Slashdot Mirror
Police Busted When Tracking Device Found On Car
uh oh notes a story from Down Under where a police investigation came to a screeching halt as a man being investigated by the police found tracking devices in two of his cars, ripped them out, and listed them on an auction site. "Ralph Williams, of Cromwell, said he found the devices last week in his daughter's car, which he uses, and in his flatmate's car after the cars were seized by police and taken away for investigation."
And what kind of law requires a warrent to do something, except when the police are claiming they are in a hurry and don't need a warrent if they think the judge will be on their side?
You do realize that the US has very similar rules of evidence, right? That whole 'exigent circumstances' thing? There are similar rules for FISA wiretaps, even before this whole NSA scandal thing, in that DHS could have tapped someone's phone then gone and gotten a warrent retrospectively.
It's more limited than the scope of this law seems to be, but the idea is by no means absent from the US legal system.
And why wouldn't he? There are perfectly legitimate reasons to have plastic tubing and a squeeze ball with a one-way valve. Legitimate enough that they sell a kit at Benny's.
The subject in this case, Ralph Williams, has been arrested for theft of property. See http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/1318360/1336811 for a more recent article.
I suppose the police will argue that listing the items as police bugs on an auction site shows awareness that the bugs weren't his to sell. Thus, he'd "stolen" them by their logic.
Mr. Williams' day in court promises to be interesting...
-Isaac
I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. For Entertainment Purposes Only.
fortunately here in NZ we have neither republicans or democrats ..... well actually we do have 'republicans' - they are in favor or doing away with the queen as head of state - not the same as the 'merkin republicans who at the moment seem to be rather enamoured of queens in public restrooms
New Zealand is not in Australia, did you not notice the .co.nz rather than .com.au ?
FYI, the article is referring to New Zealand, which is not yet a state of Australia.
My apologies to Australia, I misread that part.
And as I recall, the judge in that particular case only ruled against using OnStar to eavesdrop because it interfered with the proper operation of the OnStar communicator, so that if the drivers had experienced some sort of emergency they wouldn't have been able to use it to call for help - much like the police bugging your phone in a way that prevents you from being able to call 911. It didn't have anything to do with the eavesdropping being objectionable to the courts in principle.
"A Cromwell man who found police surveillance gear in two cars they returned to him has been arrested for theft of property.".
"He's running for it! He's heading for Texas! Stop him!"
From Google Maps;
"We could not calculate driving directions between New Zealand and Dallas Texas."
Maybe Mapquest could do better..
The truth shall set you free!
RTFA????? Having just RTFA, I have determined that you pulled the second part of your quotation out of your bloody ass. The actual quote is:
"When contacted by The Press, Shaw declined to comment other than to say: 'Police use a variety of legitimate investigation techniques when investigating serious crime. However, it is not the policy of the police to comment on those techniques or other operational matters.'
"Shaw would not say whether a warrant had been obtained for the devices. The Summary Proceedings Act, which covers tracking devices, says a warrant should be obtained for a tracking device but an officer can install one without a warrant if there is not time and the officer believes a judge would issue a warrant."
Busted!
The problem with that philosophy is who gets to classify someone as reasonable?
Strangely enough, in the American system, the courts do. Many laws are based around what a "reasonable" person would do with the interpretation of reasonable being left up to the courts. It's impossible to write laws that take into account all possible situations. That's why we have a judicial system which as the job of interpreting the laws and applying them to real life situations.
You two have been the only two really insightful posters. But in the end you two are not so smart after all because now you will receive special treatment.