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: 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.