Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Emails Show Feds Asking Florida Cops To Deceive Judges About Surveillance Tech

Soulskill posted about 3 months ago | from the you-can-trust-us dept.

Government 251

Advocatus Diaboli sends this excerpt from Wired: Police in Florida have, at the request of the U.S. Marshals Service, been deliberately deceiving judges and defendants about their use of a controversial surveillance tool to track suspects, according to newly obtained emails (PDF). At the request of the Marshals Service, the officers using so-called stingrays have been routinely telling judges, in applications for warrants, that they obtained knowledge of a suspect's location from a 'confidential source' rather than disclosing that the information was gleaned using a stingray.

cancel ×

251 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

And? (5, Insightful)

TemperedAlchemist (2045966) | about 3 months ago | (#47291291)

It won't stop until the DoJ actually starts handing out serious penalties instead of a slap on the wrist for this sort of behavior. I'm talking jail time.

Re:And? (5, Insightful)

msauve (701917) | about 3 months ago | (#47291357)

Since you're referencing the DoJ, I'd assume you mean jail time for those releasing evidence of illegal surveillance and deceiving the courts.

Why are all of you so naive ? (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47291415)

You still believe in justice ?

Looking at the behavior of the government of the United States of America under the Obama Administration, you guys really think that Justice can still prevail ?

Do you think Obama will allow that ?

Re:Why are all of you so naive ? (1)

Fjandr (66656) | about 3 months ago | (#47291535)

This will only stop when people start constructing and using guided missiles to blow up any cell tower that's not in a location already know to the public. Simply lock onto the stingray signal, and boom, no more dirty cops.

Re:Why are all of you so naive ? (1)

DaHat (247651) | about 3 months ago | (#47291859)

any cell tower that's not in a location already know to the public

While I admit that I've never asked... do you think your average cell phone company will give you a list of geo-located towers they operate? ... as well as those of their partners who offer services which they piggy back on?

Re:Why are all of you so naive ? (1)

Trax3001BBS (2368736) | about 3 months ago | (#47292009)

any cell tower that's not in a location already know to the public

While I admit that I've never asked... do you think your average cell phone company will give you a list of geo-located towers they operate? ... as well as those of their partners who offer services which they piggy back on?

I thought I had many more book marked but http://www.deadcellzones.com/ [deadcellzones.com] is all I have in my list. If you access any of the cell phone areas of the UseNet you can get access to lots of links mainly for the height of the antenna so planes can miss the new ones (there is a height limit).

I seem to have more jammers (schematics) than anything else, most have been taken down.

Re:Why are all of you so naive ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47292013)

any cell tower that's not in a location already know to the public

While I admit that I've never asked... do you think your average cell phone company will give you a list of geo-located towers they operate? ... as well as those of their partners who offer services which they piggy back on?

Do you honestly think it would be that hard for one of the most abused pieces of hardware in our telecommunications infrastructure to NOT be mapped via a simple app or even crowdsourcing?

Given the number of connections established in any given second, I'd say that map could be built in under a minute.

On top of that, as much as certain vendors want to pimp the fact that they have 99.9999987% coverage across a specific area, I think you actually COULD get a list of towers they operate. They're practically proud of the infrastructure they built (and bought).

Re:Why are all of you so naive ? (5, Insightful)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about 3 months ago | (#47291601)

Why, exactly, do you think it alright to make this issue partisan? Did the Obama administration pass the Patriot Act? Did the Obama administration create the secret courts? Which surveillance laws, exactly, did Obama have passed?

The fact of the matter is, GOVERNMENT is out of control. Two administrations, one led by each of the major parties, has abused the system, and encroached on the rights of American citizens. The first administration oversaw the enactment of these unjust laws, the second administration is merely pushing the boundaries of those laws.

The problem is GOVERNMENT, the problem is not a specific administration.

Let us address the real problem, and let's stop using Obama as the boogeyman. The real boogeymen are the DNC and the GOP.

people are the problem. (1, Flamebait)

cheekyboy (598084) | about 3 months ago | (#47291955)

And who works for the govt, your average joe fat pack in an office.

Who approves of the laws and pushes them? Your employed cops and lawyers.

Too many people with high qualifications and so called smarts are just "Doing their job" like the S.S. in Germany did.

