Stolen iPad's Reported Location Not Enough To Warrant Search, Say Dutch Police

lbalbalba writes "A location message sent from a stolen iPad by an anti-theft application turns out to be insufficient evidence to issue a search warrant for the Dutch authorities. A Dutch man reported his iPad as stolen to the Dutch authorities last month. Despite the fact that the rightful owner was able to locate his iPad within hours of the theft, thanks to the anti-theft application he had installed, the Dutch authorities did not issue a warrant to perform a search. According to the prosecutors, a search warrant is 'a very heavy measure,' that should only be used when there is 'sufficient suspicion.' The theft report by the owner was viewed as 'no objective evidence' in the case."

Comments

Plan B.

[Anonymous Coward]

That is when you grab the pistol out of the nightstand, take a cab over to the criminals house, break down the door and take justice into your own hands. At least you tried the legal way first.

Re:Plan B.

[Anonymous Coward]

A man notices that burglars are trying to break into his garage. He calls the police who tells him that they don't have any police officers available at the moment.

A few minutes later he calls the police and says that they don't need to bother because he just shot the burglars. The telephone operator is horrified and several police cars quickly arrive at the man's home and they catch the unharmed burglars red handed.

"Didn't you say that you shot the burglars?" one police officer asked.

"Didn't you say that you didn't have any police officers available?" the man retorted...

Re:Plan B.

[stms]

In Holland, like in most of the civilized world, people don't have pistols in their nightstand.

And then you wonder why you get your iPads stolen.

Re:Plan B.

[trongey]

In Holland, like in most of the civilized world, people don't have pistols in their nightstand.

Really? I never realized that nightstands were so scarce.

Re:Plan B.

[TheRaven64]

Statistics for burglaries per 100,000 people, using the most recent figures I could find (2006):

• USA: 714.4
• Holland: 427.5

Looks like those guns are doing a great job of protecting you. It's almost as if a culture that regards force as a valid solution to disputes encourages crime...

Re:Plan B.

[Anonymous Coward]

Imagine how many thefts and assults there would be if people did not have guns?

We have cities that imposed weapons bans within city limits, it did not reduce crime at all. In fact some of those cities have HIGHER rates of crimes and higher rates of murder and crimes committed with guns. The thiefs know that there is a very strong chance the potential victim will not have a gun.

Re:Plan B.

[Anonymous Coward]

Good one. :-)

Of course the next thing that would happen is the police arrest the homeowner for filing a false report, or abusing 911 resources, or wasting police officers' time on a crime of low priority. Or maybe just "disturbing the peace" which is the standard catch-all to arrest someone who did nothing wrong (like Professor Gates).

interestingness - disturbing the peace is NOT an arrestable offence (in the UK) once the act is over with unless the disturbance is 1) on going, or 2) likely to reoccur.

The police officer that tried to arrest me for such didn't like it when I pointed this out to him, but he checked and found that I was correct.

Re:Plan B.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's almost as if you don't know how statistics work. ("burglaries per 100,000 people").

If you want to keep chanting "we're #1", then please stop justifying gun ownership on the basis that you have lots of poor people.

Re:Plan B.

[Entropius]

Now look at education statistics in the US vs. Holland. We have so much crime here for reasons that have nothing at all to do with firearms. If we'd adopt something more like Dutch drug laws, or address inner-city education and culture issues, we'd have less crime. There are a whole lot more differences between the Americans and the Dutch that have nothing to do with guns.

Washington DC is one of the most crime-ridden cities in the US. It's also nearly impossible to legally own a firearm there. Same with Chicago.

Re:Plan B.

[AlecC]

Since the figures are per 100,000 people, I see no reason not to compare them. Holland has a much greater population density giving greater opportunities for burglary. The two countries have very similar average incomes, though spread differently.I think the comparison is as reasonable as any country-to-country comparison.

Re:Plan B.

[Baloroth]

Statistics for burglaries per 100,000 people, using the most recent figures I could find (2006):

• USA: 714.4
• Holland: 427.5

Looks like those guns are doing a great job of protecting you. It's almost as if a culture that regards force as a valid solution to disputes encourages crime...

