrpg on Wednesday December 07, @11:42PM   Printer-friendly
from the wrong dept.

Denver Police Department vows to train officers on how "Find My" app works:

In January, Colorado police officers confined a 77-year-old grandmother named Ruby Johnson for hours in a squad car without even offering a glass of water during a time when she was due to take her daily medications—why?

Nobody told Johnson what was going on when she opened her front door to a SWAT team assembled on her lawn. Much later, she found out about a stolen truck—reportedly with six guns and an iPhone stashed inside—wrongly believed to be parked in her garage based on no evidence other than her home being located within a wide blue circle drawn by a "Find My" iPhone app. Now she's suing a Denver cop for conducting what she believes was an illegal search of her home based on what her legal team describes as either an intentionally or recklessly defective application for a search warrant that was "wholly devoid of probable cause."
[...]
according to a complaint that Johnson filed last week. The search didn't turn up a truck, guns, or an iPhone, and Johnson's legal team wrote in the complaint that Staab either knew, or should've known, that there was no valid nexus to connect Johnson's home to the truck theft.
[...]
"Detective Staab had no grounds to seek a search warrant," Mark Silverstein, ACLU of Colorado legal director and part of Johnson's legal team, said in a press release. "His supervisor should have vetoed it. The district attorney should not have green-lighted it, the judge should have rejected it, and the SWAT team should have stayed home."


Original Submission

This discussion was created by mrpg (5708) for logged-in users only, but now has been archived.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.
(1)
  • (Score: 1, Flamebait) by vux984 on Thursday December 08, @12:26AM (6 children)

    by vux984 (5045) on Thursday December 08, @12:26AM (#1281629)

    Last week i read a long sob story (elsewhere) about how some guy who had his thing stolen, used the find-my-shiny feature and figured out whose house it was in. He called the cops showed him the geo location, and they wouldn't do anything. And there was much gnashing of teeth and wringing of hands about how ridiculous this was...how dare they not act on find-my-shiny! Justice was not served here! They should have known about this technology and how reliable it is!

    Today I read a long sob story about a grandma whose house WAS searched because the find-my-shiny associated with a stolen truck and a bunch of guns picked her house. And grandma was detained for a few hours without even a glass of water! And there was much gnashing of teeth and wringing of hands about how ridiculous this was... how dare they act on find-my-shiny! Justice was not served here! They should have known about this technology and how reliable it is!

    Some days I feel sorry for law enforcement. It's truly an impossible job sometimes.

    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 08, @01:29AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 08, @01:29AM (#1281642)

      Especially if there are no smart cops on your team to avoid situations like these:
      https://abcnews.go.com/US/court-oks-barring-high-iqs-cops/story?id=95836 [go.com]

      A man whose bid to become a police officer was rejected after he scored too high on an intelligence test has lost an appeal in his federal lawsuit against the city.

      The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York upheld a lower court’s decision that the city did not discriminate against Robert Jordan because the same standards were applied to everyone who took the test.

    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Adam on Thursday December 08, @01:33AM

      by Adam (2168) on Thursday December 08, @01:33AM (#1281644)

      In the first case, they weren't doing their job. In the second case, they were doing their job terribly. Competence isn't an unreasonable expectation.

    • (Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Thursday December 08, @08:11AM (1 child)

      by bzipitidoo (4388) Subscriber Badge on Thursday December 08, @08:11AM (#1281680) Journal

      There's no justification and no excuse for restraining granny in a squad car for hours. And not letting her have a drink of water and take her meds. That's just plain sadistic.

      • (Score: 2) by Immerman on Thursday December 08, @03:03PM

        by Immerman (3985) on Thursday December 08, @03:03PM (#1281725)

        Agreed. Sounds like they had a warrant, so the *most* it should have taken is a few minutes to search the garage for a truck. Not like you can hide it in a desk drawer or something.

    • (Score: 3, Funny) by driverless on Thursday December 08, @01:39PM

      by driverless (4770) on Thursday December 08, @01:39PM (#1281705)

      Last week i read a long sob story (elsewhere) about how some guy who had his thing stolen

      Didn't know John Bobbitt was still news.

    • (Score: 2) by sjames on Saturday December 10, @10:56PM

      by sjames (2882) on Saturday December 10, @10:56PM (#1281958) Journal

      Or perhaps the answer is in the middle. To the first cops you mentioned, I say "Get off your lazy asses and go look!". To the second, "Did you try just looking in the garage? How long does it take to determine if a truck is or is not in a residential garage?".

      As Yogi Berra said, "You can observe a lot just by looking."

  • (Score: 2) by Opportunist on Thursday December 08, @12:29AM (6 children)

    by Opportunist (5545) on Thursday December 08, @12:29AM (#1281630)

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but searching a home in the US requires a warrant signed by a judge, doesn't it? Did the cop just muscle in, grab her and lock her in his car? Even if she stole the truck that wouldn't be legal.