Time to say, FU boss, quit, or dont even go applying for govt jobs, leaving it empty for foreigners (who came from bad regime govts and are use to oppression, who then go on creating more of it)

Re:Why are all of you so naive ? (1)

davester666 (731373) | about 3 months ago | (#47292035)

It didn't start with the patriot act, that was just taking advantage of 9/11 to move things along much faster than they could have without it.

Re:And? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47291449)

That is cute that you think that the DoJ cares about anything other than harassing black kids and those who ask difficult questions of politicians.

Re:And? (1, Interesting)

BitterOak (537666) | about 3 months ago | (#47291361)

It won't stop until the DoJ actually starts handing out serious penalties instead of a slap on the wrist for this sort of behavior. I'm talking jail time.

It's only illegal if they counseled the cops to do this in a specific case. If they just told the cops that's what they should do in general, then it isn't a crime.

So you are saying ... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47291427)

It won't stop until the DoJ actually starts handing out serious penalties instead of a slap on the wrist for this sort of behavior. I'm talking jail time.

It's only illegal if they counseled the cops to do this in a specific case. If they just told the cops that's what they should do in general, then it isn't a crime.

Are you saying that if a CAP told all his/her clients how to cheat on tax it is *****NOT***** a crime, unless that CPA specifically instructs one particular client on how to specifically take advantage on ONE PARTICULAR SECTION OF THE TAX LAW ?

So you are saying ... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47291491)

It won't stop until the DoJ actually starts handing out serious penalties instead of a slap on the wrist for this sort of behavior. I'm talking jail time.

It's only illegal if they counseled the cops to do this in a specific case. If they just told the cops that's what they should do in general, then it isn't a crime.

Are you saying that if a CAP told all his/her clients how to cheat on tax it is *****NOT***** a crime, unless that CPA specifically instructs one particular client on how to specifically take advantage on ONE PARTICULAR SECTION OF THE TAX LAW ?

Its no different than all the youtube videos that show people how to break the law and start off with a "this is for education purposes only" line.

Re:So you are saying ... (3, Insightful)

jeIlomizer (3670951) | about 3 months ago | (#47291569)

Its no different than all the youtube videos that show people how to break the law and start off with a "this is for education purposes only" line.

It's significantly different, because these people are in positions of power in the government and have the ability to easily ruin people's lives.

Re:And? (5, Informative)

tysonedwards (969693) | about 3 months ago | (#47291467)

Instructions were given to commit perjury, under oath, to a judge in any situation in which they were asked about the surveillance tech that they have at their disposal.

Perjury is a crime whenever it takes place.
Conspiracy to commit perjury or enticement to commit perjury both are also crimes, and this email chain shows that that took place.

The real question is whether the DoJ cares about going after cops as opposed to just going after the low hanging fruit like people who beat their wives, sell drugs, or annoy the wrong person in a position of power.

Re:And? (3, Insightful)

dcmcilrath (2859893) | about 3 months ago | (#47291533)

When is it ever advantageous to hit someone who can fight back?

Re:And? (4, Insightful)

swillden (191260) | about 3 months ago | (#47291629)

Instructions were given to commit perjury

I think they'll argue that it wasn't perjury. They weren't told to claim the information was from a "confidential informant" -- a snitch -- but a "confidential source", which isn't well-defined. I think the wording was chosen to mislead the judge into thinking they meant a CI, but without actually lying. Of course, intending to deceive may be perjury, even if what you say is the literal truth, but it's much harder to pin down.

Re:And? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47291663)

Perjury is a crime whenever it takes place.

History has shown that not to be the case when it involves DMCA takedown notices.

Re:And? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47291795)

Perjury is not a crime whenever it takes place. Family Law for one.

Re:And? (2)

sumdumass (711423) | about 3 months ago | (#47291539)

It still could be a crime for the cops and prosecutors under state laws.

Not that it would matter much though. Most cops and law enforcement enjoy wildly lower criminal penalties for the same violations of law that would land us in some serious trouble. They call it color of law sometimes. FWIW, here is the federal law on color of law.. I looked for my state and it simply adds it to laws already in place.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/usc... [cornell.edu]

Re:And? (5, Insightful)

gstoddart (321705) | about 3 months ago | (#47291561)

It's only illegal if they counseled the cops to do this in a specific case. If they just told the cops that's what they should do in general, then it isn't a crime.