On the other hand, in the UK whith some of the strictest gun laws in the world, there were 1,157.7 burglaries per 100,000 people (also, conveniently, in 2006 statistics). It's almost as if two data points are insufficient to establish a causative or even correlative relation of any kind.

Re:Plan B.

[meerling]

Old joke, but too closely based in reality.
Twice we had people firing guns at our house when it was evening and we were on the porch. Saw the muzzleflash both times. Cops wouldn't even call us back, much less drive by and see if there were any bodies.

My brother was doing security at night and called in some intruders that had broken in. The cops said they wouldn't send anybody else, so he said, "guess that means I'll have to shoot them." and hung up. Cops were there in less than 5 minutes.

It seems if it's not giving a traffic ticket, the local cops don't give a sh##.

Re:Plan B.

[Anonymous Coward]

No, the 100,000 people in the USA weigh 67.34% more.

Re:Plan B.

[jlar]

But burglary is only one crime parameter. If you look at a broader range of crime statistics the picture is less clear cut. Rape is for example twice as prevalent in Holland as in the US. Overall victimization is also higher in Holland. But other crime statistics show less crime in Holland.

http://www.nationmaster.com/compare/Netherlands/United-States/Crime

Re:Plan B.

[Quiet_Desperation]

That's why this is so sad. A geek site? People supposed to be generally good at math? Yet you see just as many bullshit statistics thrown around here as on Fox News comment sections.

Re:Plan B.

[Applekid]

There's more to it than just population density. Compared to the US, Holland has a much better social net to prevent the proliferation of crime that poverty brings.

When you're hungry, it's easier to break laws to eat. A liberalized drug policy also doesn't force people to become criminals and basically lock them out of the career workforce by making recreational users felons and career criminals. I'll admit I don't know, but I'm pretty sure there isn't that disaffected youth "gang culture" that glorifies basically rejecting honest work, education, and trying to better oneself that seems to be pervasive with the poor within the US's densely populated cities.

Re:Plan B.

[nbritton]

This is a really old joke. It was very funny to me at first, but in reality by making that false 911 call you're buying yourself a free ticket to be arrested and jailed for the night. And for good reason.

Why is that a good reason? If cops would actually do what they're "supposed" to do and catch a robber, that wouldn't have been necessary. Instead they were probably more concerned with sitting on the side of the road raising revenue or harassing some pot smokers.

I think your absolutely right, if a class 1 felony is not important enough to get the cops off their ass they should be fired. No prosecutor would prosecute you for doing something like this, for starters they would look like a fool at trial and it would bring to light the neglagince of the police. Committing a crime to stop a more grievous crime is also a complete defense, provided it's not excessive (n-1 is generally acceptable). If they were stupid enough to charge you with a crime you would have them by the balls and hypothetically if it got all the way to a trial you could just testify that you shot them with your camera.

Re:Plan B.

[tsa]

Crime rates here in Holland also vary by the racial and ethnic makeup of each region. And I thought there were places in the big US cities where the police doesn't really like to come anymore because the inhabitants of those places are so well armed?

Re:Plan B.

[trum4n]

Exactly. I do not own a gun, but the simple matter is: Bad guys have illegal guns, no matter how illegal they are. Good guys only have guns if they are legal. Taking away our right to protection does not take away the bad guys' illegal guns.

Re:Plan B.

[aynoknman]

Rape is for example twice as prevalent in Holland as in the US.

Are these statistics controlled for different definitions of rape, different reporting levels, etc.? I suspect not.

Re:Plan B.

[Lumpy]

While the people in Holland have 75% less Glaucoma but 80% more cravings of munchies.

Re:Plan B.

[Kjella]

No, it's almost as if a culture with a huge population of poor people encourages crime. It's cute to compare tiny little Holland to the US though.

Don't forget retarded people, because it's the only country I know that doesn't understand concepts like "per person", "per square kilometer" or other forms of normalization.

"Guns in nightstands protect against crime" "Here's some crime figures per 100,000 inhabitants" "Cute, but you can't compare a big and small country" "???"

"We can't build fast Internet in the US, the population is too thin." "Uh but this country does with a lower population density than yours (people/km^2)" "Cute, but you can't compare a big and small country" "???"

"We're not so bad polluters, China emits more CO2 than us" "Yes but China is 1.33 billion people and you're 300 million, per person you emit more than triple what a Chinese person does." "Hurr durr, I ignore what you said and China is worse". "???"

