What if the Cops put a Tracker on your Car?

[svandamme]

I don't see how they can turn this around on the perp,
Warrant allows em to do something, but if they don't communicate their warrant to the perp, the warrant itself cannot be used against the perp for anything he did about the thing they did.

Let's say they have a warrant to search your house.
They come at night, in the dark, unmarked cars
They barge through your front gate, they break open the door
They do not yell "police , we have a warrant"

And the owner of the house dumps a 30 round mag of 556 out of his AR and kills 2 cops before they shout "police, we have a warrant"

And it's all on body cams.


There is NO way you can get convicted for that, you are defending your house against an unknown invader.

Same with this surveillance thing.
Perp was not informed of the warrant.
it was done covertly.


Any lawyer worth his salt should be able to squash that charge in court, appeals or higher.
Better Call Saul

[ckelly78z]

Originally Posted by Jims5543

A smart man would have put it on another random car.

A meth dealer doesn't usually qualify for being a "smart man".

[GH85Carrera]

Originally Posted by svandamme

I don't see how they can turn this around on the perp,
Warrant allows em to do something, but if they don't communicate their warrant to the perp, the warrant itself cannot be used against the perp for anything he did about the thing they did.

Let's say they have a warrant to search your house.
They come at night, in the dark, unmarked cars
They barge through your front gate, they break open the door
They do not yell "police , we have a warrant"

And the owner of the house dumps a 30 round mag of 556 out of his AR and kills 2 cops before they shout "police, we have a warrant"

And it's all on body cams.


There is NO way you can get convicted for that, you are defending your house against an unknown invader.

Same with this surveillance thing.
Perp was not informed of the warrant.
it was done covertly.


Any lawyer worth his salt should be able to squash that charge in court, appeals or higher.
Better Call Saul

Have you not seen the thread about 5 cops shot in Houston. The cops had a liar call in the hose as a drug house, the cops LIED about buying drugs there, and then lied about seeing a gun, and lied big time saying the owner shot back with s 357. Magnum. No 357 was ever found!

In the end, they smashed in (no knock warrant), shot the dog, and killed the homeowner, and his wife, and shot 5 of the cops as they did it, and then lied their asses off as a coverup.

Two cops are going to jail, and lots more need to join them.

[svandamme]

well if they went to jail, clearly the law agrees that they can't get away with everything

[GH85Carrera]

But two innocent home owners are dead, and the police chief is still lying is butt off about it.

It is very unlikely it was an isolated event.

If I found a GPS tracker on my car I would just put it under the tire, and drive over it, and leave it on the street.

[nota]

Originally Posted by svandamme

I don't see how they can turn this around on the perp,
Warrant allows em to do something, but if they don't communicate their warrant to the perp, the warrant itself cannot be used against the perp for anything he did about the thing they did.

Let's say they have a warrant to search your house.
They come at night, in the dark, unmarked cars
They barge through your front gate, they break open the door
They do not yell "police , we have a warrant"

And the owner of the house dumps a 30 round mag of 556 out of his AR and kills 2 cops before they shout "police, we have a warrant"

And it's all on body cams.


There is NO way you can get convicted for that, you are defending your house against an unknown invader.

Same with this surveillance thing.
Perp was not informed of the warrant.
it was done covertly.


Any lawyer worth his salt should be able to squash that charge in court, appeals or higher.
Better Call Saul

IF you survive !,
a very unlikely outcome after the home invasion by pigs with shots fired
the pig will claim some BS and charge you with murder#1
you spend years in jail no bond ,
lawyers will bankrupt you
the pig will find evidence [they planted] to convict you

[legion]

Originally Posted by Zeke

I haven't seen a comment here about the fact that the tracker was found in a locker on the suspect's parent's property in a locker, in a barn. Certainly an overt act. Does that change things? I mean there's no way he can say it fell off or it wasn't ever there. Those options were available until he took it off and placed it in the locker. Now he's tampered (removed) with a police owned device legally attached to his vehicle.

I don't see how anyone is under obligation to keep something like this on their car, and subject to criminal sanctions if they don't. It just doesn't make sense. It's not like there is a law or court order commanding a person to keep a police tracker in place.

[doug_porsche]

I have one question and one observation..

Question: What marking did the tracker have on it? Was there any markings that said, at the extreme lower end of excuses, if found, place in mailbox return postage guaranteed.

If I find a black box stuck to my car, with no markings, yep I would take it off.


Observation: they are charging him with theft of their tracker. Did they ask for it back? Can they, giggling as I type this, not locate it?

[Tobra]

Originally Posted by svandamme

Let's say they have a warrant to search your house.
They come at night, in the dark, unmarked cars
They barge through your front gate, they break open the door
They do not yell "police , we have a warrant"

And the owner of the house dumps a 30 round mag of 556 out of his AR and kills 2 cops before they shout "police, we have a warrant"

And it's all on body cams.


There is NO way you can get convicted for that, you are defending your house against an unknown invader.

You would not be convicted of anything, you would be shot to death, resisting arrest.

[onewhippedpuppy]

This sounds to be one decent lawyer away from being thrown out of court.

[gatotom]

About 3 months ago a local was charged a felony for putting a tracking device on his soon to be divorced wife.

Don't know where he got it but his Dad is in the sheriff reserves.

[Jim Richards]

Originally Posted by Zeke

I haven't seen a comment here about the fact that the tracker was found in a locker on the suspect's parent's property in a locker, in a barn. Certainly an overt act. Does that change things? I mean there's no way he can say it fell off or it wasn't ever there. Those options were available until he took it off and placed it in the locker. Now he's tampered (removed) with a police owned device legally attached to his vehicle.