If you don't think subverting some of the basic principles of the justice system, as well as the checks and balances in the system to prevent abuses isn't a crime, you're sadly mistaken.

This gets rid of your right to a fair trial. To not be subject to unreasonable search. To face the evidence against you. To trust that the cops aren't framing you.

If the feds and the police forces have decided they should be able to do this, then they have effectively become the worst sort of thugs and miscreants out there -- because they're legitimate thugs and miscreants who are allowed to do anything they see fit, all in the name of claiming to be the good guys.

No society where the police have unlimited power to cover up their own abuses and make any charge they want stick can last.

When federal law enforcement is telling local police how to subvert the justice system in order to conceal illegal, secret methods which wouldn't hold up in court ... the whole legal system is fucked.

When I was a kid, this kind of shit is what was attributed to the Soviets. And now, people seem to somehow accept this as normal.

You may think fascism is an OK idea, but the rest of us don't want that.

I think if a federal agent is telling law enforcement how to do an end-run around the Constitution, they should be hung for treason.

Re:And? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47291593)

It's only illegal if they counseled the cops to do this in a specific case. If they just told the cops that's what they should do in general, then it isn't a crime.

Huh? I thought perjury was a crime, period. Isn't lying to a judge perjury anymore?

Re:And? (4, Informative)

fuzznutz (789413) | about 3 months ago | (#47291657)

This is called suborning perjury and is a crime. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S... [wikipedia.org]

Re:And? (4, Insightful)

stenvar (2789879) | about 3 months ago | (#47291389)

Why would the federal government penalize itself? The DoJ presumably wants this to happen, as does the president; if he didn't, he could stop tomorrow.

Re:And? (2)

Bite The Pillow (3087109) | about 3 months ago | (#47291649)

Because there are three branches. And judges really hate it when, as a whole, law enforcement lies to a judge repeatedly.

I'm sure there are exceptions, like small town law. And maybe federal district court in federal cases.

But any judge, for the most part, who finds that they ruled on unconstitutional information, is very likely to hold law enforcement to a way higher standard than "anonymous source".

There are exceptions. But don't let your cynicism abscond with the ability to read and think. You can do better, you and the three people who moderated you incorrectly.

The "Federal Government" is not one thing, and is not made up of people who all believe one thing. Both parties have lots of people who disagree with the general party line, and all three branches have people who disagree with the general government line. It's not hard to find exceptions to such a blatantly wrong opinion, but I can't find a list that will automatically be amenable to someone who has shown so little capability of thought, so I won't try.

Re:And? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47291689)

... judges really hate it when, as a whole, law enforcement lies to a judge repeatedly...

Just in case you do not know the link ...

http://www.justice.gov/marshals/

The US Marshals are under the Department of Justice, and the judges, are also under the Department of Justice

The Judges are unarmed employees of DoJ, while the US Marshals are ARMED TO THE TEETH

Please tell us how often do we see American Judges call up and punish the US Marshals ?

Re:And? (1)

Darinbob (1142669) | about 3 months ago | (#47291971)

Judges are not a part of the Department of Justice. Judges are a part of the judicial branch, and DoJ is a part of the executive branch.

Re:And? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47291715)

Are you daft or something? These are federal marshals lying to state and local judges. The judges couldn't do anything about it if they wanted to (and it's not clear that they would even care).

The only people who could do something about it would be the superiors in the DoJ and the president, but that's where these policies originate in the first place.

Re:And? (4, Insightful)

camperdave (969942) | about 3 months ago | (#47291781)

They could (and should) declare a mistrial and release the defendant.

Re:And? (4, Insightful)

Darinbob (1142669) | about 3 months ago | (#47291969)

However judges can not prosecute in the US. Thus if the US Marshalls and local police are doing this, and the local prosecutors are happy that criminals are being caught so that they can be re-elected, then who's left to actually charge someone with a crime?

Re:And? (4, Insightful)

Bartles (1198017) | about 3 months ago | (#47291395)

Slap on the wrist? As far as I can tell, they are just ignoring it, which makes me think they are complicit.

Re:And? (2)

Bite The Pillow (3087109) | about 3 months ago | (#47291675)

Who is they? And just what have you looked at to conclude they are ignoring it?

