Mainly because "We The People" allow our rights and liberties to be trampled on.
U.S. District Judge xxxxxxx xxxxxx in Manhattan on Tuesday ruled that defendant xxxxxxx xxxxxx' rights were violated when the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration used such a device without a warrant to find his Washington Heights apartment.
The DEA had used a stingray to identify xxxxxx' apartment as the most likely location of a cell phone identified during a drug-trafficking probe. xxxxxx said doing so constituted an unreasonable search.
"Absent a search warrant, the government may not turn a citizen's cell phone into a tracking device," xxxxxx wrote.
The ruling marked the first time a federal judge had suppressed evidence obtained using a stingray, according to the American Civil Liberties Union, which like other privacy advocacy groups has criticized law enforcement's use of such devices.
"This opinion strongly reinforces the strength of our constitutional privacy rights in the digital age," ACLU attorney xxxxxx xxxxx xxxxxxx said in a statement.
It was unclear whether prosecutors would seek to appeal. A spokeswoman for Manhattan U.S. Attorney xxxxx xxxxxxx, whose office was prosecuting the case, declined to comment.
Stingrays, also known as "cell site simulators," mimic cell phone towers in order to force cell phones in the area to transmit "pings" back to the devices, enabling law enforcement to track a suspect's phone and pinpoint its location.
Critics of the technology call it invasive and say it has been regularly used in secret to catch suspect in violation of their rights under the U.S. Constitution.
The ACLU has counted 66 agencies in 24 states and the District of Columbia that own stingrays but said that figure underrepresents the actual number of devices in use given what it called secrecy surrounding their purchases.
A Maryland appeals court in March became what the ACLU said was the first state appellate court to order evidence obtained using a stingray suppressed. xxxxxx's decision was the first at the federal level.
The U.S. Justice Department in September changed its internal policies and required government agents to obtain a warrant before using a cell site simulator.
xxxxxxx xxxxxxx, xxxxxx' lawyer, noted that occurred a week after his client was charged. He said it was unclear if the drug case against xxxxxx would now be dismissed.
Mainly because "We The People" allow our rights and liberties to be trampled on.
"They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither."
In other words, as "We the people.." allow the government (i.e., via laws and LE) to continuously erode our freedoms (constitutional rights) under the guise of safety and/or security, we will have neither freedom nor safety.
True; It never seems to occur to them when they get a new device to ask whether they should use it however they please, they just do so until told what they are doing is illegal. And yes, we would all be better served by a better informed populace who would actually vote most of the time.
Even if the evidence is thrown out LE will still use the technology. They just won't admit it or try to get a warrant based on it. And it ll be up to you to prove that they were using it.
Well, it's good news / bad news.
This decision is clearly some of the greatest news I have heard in a long time. Now the bad news...
1. The DoJ has generally had success winning these on appeal. For instance, placing a tracking device on your car without a warrant was ruled to be legal by the supreme court. Almost certainly, this will be reversed on appeal.
2. Here's the really really bad news. Knowing that using Stingray for civilian law enforcement is on pretty shaky ground, the DoJ rendered one of their rulings a few years ago that end up having the force of law. (Like was used to protect agents who conducted waterboarding from prosecution.) DoJ has determined that the use of Stingray even for civil law enforcement is protected by national security requirements for secrecy about Stingray's full capabilities. Thus it is the stated position of DoJ that federal agents are expressly prohibited from revealing to the judge or prosecutor that data was collected using Stingray, even if ordered to do so by the judge. In other words, judges will only throw out Stingray evidence in those rare instances where they accidentally became aware that Stingray was used. In most cases, they will not know, and by "law" cannot be told, so this rulings has very little effect at the federal level