BTW, this thread start as a topic on a tracker and discussion. Bringing the Houston affair into this with talk of murder and getting derailed is going to get this thread closed or cleaned up if you guys can't keep on track. I haven't decided. Your call.

This was dumb. Taking it off and leaving it on the ground without fingerprints would’ve been the approach to take.

[Jim Richards]

Zeke, the bracelet is for crimes committed. The tracker is for crimes that have not yet been committed.

Originally Posted by sc_rufctr

^^^ Interesting video.

If I found a GPS Tracker on my car I'd be calling a lawyer ASAP.

But I'm not a POS Drug dealer or criminal so...

That's even MORE reason to call your lawyer . . .

Originally Posted by Zeke

Since you didn't read the news article linked in post no. 1, I'll tell you that the police lost track of the signal, got a 2nd warrant to search 2 properties and found the tracker secured in a locker in a bathroom within a barn. I don't think it walked in there on its own. See, that's been my point. There are an infinite number of ways that this GPS tracker could have been removed and 'lost' but there was only one way it ended up off the vehicle and in a locker. There is nothing more deliberate as that.

I have no idea how the court(s) will see this but I can see how and why the police are treating this as a counter measure to their intended surveillance that was approved by the legal branch.

I know it's not quite the same, but rather than bring up some situation that has nothing legally in common with this, how about someone who has been ordered by the court to wear a tracking device? The difference, of course, is that the wearer is very aware of the order. But I don't see the covert action any differently than tapping a phone (covert) or an overt action such as the ankle bracelet.

This is tough one to keep apples to apples. And I'll admit I'm not even qualified to judge this. It's all opinion until the gavel hits the wood.

I bet we have a bunch of those folks right here on Pelican!

Like most legal questions, there is no easy clear cut answer. I suspect this is a case of first impression. Notice none of the lawyers are jumping in with an opinion. I always get a kick out of the question: "is it constitutional?" The correct answer is generally the one everyone hates: it depends.

[masraum]

Originally Posted by Zeke

I haven't seen a comment here about the fact that the tracker was found in a locker on the suspect's parent's property in a locker, in a barn. Certainly an overt act. Does that change things? I mean there's no way he can say it fell off or it wasn't ever there. Those options were available until he took it off and placed it in the locker. Now he's tampered (removed) with a police owned device legally attached to his vehicle.

The problem is that if you find an unidentified device on your car, how do you know it's "a police owned device legally attached to his vehicle?" If I find something on my car, did a crazy homeless guy stick it there after removing it from some other car or finding it in the street, Chinese spies, a prankster at work, an old girlfriend, a mad bomber...?

Originally Posted by legion

I don't see how anyone is under obligation to keep something like this on their car, and subject to criminal sanctions if they don't. It just doesn't make sense. It's not like there is a law or court order commanding a person to keep a police tracker in place.

Exactly.

Originally Posted by doug_porsche

I have one question and one observation..

Question: What marking did the tracker have on it? Was there any markings that said, at the extreme lower end of excuses, if found, place in mailbox return postage guaranteed.

If I find a black box stuck to my car, with no markings, yep I would take it off.


Observation: they are charging him with theft of their tracker. Did they ask for it back? Can they, giggling as I type this, not locate it?

It seems from some of the info that there was no indication that the device was a police device.
They got a warrant to search and found the device.
they couldn't find the device because it was in a locker (presumably metal) which blocked the signal. But that's funny stuff.

[masraum]

Originally Posted by Jim Richards

This was dumb. Taking it off and leaving it on the ground without fingerprints would’ve been the approach to take.

Yep, no fingerprints, and on the ground in the middle of the city or in a storm drain or in the middle of the freeway.

[masraum]

Originally Posted by Zeke

Since you didn't read the news article linked in post no. 1, I'll tell you that the police lost track of the signal, got a 2nd warrant to search 2 properties and found the tracker secured in a locker in a bathroom within a barn. I don't think it walked in there on its own. See, that's been my point. There are an infinite number of ways that this GPS tracker could have been removed and 'lost' but there was only one way it ended up off the vehicle and in a locker. There is nothing more deliberate as that.

Which would make tons of sense if the thing was marked so you had any idea who's it was or who had put it there. If I go into a store and come out and someone has left a diecast model of a ferrari on or in my car and no one is around, I figure it's mine. I could leave it, I could take it with me, I could smash it on the ground.

Originally Posted by madcorgi

I bet we have a bunch of those folks right here on Pelican!

Like most legal questions, there is no easy clear cut answer. I suspect this is a case of first impression. Notice none of the lawyers are jumping in with an opinion. I always get a kick out of the question: "is it constitutional?" The correct answer is generally the one everyone hates: it depends.

Actually, there is a video by a lawyer farther up. The same lawyer also has an interesting article and video on the Road and Track websit about dashcams.

[Bill Douglas]

Slip it down the back of the seat in a taxi then deny everything. If someone (anyone) is out to get you don't do them a favor.

[Rinty]

Originally Posted by Zeke

There are an infinite number of ways that this GPS tracker could have been removed and 'lost' but there was only one way it ended up off the vehicle and in a locker. There is nothing more deliberate as that....

+1

I'm thinking that if the search warrants hold up, and the evidence of the possession of the drugs and drug paraphernalia is let in, then the court can conclude that the accused knew, or ought to have known, that he might be under surveillance, which would form the basis of the formation of the accused's intent to interfere with the surveillance, or to deprive the state of its property.

It'll be interesting to see what the bright minds on the court do with this, as there will be serious consequences flowing from the decision.