I'm assuming that, since Marshals are law enforcement, you mean that the judicial branch is ignoring law enforcement lying, admitting lying, and going on record as doing so.

I don't think many people are aware of this. If you are not surprised, you should have let us know, as well as the ACLU, EFF, and other related organizations. Because this is really big news.

Would you be so kind as to list any, and if you really could be arsed, every instance where the DoJ handed out any penalty for this behavior?

The DoJ is Executive, as is the Marshals service. They all have the same goal of lying to the Judicial branch to maximize convictions. DoJ is the second third of justice, the part where someone presses charges, and has nothing to do with actual justice. "Bring someone to justice" really just means bringing them to a court where a justice of the peace gets to rule on what is allowed.

Oddly, law enforcement is all on the same side. And judges are all on the other side. Legislative branch is out of the picture at this point.

So yes, "they", unless I misunderstand, are not only complicit, they are the people who are issuing this information. They are getting slaps on the wrist by they, who are the same person, and by definition complicit.

You only think this is true, as opposed to it being by definition true? Or did you under-explain something?

And did moderators completely understand something you did not type?

Re:And? (3, Insightful)

Bartles (1198017) | about 3 months ago | (#47291691)

Actually by they, I mean the DOJ. Eric Holder has completely abdicated his responsibilities and has become the most politically motivated Attorney General in my lifetime.

Re:And? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47291401)

Not going to happen. The US is fucked and every single one of you fat bastards deserves the absolute worst police state imaginable.

Re:And? (5, Insightful)

LynnwoodRooster (966895) | about 3 months ago | (#47291435)

Federal Marshals ARE the DoJ [wikipedia.org] . It's the DoJ itself asking local police to lie. Why would they hand out penalties to themselves? That's like asking Holder to arrest himself for being in contempt of Congress [politico.com] . Not gonna happen.

Re:And? (2)

sumdumass (711423) | about 3 months ago | (#47291613)

Which is why states need to prosecute the cops and district attorneys who are lieing and let them make the claims in court that the DOJ or Marshals are telling them to do it.

Interestingly, a federal prosecutor can take a case to a grand jury independent of DOJ permission and are protected from backlash by the civil service laws and civil employees union. Once it is at a grand jury, it is out of the DOJ's control. This is how prosecutors went after medical pot in California after Obama direct them to leave it alone. This is also how some feds prosecuted deportation cases after being told to ignore them.

Re:And? (1, Insightful)

torsmo (1301691) | about 3 months ago | (#47291615)

Can't the courts take sua sponte action in the matter, when it is clear that the dept. of justice is quite brazenly violating the law?

Re:And? (1)

Darinbob (1142669) | about 3 months ago | (#47291975)

Congress is allowed to appoint special prosecutors. Would be nice if judges could do this also, but they most they can due is jail someone for contempt of court.

Re:And? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47291447)

One huge flaw in the USA system is that the DOJ is part of the executive branch which is tasked with investigating the executive branch.

It's like asking someone to arrest himself.

They'll do nothing.

Re:And? (0)

Mashiki (184564) | about 3 months ago | (#47291585)

It won't stop until the DoJ actually starts handing out serious penalties instead of a slap on the wrist for this sort of behavior. I'm talking jail time.

You're making this statement about the most corrupt DoJ in the history of the US right. You want me to start laughing, or simply roll over and laugh? It won't stop until states refuse to pay attention to the DoJ and relegate it to the back room forcing in reforms.

Re:And? (4, Insightful)

Required Snark (1702878) | about 3 months ago | (#47291771)

You want contempt for the constitution? Where were you when Cheney said he was not a part of the executive, legislative or judicial branch of government, so none of the rules apply? (Sound of crickets.....)

I'm pissed off a Holder as well, but obvious right wingers start calling him the most corrupt, all I smell is the stench of ripe hypocrisy. STFU until you are willing to call out someone on your side of the political fence.

Re:And? (1)

houstonbofh (602064) | about 3 months ago | (#47291751)

Or, just every defendant that this applies to having everything thrown out because of "fruit of the poisoned tree." If it stops getting convictions it will stop being used.

Re: And? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47291785)

Do you follow history? It won't end until people start voting from the rooftops.