Arguing here I get enough stupid from both posters and moderators to make me want to tear my hair out and then I remember this is supposed to be the intelligentsia of the US, the nerds. I guess that's true when I see the support a guy like Santorum has, but you're over a hurdle about two inches high. Could someone please teach Slashdot some remedial math classes so my intelligence stops being insulted? Believe it or not, it is possible to compare the US to other countries even if they have different sizes and populations. Everywhere else this is accepted but here I sometimes feel like I just preached evolution in a southern baptist church group.

Re:Plan B.

[doggo]

Horseshit! Most people who own (hand)guns own them for "home protection", presumably burglary & home invasion.The problem with that is that most people never experience a home invasion, unless they're involved in the distribution or manufacture of illegal drugs. And burglars typically don't come armed, since if they're caught doing a burglary while armed the penalties are much harsher.

So these people who own guns for "home protection" are not typically carrying them when they are assaulted or robbed on the street.

On top of all that is the actual usefulness of guns in the first place. Unless you're well trained and practicing regularly, handguns are pretty useless for actually shooting a person who doesn't want to be shot. Ever go to a gun range? If you do, look at how ridiculously close most handgun shooters have their targets. At that range, you're better off running up to your foe and punching them. Shotguns and rifles are far better firearms for shooting under pressure of threat. But most citizens can't walk around their city armed with a rifle or shotgun.

Most of the arguments for handgun ownership are specious at best. And the most ardent gun advocates live in areas with very little threat from "the bad guys".

And for what it's worth, yes, I am a handgun owner.

Re:Plan B.

[oldmac31310]

Many Americans seem to think that all Dutch people are white Dutch people, all French people are white French people etc. and that somehow the U.S. invented immigration and multi racial society (just like they invented everything else). There seems little point in trying to disabuse them of their ignorance.

Re:Plan B.

[shutdown -p now]

On top of all that is the actual usefulness of guns in the first place. Unless you're well trained and practicing regularly, handguns are pretty useless for actually shooting a person who doesn't want to be shot. Ever go to a gun range? If you do, look at how ridiculously close most handgun shooters have their targets. At that range, you're better off running up to your foe and punching them.

That's bullshit. Most people actually place targets too far on the handgun range, because, statistically, the person trying to assault you is almost guaranteed to be within 5 meters from you when you notice them and start to react. And even a person that has minimal gun practice will have no problem unloading a full magazine into a human-size figure at that distance (from personal experience - I could easily group shots within a 5-inch circle or so at 15 feet when I first tried to shoot a handgun - and that was a compact Glock, not some kind of match gun).

Most certainly, you're not better of running up to your foe and punching them. For one, it's still slower than aiming and squeezing the trigger. For another, it does not do anything to stop a determined assailant, unless you're physically much stronger than they are.

The reason why handguns are superior self-defense tools (compared to e.g. martial arts training) is precisely because an average person can learn to use one very efficiently in self-defense situations that actually have any likelihood of occurring in real life with minimal time and effort invested into learning the ropes and maintaining the skill.

Re:Plan B.

[buck-yar]

UK's homocide rate in 2010 was 1.23 / 100,000
Vermont's was 1.12.

Vermont has the fewest gun laws of any of the 50 states. You do not need a permit to carry concealed. UK has some of the world's strictest gun laws.

Re:Plan B.

[MisterMidi]

There are no statistics for burglaries per square miles here in The Netherlands. We use the metric system.

Re:Plan B.

[sdguero]

The point is that America is big, like our penises.

Lessons learnt.

[MRe_nl]

Whatever you do,
whatever happens:
Don't call the police.

Re:Lessons learnt.

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't call the police.

Unless you're a cop or family member of one. If this was a cop's personal iPad, and not John Q Publics, the story would of read something like:

"Dutch police and SWAT team raided an apartment early Wednesday morning over stolen goods. The thief was shot multiple times after an iPad with a 'gun-sounds' app installed, was mistaken for a real weapon. As a routine measure, all cops have been placed on paid leave, pending an investigation. No other stolen items were recovered."

Re:Lessons learnt.

[mcgrew]

Whatever you do, whatever happens: Don't call the police.

