Federal Judge throws out cell phone "stingray" evidence for lack of warrant

utbagpiper · Jul 13, 2016

As found on Drudge today, this Reuters article reports on a decision by a federal judge in NYC.

A fair use excerpt:

Reuters said:
... a federal judge has suppressed evidence obtained without a warrant by U.S. law enforcement using a stingray, a surveillance device that can trick suspects' cell phones into revealing their locations.

U.S. District Judge William Pauley in Manhattan on Tuesday ruled that defendant Raymond Lambis' rights were violated when the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration used such a device without a warrant to find his Washington Heights apartment.

...

"Absent a search warrant, the government may not turn a citizen's cell phone into a tracking device," Pauley wrote.
...

Grapeshot · Jul 14, 2016

Unfortunately no value beyond that court/district.

Freedom1Man · Jul 14, 2016

That contradicts with the recent ruling saying that the government agents can search your computer without a warrant if it is connected to the www or the internet. The reason given is that it was okay because, hackers do it all the time.

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

davidmcbeth · Jul 14, 2016

Grapeshot said:
Unfortunately no value beyond that court/district.

Always able to cite it .. for what that's worth.

davidmcbeth · Jul 14, 2016

Nightmare said:
... nothing, no value outside the jurisdiction of the court.

Better than nothing ....

Citizen · Jul 14, 2016

Nightmare said:
... nothing, no value outside the jurisdiction of the court.

Well, yes.

They do throw us a tiny bone every once in a while--after taking away four times as much as they then "preserve."

"Oh, thank you, master, thank you! May I please have another crumb?"

JoeSparky · Jul 15, 2016

True, it isn't binding on any other circuit/district BUT, it certainly may be used as guidance by another circuit/district in making that courts ruling---- Certainly better than ruling the evidence gathered without the warrant was eligible for full use against the accused.

countryclubjoe · Jul 15, 2016

utbagpiper said:
As found on Drudge today, this Reuters article reports on a decision by a federal judge in NYC.

A fair use excerpt:

This will surely be overturned, think l'license plates".. police run citizens plates constantly to gather information without the use of a warrant, same principle will apply in this case... Also if the average citizen can track another citizen via this method, logic would dictate that the Government is entitled to do the same.. A citizens address is not constitutionally protected, there is also no privacy rights violated by the G...

While I do in fact hope that I am incorrect on this issue, logic would dictate that I am correct.

See Olmstead v United States

My .02
Regards
CCJ

davidmcbeth · Jul 15, 2016

countryclubjoe said:
This will surely be overturned, think l'license plates".. police run citizens plates constantly to gather information without the use of a warrant, same principle will apply in this case... Also if the average citizen can track another citizen via this method, logic would dictate that the Government is entitled to do the same.. A citizens address is not constitutionally protected, there is also no privacy rights violated by the G...

While I do in fact hope that I am incorrect on this issue, logic would dictate that I am correct.

See Olmstead v United States

My .02
Regards
CCJ

Read the drivers privacy act (linked below) and you may come to the same conclusion that I have ... running plates is prohibited via the fishing expeditions that they do now.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2721

A person maybe able able to track a car just from noticing the plate # but cannot get any personal info normally, with the exceptions noted in the federal law.

countryclubjoe · Jul 15, 2016

davidmcbeth said:
Read the drivers privacy act (linked below) and you may come to the same conclusion that I have ... running plates is prohibited via the fishing expeditions that they do now.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2721

A person maybe able able to track a car just from noticing the plate # but cannot get any personal info normally, with the exceptions noted in the federal law.

Great post, however the states violate this federal law everyday and the local kangaroo courts(traffic court) municipial courts, judges and attorney's along with the state DMV violate this federal statute each and everyday... The states compel its citizens to use license plates as part of owning and operating an automobile on the state highways, David, the state and the DMV is not concerned with the privacy rights of its citizens... I know plenty of PI that can obtain any citizens information if they need too.. The state and DMV are only concerned with revenue, they prey on unsuspecting citizens, citizens that blindly or out of fear consent to surrendering their rights for a privilege..

If a citizens puts a license plate tag on his or her automobile then that citizen unbeknown to said citizen is putting his/her personal information, name, address etc.. in full view to the general public therefore citizen has no privacy rights... Think of the "plain view" doctrine for a better understanding of this theory.. There is also case law to support this theory however i am away from my law library at the moment..