Re:And? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47291867)

" At the request of the Marshals Service, the officers using so-called stingrays have been routinely telling judges, in applications for warrants, that they obtained knowledge of a suspect's location from a 'confidential source' rather than disclosing that the information was gleaned using a stingray. "

I would not have thought that the police needed to be told. Isn't eavesdropping on a telephone call without a warrant illegal? If the cops tell the judge that's what they've been doing the evidence becomes inadmissible.

"It won't stop until the DoJ actually starts handing out serious penalties instead of a slap on the wrist for this sort of behavior. I'm talking jail time."

How is the DOJ to know about it, if the cops don't admit it? (And of course they won't.) Who is to know that it's happening, given that no one is watching to make sure it isn't? I suspect this kind of thing is much more commonplace than people generally realize. The cops listen in on phone calls until they hear something incriminating, then knowing what's going on, they go out and find evidence that they can use.

NR

Re:And? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47291881)

One problem: The DOJ /supports/ misleading the judges.

Re:And? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47291995)

It won't stop until the DoJ actually starts handing out serious penalties instead of a slap on the wrist for this sort of behavior. I'm talking jail time.

Gee, that's funny. We were demanding the same fucking thing when bankers vaporized trillions from the economy in 2008.

Instead of jail time, we handed out bonuses.

Don't expect a shitload of traction on this concept, no matter how much it makes sense or follows the very laws they're sworn to uphold.

String Them Up (2)

sexconker (1179573) | about 3 months ago | (#47291293)

String them up in front of the courthouse.

Re:String Them Up (1)

dcmcilrath (2859893) | about 3 months ago | (#47291541)

Who is going to do the stringing-up? The DoJ isn't going to arrest themselves... Sometime that you have a weekend free, try to pull over a cop and tell him he was speeding. See how that goes.

Re: String Them Up (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47291693)

Get the fucking Marines

nothing to see here, move along. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47291301)

but first pick up that can!

how come these hard drives were not erased? (2)

xxxJonBoyxxx (565205) | about 3 months ago | (#47291311)

odd that an actual paper trail was allowed to be released...wonder who forgot the degausser this time?

Re:how come these hard drives were not erased? (1)

thegarbz (1787294) | about 3 months ago | (#47291531)

odd that an actual paper trail was allowed to be released...wonder who forgot the degausser this time?

Degausser? How old fashioned can you be? These days you just claim the hard disk crashed, delete everything and decide to re-purpose said flaky unstable drive on another machine.

Re:how come these hard drives were not erased? (1)

Bite The Pillow (3087109) | about 3 months ago | (#47291685)

Sounds like you are referencing a single recent case instead of an actual tendency. The case being IRS persecution of right-leaning tax-exempt applicants.

Or is there more to this trend that we should know about?

"Every one" won't cut it, because I'd really like specifics.

Re:how come these hard drives were not erased? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47291741)

They were on loan to the IRS.

Re:how come these hard drives were not erased? (1)

camperdave (969942) | about 3 months ago | (#47291801)

odd that an actual paper trail was allowed to be released...wonder who forgot the degausser this time?

You'd have to have a seriously powered degausser to destroy an actual paper trail.

Clearly illegal? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47291331)

Isn't this a clear case(s) of warrantless wiretapping?

Re:Clearly illegal? (1)

EzInKy (115248) | about 3 months ago | (#47291489)

Probably, but these guys are from the branch of government that determines what is constitutional and what is not.

Re:Clearly illegal? (3, Insightful)

MachDelta (704883) | about 3 months ago | (#47291713)

Depends on who you ask. Their excuse here is that they're not wiretapping anything, they're just playing 'Marco Polo' with your phone while moving around so they can triangulate where you are so then they can get a warrant. Supposedly, they aren't listening to your calls (not that you'd have any way of verifying that or even challenging it in court) so it doesn't count as wiretapping. In reality, this is taking a page out of the NSA's playbook and trying to skirt the law on a technicality.

Illegal, but very useful. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47291333)

Everyone associated with the use of illegal police methods and the conspiracy around that NEEDS TO BE PROSECUTED.

Re:Illegal, but very useful. (4, Informative)

scottbomb (1290580) | about 3 months ago | (#47291363)

Problem is, the same people who initiate the prosecuting are in on it. Have you heard of a guy named Eric Holder?