That's incredibly bad advice. My bank called me at work last April asking if I was missing some checks, that someone had tried to cash an obviously forged one. When I got home I found my back door broken open and a lot of stuff gone -- including an almost ful box of checks. I called the cops, who took the report, went to the bank and viewed the video, and arrested the guy half an hour later.

However, he had accomplices. Over the next year (it's still going on) I would get notices from merchants that I'd cashed checks on a closed account. Of course I cloised if after the theft! I sent all of them copies of the police report, and the fraudulent bastards, every single one, turned them into the county's State's Attorney anyway.

Had I not reported the burglary I could have wound up in prison for those damned stolen checks.

If you get in an automobile accident you had damned well better call the cops, because if you don't you're jailhouse-bound. If there is an injury you've committed a felony, and the cops are pretty damned serious about folks leaving the scene of an accident.

Now, someone attcks you in a bar? Don't call the cops, they're as likely to arrest you as your attacker.

Re:Lessons learnt.

[theshowmecanuck]

What you obviously lack is life experience. Here is an example in the moving industry in Toronto to help you with that. It is well known that there are scam artists out there who will quote you a price and then try to jack up the prices of the move by charging you a hefty deposit, loading your stuff, and then telling you there were "extra charges for extra work" before unloading. And if you don't pay they drive off with your goods. For the longest time and often even now when you call the police they (would) tell you it is a civil matter, even though it looks, feels, and smells like fraud. Quote from the link:

I have called the police and reported how I was intimidated and asked to go to the bank and get more money before they even finished loading my furniture, and the officer practically told me that this is a civil matter and there's not much they can do about this.

I got screwed like this once. But fortunately (if that is even applicable), it was one quite small load. However it has happened to others many times and in many places for hundreds and even thousands of dollars.

Finally the police arrested one crew for doing this to one poor soul. Then it turned out that the victim in this case was an off duty police officer. This was the first time many people had heard of actual criminal charges in these cases.

Charming. It's a shame the police didn't cotton on to this earlier: they admit that they ignored many earlier reports because they sounded like civil, not criminal, disputes. What changed? We certainly can't say, but CBC Radio was reporting yesterday that one of the victims of this scam was a police officer.

Now this was at least a couple of years ago so references are hard to find among all the advertising cruft and bullshit that google always returns, but there should be enough in the links etc I posted to show I'm not bullshitting. The only reason the police did anything was because it was one of their own. That is not paranoid delusions. That is reality. Before you make judgments, get out of the basement or whatever insular world you are in and see the world or at least pay attention to it.

It is a well know human trait that people protect their own. Police are no different.

Happened to a friend of mine.

[mhajicek]

A friend of mine in California had his house broken into. His iPad and a shotgun were stolen. He tracked the phone to the trunk of a car, told the police, and they did nothing.

Re:Happened to a friend of mine.

[CanHasDIY]

He tracked the phone to the trunk of a car, told the police, and they did nothing.

Consequently, if anything happens to the vehicle he tracked the phone to or the person who owns it, your friend will become suspect #1, all because he made the mistake of talking to the police.

Re:Happened to a friend of mine.

[ClioCJS]

Police are just there to "stop" drugs, "stop" prostitution, and beat protesters. They don't actually care about crime that affects the average person. I've had a gun pointed at my head for trying to ask directions, but when I get robbed, they won't even take a report because "the phone system is down and you have to drive 40 minutes to make the report in person". But oh, you'll make me turn my marijuana-legalization-themed shirt inside out at my sister's public high school graduation under threat of arrest. It's good that we have our fucking priorities straight.

Re:Happened to a friend of mine.

[wjhoffman1983]

This is the way it should be. Any Joe Programmer can make an app that makes it look like stolen goods are behind that closed door. Taking evidence from theft prevention and tracking apps is the exact same as taking the victim's word for it.

Re:Happened to a friend of mine.

[Skater]

This could be the most insightful comment so far. The police supposedly use and believe Lojack; what would it take for them to rely on Apple's Find My Phone (or whatever it is) and equivalent similar options for electronic devices?

Re:Happened to a friend of mine.

[guttentag]

A friend of mine in California had his house broken into. His iPad and a shotgun were stolen. He tracked the phone to the trunk of a car, told the police, and they did nothing.

