SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the doesn't-the-oath-require-the-whole-truth? dept.
In a Baltimore trial courtroom on Monday, a local judge threatened to hold a police detective in contempt of court for refusing to disclose how police located a 16-year-old robbery suspect’s phone.
But rather than disclose the possible use of a Stingray*, also known as a cell site simulator, Detective John L. Haley cited a non-disclosure agreement, likely with a federal law enforcement agency (such as the FBI) and/or the Harris Corporation, since the company is one of the dominant manufacturers of such devices. Stingrays can be used to determine a phone’s location, and they can also intercept calls and text messages.
Baltimore Circuit Judge Barry G. Williams retorted, "You don't have a non-disclosure agreement with the court," according to the Baltimore Sun.
* [Submitter's Note: Surely there's a joke about fishing expeditions to be had there.]
(Score: 2, Interesting) by frojack on Wednesday November 19 2014, @10:58PM
The story is written in such a way to make the prosecutor out to be one of the bad guys here.
The worst assumption you can make is that he realized introducing the stingray evidence would piss off the jury so much they would acquit no matter how serious the crime.
Or the prosecutor may have decided to teach his own police force a lesson by surrendering any case where he knows illegal means were used.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 19 2014, @11:30PM
Lol, yet again frojack goes with wishful thinking over straightforward evidence.
This stuff all happened while the witness was on the stand. If the prosecutor was so concerned with aggravating a jury or civil society he would have never submitted the evidence and certainly never put the guy on the stand to do a half-assed testimony about it in the first place.