Re:Illegal, but very useful. (-1, Troll)

geek (5680) | about 3 months ago | (#47291861)

Liberals asked for it, now they got it. Welcome to Amerika

Re:Illegal, but very useful. (0)

EzInKy (115248) | about 3 months ago | (#47291517)

"Activist" judges, the ones who are willing to overrule laws based on Constitutionality no matter what Congress or the President says, have been pretty much shackled by will of the people who want their personal prejudices enforced.

Perjury? (4, Insightful)

Hairy1 (180056) | about 3 months ago | (#47291345)

Isn't this kinda like....um.... perjury? I'm pretty sure that kind of thing isn't taken lightly by the judiciary. Furthermore, isn't it law enforcement meant to be role models for following the law?

Re:Perjury? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47291413)

Cops are required to lie as a normal part of their job. The only thing notable about this is that the Republicans are extending that to inside the courtroom.

Re:Perjury? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47291419)

It's been fine at the Supreme Court level so long as you preface it with "argle bargle"

Re:Perjury? (1)

Fjandr (66656) | about 3 months ago | (#47291493)

Not to judges. This will result in retrials or having sentences vacated.

Re:Perjury? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47291591)

Not unless the perjury affected the outcome of the case. A case can be imperfect but that does not mean it, or any decisions, gets thrown out unless it would have affected the end result of the case.

Re:Perjury? (2)

ArchieBunker (132337) | about 3 months ago | (#47291651)

Guess you've never been in court with a cop. Cops lie to judges and persecutors all the time. If cops don't have enough evidence for a warrant they say an anonymous informant tipped them off and the judge rubber stamps it.

Re:Perjury? (1)

Fjandr (66656) | about 3 months ago | (#47292033)

The difference is in whether you can prove the cop lied. All the judges I know take serious offense to being lied to, even by cops.

Re:Perjury? (2)

JonWan (456212) | about 3 months ago | (#47291431)

"Isn't this kinda like....um.... perjury? I'm pretty sure that kind of thing isn't taken lightly by the judiciary. Furthermore, isn't it law enforcement meant to be role models for following the law?"

You know it's sad when this statement is modded funny instead of insightful.

I guess about all we can really do is laugh, at least until the general public wakes up.

Re:Perjury? (1)

Bite The Pillow (3087109) | about 3 months ago | (#47291697)

People with brains, pleas meta moderate. This is at the same plus five as "ha, the whole federal gvmt is in on it and everyone with a government paycheck thinks exactly the same thing" above.

Only one can even remotely be correct. So either very stupid people have mod points, or there are a lot of moderators who don't bother to share their inside information with us.

pejury (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47291383)

Can somebody explain to me how this could possibly fall outside the definition of "perjury"? This seems like exactly the situation for which "contempt of court" was created.

Re:pejury (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47291603)

Contempt of court is when the judge knows you are lying, you are misbehaving in court or the judge just doesn't like you. No this is conspiracy to obstruct justice on the part of the DOJ and perjury for any cop stupid enough to tell the lie on the record in court. That records of this have come out means that now the EFF, ACLU etc can file suit and put a stop to it. The bad part is some people who belong in jail are going to get out because the government took a shortcut and then lied about it.

Re:pejury (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47291633)

Can somebody explain to me how this could possibly fall outside the definition of "perjury"?

Because it is the police committing the perjury. The courts traditionally refuse to prosecute cops for perjury, even when the defense has overwhelming evidence of such.

Re:pejury (1)

ArchieBunker (132337) | about 3 months ago | (#47291653)

You basically summed it up. Cops straight up murder people and district attorneys refuse to press charges fearing they will lose the backing of the police. The head of the brotherhood of police is on record saying that police misconduct is so rare it doesn't even exist.

Re:pejury (1)

Bite The Pillow (3087109) | about 3 months ago | (#47291711)

The refusal to press charges is more based on the difficulty of proving it.

In the most basic understanding, the decision on whether to press charges depends on how likely a positive outcome is. Sometimes you have to go with it regardless, but mostly you get a choice where the truth and the evidence are not weighed for justice, but for victory.

Proving the officer lied when law enforcement is assumed to be telling the truth is rather difficult, and requires extraordinary evidence.

