Of course dude. But this is AmeriKKKa. Everything is upside down every whichaway.
If there’s a physical way to get into said documents the fifth amendment supports law enforcement’s ability to procure said items but they can’t force someone to produce information that only exists in a person’s mind. I do agree and know that a person can be held in contempt for not cooperating but an individual cannot be forced to give up information.
3 Likes
“We have a right to these documents” is one thing. “We have the right to put you under surveillance, therefore we’re going to stick a camera in your living room and you aren’t allowed to touch it” is something else altogether, it would seem to me. It’s demanding evidence vs. demanding that the suspect incriminate themselves.
4 Likes
There’s a fairly practical argument that hasn’t been considered.
In a lot of jurisdictions, if you find something that isn’t yours and pick it up, that’s not generally stealing. It becomes stealing when you act in such a way as to prevent the owner having use of it.
Its a GPS tracker. On your property. That doesn’t belong to you. And the owner doesn’t necessarily have access to your property
But if you throw it out a window into a public place…
I mean they know where it is right? They can find their lost property. Because it’s a GPS tracker
1 Like
I’m sure the legislature will fix this. We need every citizen participating in the surveillance state. It’s for our own safety!
One assumes (unless it was the precedent setting issue, per danimagoo), the court didn’t want to rule against the police because doing so would cause their jobs to become harder. Makes sense? No. Would a judge do it anyway? You betcha.
1 Like
You’re not wrong, however if a court rules you can do what you want with a gps tracker, they’re creating a situation where it is suddenly harder for the police to track people with gps trackers, because now they can eff with them. Making it illegal to do so, even though it defies sense, gives the police a fall back when they find someone has found a tracker. Of course, now they’ve lost that fallback, I wonder how they’ll protect themselves next…
1 Like
From the arstechnica article:
The first principle is: it’s not stealing to remove an unknown object that has been affixed to your car.
The second principle is: it’s not stealing if you don’t know whose object it is.
Expect local and federal authorities to affix "Property of State Police / FBI - Penalty For Unlawful Disposal - If Found, Kindly Return To: ..." labels to get around that. This removes both above objections and reintroduces jeopardy: when you remove it (and do not drop it off at yer local police station), you are removing a known object that belongs to a known owner.
Plus: Make sure to get an official receipt when you do drop it off!
1 Like
When a person discovers tracker, all future tracking data will probably be worthless anyway, so making it illegal to remove is pointless and very authoritarian move.
1 Like
I was thinking the same thing. Even more fun:
- Put it on someone’s boat.
- Drive through your local big-box store, and put it on a car with the same make/model/year as your own.
- Mail it somewhere. Preferably far away.
- Toss it onto rival dealer’s property
FFS, whatever you do, just don’t leave it in your house. Then the cops would not have been given a search warrant in the first place. And where did they put it that the guy found it? Is it common for small-time dealers to scan the undercarriage of their car on a regular basis?
2 Likes
And yet, the entire purpose of the Bill of Rights is to make the government’s job harder.
2 Likes
Make sure to return it in person:
https://thumbs.gfycat.com/IdleAchingAntlion-size_restricted.gif
2 Likes
For bonus points:
- Stick it to a police car.
3 Likes
Attach it to a police car
Or an airplane
Or a ship
Or mail it to the FBI
1 Like
I remember there was a case where a suspect was badly beaten by police and was accused of destroying police property by bleeding onto their uniforms.
2 Likes
4 Likes
I don’t believe that’s something judges always remember when making decisions in cases involving law enforcement, sadly.
And of course your point is made very succinctly by the decision being overturned!
“Pointless and Authoritarian” seems like a good way to sum up an awful large amount of policy and decisions around law enforcement in the last few years!
1 Like
No for bonus points, stick it to a diplomatic vehicle and create a diplomatic incident.
2 Likes