    • (Score: 5, Informative) by krishnoid on Thursday December 08, @01:14AM (3 children)

      by krishnoid (1156) on Thursday December 08, @01:14AM (#1281639)

      "Detective Staab had no grounds to seek a search warrant," Mark Silverstein, ACLU of Colorado legal director and part of Johnson's legal team, said in a press release. "His supervisor should have vetoed it. The district attorney should not have green-lighted it, the judge should have rejected it, and the SWAT team should have stayed home."

      He went through the proper channels, and (making this all up?) the district attorney wanted to make progress on the case, the judge wanted to keep the police department in its good graces, and the SWAT team was whining that they were bored that they hadn't been called out in a while. So hooray, the system works.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 08, @01:31AM (2 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 08, @01:31AM (#1281643)
        At least the SWAT team didn't gun down Grandma. Which is almost a surprise given how dangerous SWATing is supposed to be.

        Note: SWATing is dangerous only when the SWAT teams are badly trained and dangerous.
        • (Score: 4, Insightful) by EJ on Thursday December 08, @01:34AM

          by EJ (2452) on Thursday December 08, @01:34AM (#1281645)

          So, only most of the time...

        • (Score: 2) by driverless on Thursday December 08, @01:42PM

          by driverless (4770) on Thursday December 08, @01:42PM (#1281706)

          At least the SWAT team didn't gun down Grandma.

          Which was a distinct possibility, Ruby Johnson is African-American.

    • (Score: 1, Troll) by richtopia on Thursday December 08, @04:18PM (1 child)

      by richtopia (3160) Subscriber Badge on Thursday December 08, @04:18PM (#1281735) Homepage Journal

      Warrant was provided. Police cars have a printer installed - never allow search without a warrant; they can get one in minutes if they really need it (not legal advice, not a lawyer).

      My couch diagnosis is that the warrant was appropriate; it is open to debate if the find my device is valid probably clause but it sounds reasonable to me. The SWAT team sounds inappropriate but I suspect it was escalated when the list of stolen articles includes six firearms. I'm not familiar enough with an evidence search to say if she should have been locked in the car, but it really looks unnecessary. Hell, a truck was stolen. Get a warrant, demand to see the garage, and go home when it is empty.

      • (Score: 2) by number11 on Thursday December 08, @04:57PM

        by number11 (1170) Subscriber Badge on Thursday December 08, @04:57PM (#1281741)

        The "lock her in the car" was probably SOP. Around here usually they seem to wait until you leave home for some reason, then come and kick the door in. Though their guns will be drawn at that point, and anyone who turns out still to be at home will be cuffed and forced at gunpoint to sit on the sofa until the cops are done. ("Done" often involves stealing as much stuff as they can, whether or not it's listed in the search warrant or resulting receipt.) But maybe it's difficult to line the SWAT team up if you can't schedule in advance.

  • (Score: 2) by Mykl on Thursday December 08, @05:19AM (5 children)

    by Mykl (1112) on Thursday December 08, @05:19AM (#1281664)

    I'm fine with seeking a warrant based on location data from a phone (provided it's pretty accurate and not the middle of a circle that covers 5 blocks). However, it should have taken the SWAT team about 3 minutes to work out that they were at the wrong place. Stolen truck not there? We're done. Did they try using the Find My Phone feature again once they were there?

    Anything more than about 10 minutes is excessive for this kind of search. That's the problem with this story.

    • (Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Thursday December 08, @05:54AM

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday December 08, @05:54AM (#1281668) Journal
      One thing I've noticed is that there are frequently attempts to justify aggressive police behavior after the fact. For example, when a truck driver (and off duty reserve police officer) was killed during the course of a Utah police chase, the police officers went as far as to arrest [soylentnews.org] a nurse in order to force the hospital treating the driver (who was in a coma there and died later) to take blood for testing. Similarly, in the George Floyd killing, they were all over the evidence that allegedly showed him to have a near lethal level of fentanyl in his blood stream.

      In the Utah case, that arrest may have been an attempt to plant evidence too since the officer had a massive conflict of interest and would be handling the blood samples!

      If you can find evidence of a crime or attenuating circumstances to taint the victim's case, you can often get away with illegal searches, criminal negligence, and other crimes. My bet is that once they realized the original pretext for the above SWAT raid had fallen apart, that they looked for evidence of any crime in order to cripple any future lawsuit against everyone involved.
    • (Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Thursday December 08, @06:12AM (2 children)

      by maxwell demon (1608) Subscriber Badge on Thursday December 08, @06:12AM (#1281669) Journal

      But what if she had hidden the truck under her carpet? Clearly the cops had to check that!