A document instructing law enforcement to lie doesn't mean law enforcement lied. You have to show the judge that someone lied. In that case, it is simple perjury. If the judge decides, it is also, or instead, contempt of court. Contempt is a judicial ruling, while perjury is determined by the legislature and prosecuted by the executive (aka the people who instructed their people to lie).

Contempt is usually immediate, so there is no reason to prosecute the exact same behavior for perjury if it is already being punished by contempt.

Lack of desire to prosecute is nowhere in a judge's mind when deciding to levy contempt of court.

Re:pejury (1)

ArchieBunker (132337) | about 3 months ago | (#47291737)

Show me a case of a cop doing jail time for wrongfully killing someone. I don't mean a month long sentence either, hard time like common folks get.

Re:pejury (1)

Uberbah (647458) | about 3 months ago | (#47291907)

The refusal to press charges is more based on the difficulty of proving it.

Just as a subcategory, the number of cops who skate [cnn.com] after straight-up murdering people on camera makes that a laughable statement. What's the next joke - saying money has little influence on politics?

Does this taint any verdicts? (5, Insightful)

ShaunC (203807) | about 3 months ago | (#47291421)

When (e.g.) a forensic examiner is discovered to have manipulated or faked various test results that were introduced by the prosecution, this often results in hundreds of prior cases being reviewed. Every case that person touched as an expert or as a witness is called into question. Verdicts are vacated, people get released from prison.

Shouldn't that scenario be playing out here? Any case in which a supposed "confidential informant" was used in these Florida jurisdictions is now potentially in question. Defense attorneys should be lining up over this.

Well then (2)

EuclideanSilence (1968630) | about 3 months ago | (#47291425)

Let's see if you are allowed to own and use a stingray (which is basically a cell phone tower mimic). I wonder how innocuous the police will think they are then.

Re:Well then (1)

Bite The Pillow (3087109) | about 3 months ago | (#47291731)

It's insightful because you equivocate individual citizens to law enforcement, because clearly their super powers are exactly the same.

Are you, as an individual with a stingray device, allowed to request judicial approval to investigate and/or detain a potentially lawbreaking citizen?

I'm very fucking well not talking about unconstitutional horseshit, where you ask rhetorically whether some agency should be able to ask permission from some secret bunch of righteous dudes.

I'm talking about you, as a non-law-enforcement person, being remotely the same ballpark as law enforcement. It;s not. They don't think it's innocuous, they think it's legal.

If you are going to fight something you should really understand it, and not make terrible rhetorical arguments. Or, you can be like this guy and say stupid shit, your call.

Police don't think they are innocuous, nor illegal, nor any other negative. They believe themselves necessary, and for that reason individual non-law-enforcement people are not necessary. So they would advise you to stay out of it and give them whatever info you have.

Be honest, and rhetoric be damned.

Re:Well then (1)

camperdave (969942) | about 3 months ago | (#47291817)

Side question here. The FCC regs say any transmitter under a certain power level does not need a license. So, can a theatre owner operate a low power stingray or other cell site simulator to attract all of the cell phones in the theatre and never pass ring signals to them?

Re:Well then (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47292023)

Side question here. The FCC regs say any transmitter under a certain power level does not need a license. So, can a theatre owner operate a low power stingray or other cell site simulator to attract all of the cell phones in the theatre and never pass ring signals to them?

Guess that depends on if you're going to pass E911 signaling or not.

(Yeah, yeah, yeah...I know...back in my day we used to be as much as a couple dozen feet away from a device capable of dialing 911. Now we must ensure and guarantee that people can still carry this around in the palm of their hand, because apparently humans are unable to function in life without 911 in their hand, so sayeth the lawyer...)

Re:Well then (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47292031)

I like the way you think.

Downside is the reason Stingray's work is that cellphones default to the compatible cell tower with the strongest signal where they currently are, so the stingray would have to at least be powerful enough that it appears stronger than more distant cell towers. Now it may be that that still allows them to stay below the threshold of what the FCC ignores, but it would be something that would make it require a certain minimum power level

Easy solution (3, Funny)

vandelais (164490) | about 3 months ago | (#47291459)

Have the manufacturer of the "so-called Stingray", whatever that means, change the branding or release a version called "confidential source".
After all, one of those "so-called Stingrays" killed Steve Irwin.

stingray (0)

rossdee (243626) | about 3 months ago | (#47291479)

aren.t they also used to take out people who hunt crocodiles?