See Olmstead V United States-- To wit

The common law rule is that the admissibility of evidence is not affected by the illegality of the means by which it was obtained...

Keep in mind that Government officials do not need to be nice and ethical in obtaining evidence... They do it all the time... Hence my reasoning for thinking that this ruling by the federal judge in NYC will in fact be over turned..

My .02
Best regards
CCJ

utbagpiper · Jul 17, 2016

JoeSparky said:
True, it isn't binding on any other circuit/district BUT, it certainly may be used as guidance by another circuit/district in making that courts ruling---- Certainly better than ruling the evidence gathered without the warrant was eligible for full use against the accused.

Exactly. Or, if other circuits/districts rule differently, this ruling provides the split that tends to motivate the SCOTUS to look at cases more than if the lower courts are in agreement.

Charles

davidmcbeth · Jul 17, 2016

countryclubjoe said:
Great post, however the states violate this federal law everyday and the local kangaroo courts(traffic court) municipial courts, judges and attorney's along with the state DMV violate this federal statute each and everyday... The states compel its citizens to use license plates as part of owning and operating an automobile on the state highways, David, the state and the DMV is not concerned with the privacy rights of its citizens... I know plenty of PI that can obtain any citizens information if they need too.. The state and DMV are only concerned with revenue, they prey on unsuspecting citizens, citizens that blindly or out of fear consent to surrendering their rights for a privilege..

If a citizens puts a license plate tag on his or her automobile then that citizen unbeknown to said citizen is putting his/her personal information, name, address etc.. in full view to the general public therefore citizen has no privacy rights... Think of the "plain view" doctrine for a better understanding of this theory.. There is also case law to support this theory however i am away from my law library at the moment..

See Olmstead V United States-- To wit

The common law rule is that the admissibility of evidence is not affected by the illegality of the means by which it was obtained...

Keep in mind that Government officials do not need to be nice and ethical in obtaining evidence... They do it all the time... Hence my reasoning for thinking that this ruling by the federal judge in NYC will in fact be over turned..

My .02
Best regards
CCJ

Found this recent case

courts.delaware.gov/Opinions/Download.aspx?id=243430

In Delaware ... looks like cop just runs plates for kicks it appears and got a hit. Of course, DMV provided info to the police w/o it being part of an actual investigation.

The state blessed this fishing expedition.

Laws only apply to us when it comes down to it....

countryclubjoe · Jul 21, 2016

davidmcbeth said:
Found this recent case

courts.delaware.gov/Opinions/Download.aspx?id=243430

In Delaware ... looks like cop just runs plates for kicks it appears and got a hit. Of course, DMV provided info to the police w/o it being part of an actual investigation.

The state blessed this fishing expedition.

Laws only apply to us when it comes down to it....

The second a citizen complies with the state and attaches a license plate on his/her property(automobile) said citizen is giving the state and DMV and any LEO the authority to ID the citizen and or do a fishing expedition without probable cause, without RAS and without a warrant..
The state relies on the compliance of the ignorant to survive, quasi traffic laws/statutes are a big business.. Most people comply out of ignorance and the remaining comply out of fear...
Regards
CCJ

davidmcbeth · Jul 21, 2016

countryclubjoe said:
The second a citizen complies with the state and attaches a license plate on his/her property(automobile) said citizen is giving the state and DMV and any LEO the authority to ID the citizen and or do a fishing expedition without probable cause, without RAS and without a warrant..
The state relies on the compliance of the ignorant to survive, quasi traffic laws/statutes are a big business.. Most people comply out of ignorance and the remaining comply out of fear...
Regards
CCJ

Ignore 4th amendment and, on top of that, the Driver's Privacy Protection Act? That's crazy.

Patsy Cline Crazy ... linked below for those non-lizzurds so inclined ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6QEDb3xzdec

And for those lizzurds, a link below....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8tPnX7OPo0Q

Federal Judge throws out cell phone "stingray" evidence for lack of warrant

utbagpiper

Banned

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior

Freedom1Man

Regular Member

davidmcbeth

Banned

davidmcbeth

Banned

Citizen

Founder's Club Member

JoeSparky

Centurion

countryclubjoe

Regular Member

davidmcbeth

Banned

countryclubjoe

Regular Member

utbagpiper

Banned

davidmcbeth

Banned

countryclubjoe

Regular Member

davidmcbeth

Banned