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
      • (Score: 3, Funny) by bzipitidoo on Thursday December 08, @08:04AM

        by bzipitidoo (4388) Subscriber Badge on Thursday December 08, @08:04AM (#1281679) Journal

        Maybe she illegally uploaded the truck.

      • (Score: 3, Funny) by TheGratefulNet on Thursday December 08, @01:27PM

        by TheGratefulNet (659) on Thursday December 08, @01:27PM (#1281703)

        if it was one of us, we'd have hidden the truck inside a unused disk partition space, with a false partition in case of duress.

        --
        "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 08, @07:34AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 08, @07:34AM (#1281675)

      And the "stupid" problem could be related to this:
      https://abcnews.go.com/US/court-oks-barring-high-iqs-cops/story?id=95836 [go.com]

      A man whose bid to become a police officer was rejected after he scored too high on an intelligence test has lost an appeal in his federal lawsuit against the city.

      The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York upheld a lower court’s decision that the city did not discriminate against Robert Jordan because the same standards were applied to everyone who took the test.

      And with the "training" cops get it's almost surprising grandma wasn't shot:
      https://www.npr.org/2016/12/08/504718239/military-trained-police-may-be-slower-to-shoot-but-that-got-this-vet-fired [npr.org]

      In Afghanistan, the rules of engagement sometimes were stricter than use-of-force rules for civilian police in America. Erica Gaston, a human rights lawyer who studied the military's rules of engagement in Afghanistan, said that especially was true in the later years of the war.

      "There was an emphasis on winning hearts and minds, and focusing more on stabilizing communities and protecting the civilian population," Gaston said.

      Something is wrong with US cops if they are trained and conditioned to be even more trigger happy than US soldiers. You don't have to believe me - search for yourself and you'll find that US soldiers are not famous for their restraint - they have a reputation of being trigger happy.

      Example: https://www.theguardian.com/media/2003/jun/05/broadcasting.Iraqandthemedia [theguardian.com]

      "One of the marines shouted 'Snipers!' and put up his gun, pointing it at a man on a rooftop. I could see it was an old boy putting out a blanket to air and I said to him in a quiet voice that I would be the witness at his trial for murder if he pulled the trigger. He stopped,"

  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by sonamchauhan on Thursday December 08, @09:20PM (4 children)

    by sonamchauhan (6546) on Thursday December 08, @09:20PM (#1281773)

    I was thinking that perhaps the SWAT team were searching for a toy truck, rather than a real truck. That's why they took so long. But actually, they were searching her house for the stolen goods in the truck

    But most likely, the detective in charge (and perhaps some of the officers) just lacked basic empathy. A few kind words, followed up by compensation (this is a 77 year old woman who lives alone), would saved everyone a lot of trouble.

    --
    "During the search, DPD questioned Ms. Johnson about how to enter her garage.
    60. Ms. Johnson told the DPD officers where her garage door opener was and gave
    instructions on how to open the garage’s front door.
    61. DPD disregarded Ms. Johnson’s instructions and used a battering ram to destroy
    the back garage door and door frame."

    "Following the search, Defendant Staab acknowledged to Ms. Johnson’s children
    the harm his DPD officers caused to Ms. Johnson’s well-being, home, and personal property.
    But, Defendant Staab told them DPD would pay nothing to repair the damage from its failed
    search.
    70. Neither Defendant Staab nor anyone else at DPD has apologized to Ms. Johnson
    for their egregious invasion or the turmoil they left in their wake."

    • (Score: 2) by epitaxial on Friday December 09, @03:03AM (1 child)

      by epitaxial (3165) on Friday December 09, @03:03AM (#1281828)

      Cops are the biggest pussies on the planet. They're also America's largest criminal gang and thanks to qualified immunity they're untouchable.

      • (Score: 2) by sonamchauhan on Sunday December 11, @02:06AM

        by sonamchauhan (6546) on Sunday December 11, @02:06AM (#1281973)

        Hopefully this lawsuit will be part of the change. I am tired of hearing settlements by departments, that don't reach the people who made wrong decisions.

        The detective is a defendant in his individual capacity in this lawsuit.

    • (Score: 2) by sjames on Saturday December 10, @11:39PM (1 child)

      by sjames (2882) on Saturday December 10, @11:39PM (#1281959) Journal

      As for finding things from the truck, perhaps they should have tried calling the phone to see if it rings. Or use the find feature to play a sound even if the ringer is off. As for smashing the door in when they had the remote for the garage door, that is nothing short of vicious thuggery and abuse of elderly citizens for entertainment purposes. People who would do that shouldn't be trusted with a gun EVER.

      • (Score: 2) by sonamchauhan on Sunday December 11, @02:09AM

        by sonamchauhan (6546) on Sunday December 11, @02:09AM (#1281974)

        Yes, pillaging through the place and refusing to cleanup.

        You break it, you fix it

        The lawsuit names the detective as defendant in his individual capacity. I hope this drives change

(1)