Papers please, comrade. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47291519)

We don't need warrants. We don't need to disclose our methods. We don't need to tell the truth.

We're the fucking cops, and anything we do is OK because it's done in the name of justice.

Wake up, America. Your police state is happening all around you.

Doesn't this mean the Well is Poisoned? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47291547)

So if defendants who were prosecuted in situations where this tech was used were successfully prosecuted in the time after this request had been made, doesn't that mean that those prosecutions can now be challenged on admissability grounds? If so, it is easy to see why the government went to such lengths to keep the ACLU at bay.

Signal (5, Interesting)

SleepyHappyDoc (813919) | about 3 months ago | (#47291563)

I seem to remember an old jailbreak app for iPhones, called Signal I think, that triangulated positions of the cell towers you were connected to and plotted them on a map. I wonder if something like this could be used in an app, to warn people when a stingray was capturing their signal. If your app "remembers" the positions of towers, and it suddenly sees a new one, or it sees one that is not stationary, seems to me that'd be a good sign that something wasn't right. Is this possible, or am I misremembering?

Even better would be if the app connected with others to create a crowd-sourced database of where and when they are used.

Re:Signal (2)

NormalVisual (565491) | about 3 months ago | (#47291755)

MIT is already working on something similar [mit.edu] .

CTOS... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47291573)

After hacking my local CTOS system I am able to prevent law enforcement from tracking me

Perjury anyone? (4, Insightful)

EmperorOfCanada (1332175) | about 3 months ago | (#47291671)

Perjury anyone? Shouldn't there be a whole bus load of policemen going to jail? I am fairly certain that any of us would be going to jail if we deliberately falsified documents going to a judge for something as serious as a search warrant.

This would be an excellent exercise in eliminating a whole swath of police who don't respect our rights. I would also hope that they put them in general population so that they can encounter first hand the monsters that their injustices have created.

Re:Perjury anyone? (3, Insightful)

camperdave (969942) | about 3 months ago | (#47291829)

The problem isn't just the police officers; the ones who instructed the police to lie should also be getting jail time. Sadly, as others have pointed out, the only ones with the authority to bring them to justice is they themselves.

Re:Perjury anyone? (1)

countach (534280) | about 3 months ago | (#47292021)

This is outrageous, and what's worse, once the public believes the police will lie to secure the verdict they want, the confidence in the entire justice system is undermined.

The feds are scared (3, Interesting)

jonwil (467024) | about 3 months ago | (#47291673)

The feds are probably scared that if state cops release all this info (or allow it to be brought up in a court where defense lawyers could get the info in questioning), it could A.Allow the bad guys to figure out how to detect these devices (and therefore not do anything incriminating over their phones when they detect one or possibly even find ways to avoid the monitoring all together by e.g. switching carriers for their throwaway phones) or B.Give the bad guys information they could use to get a judge to say "you need a warrant to do what you did, you didn't get one therefore your evidence is inadmissible"

Re:The feds are scared (4, Insightful)

NormalVisual (565491) | about 3 months ago | (#47291765)

Of course they're afraid of that. Heaven forbid we actually allow the accused to exercise their right to a fair trial.

Re:The feds are scared (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47291777)

The feds are probably scared that people will figure out who the "real bad guys" are.

I'm Gonna Whistle Blow (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47291805)

What they don't tell you about the Stingray is the all sorts of illegal things it has been developed to do as a "fake" cell tower. This thing is capable of far more than triangulating a cell phone's location, all of which is a huge invasion of privacy. Because of the Stingray tech, there is only one real way to protect yourself from surveillance while carrying a cell phone: removal of the battery.

The cops are being encouraged by the government and Harris Corporation to keep from revealing these devices as a source because they want to avoid a situation where they have to reveal everything the Stingray is capable of doing.

For those who can make the connection, let's just say that I've lived in Melbourne for years.

The liars build the camps for themselves (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47291953)

All these official liars build all these FEMA camps for themselves, they just don't know it yet.

One day the people will get fed up with being lied to and spied on by all these officials without integrity.

There are historical and biblical precedents of such kind of unintended use of punishment devices build by alledgedly superior people.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>