Perhaps they were skeptical because he seemed to believe that either his iPad or his shotgun was a phone.

Re:Happened to a friend of mine.

[kikito]

Not the same thing.

The sworn statement means "if later it is discovered that I was lying, then I'm committing a crime".

If an app says that my iPad is in a house, and that turns to be false, then I'm not commiting a crime - I'm not "responsible" for what the app says.

Re:Happened to a friend of mine.

[eepok]

Liability. It always comes down to liability. Lojack stands behind their product and their training. That's why police departments trust it. It's the same with OnStar calling an ambulance on your behalf or your ability to prove that a car belongs to your by showing matching photo ID and vehicle registration. These are well funded systems with throngs of support people, very high risk, and thus very high insurance for their products and actions.

When liability is externalized and the PD can point to another entity to say, "Hey, it's their system. If they're wrong and we do wrong by trusting them, they will hold the liability." When they can't, they don't trust the external identification system.

If you want the PD to trust Apple's Find My Phone or similar programs, they have to start a relationship with various PDs, give them training, and have massive insurance themselves. Then the cost of such programs will go up and actually start to match the value of the service (just like Lojack).

Re:Happened to a friend of mine.

[JWSmythe]

    You have to consider what the other possibilities are.

    I see a guy put an iPad in the trunk of his car. I call the police and say that my iPad was stolen, and describe the car and the license place number. So what do they do? Arrest the guy with the iPad, and let you walk with it?

    Your evidence is shaky at best. So you put some tracking software on his device? You fabricated some evidence? It's not unreasonable to believe that you may spend a few minutes fabricating evidence to steal a $500 toy.

    If it were something like a stolen car, you'd have a better chance with it, because the car is registered with the state. If you've identified him, file a civil charge against him.

    We had an incident in California, where a friends store was shot up in the middle of the night. We compiled video evidence from the surveillance cameras. He circled the building once before shooting out the front windows. There were distinguishing marks on the vehicle. A couple store employees recognized the vehicle, and identified who the owner was. We went to the guys house, and I shot video of the distinguishing marks on the vehicle and license plate number. I wrote an affidavit stating the evidence discovered, the purpose of making the video of the vehicle, when and where the videos were made, and other details that I personally knew and discovered.

    We provided the videos and affidavit to the police. It got stuck in a pile and ignored. It took about 2 weeks, and multiple calls from the owner of the store to finally get a detective to look at it. When he did review it, he thanked us for handing him the case on a silver platter.

    They cross referenced it with other cases, and found the same caliber weapon was used in other incidents in that area, on the same night.

    With this evidence, they got a search warrant for the guys vehicle and house. When they arrived, he told them everything. He was drunk, and pissed off, so he shot at businesses that he thought had wronged him. He told them where to find the gun, which was under the seat of his vehicle.

    Video evidence of the crime. Identification of the person involved, and vehicle involved, with a few affidavits stating the facts. That's evidence.

    If I just said "Hey, my iPad is in the trunk of his car, go arrest him" isn't evidence. Sure, they could ask him. What's he going to say? "No, that's my iPad." It falls into "unreasonable search and seizure" if they search his car anyways.

    Consider the opposite.

    I know you have an iPad. So I call the police and say you stole my iPad, because I can show the IP belongs to the same provider that yours does, or the GPS signal was last seen in the vicinity of your house. You'd be very upset to have the police knocking on your door, demanding to search the premises for a stolen iPad, and even more so if they seized *your* iPad with some schmuck saying "nope, that's mine".

Re:Happened to a friend of mine.

[mcgrew]

Had he not reported the stolen shotgun and the thief got caught shooting someone with it, they'll assume he sold the firearm to a convicted felon and arrested him.

Yes, if the thief is the victim of an attack, he'll certainly be a "person of interest" but do you rally think a criminal is going to call the cops because somebody beat the shit out of him? The thief won't even call the cops if your friend broke the thief's trunk open and got his phone and gun back.

Thieves generally avoid the police whenever they can.

Re:Happened to a friend of mine.

[mhajicek]

i-devices have unique serial numbers, sim numbers, etc. These are registered with service providers. It should be a very simple matter to identify the true owner of a device by making a single phone call.

Bias

[DEFFENDER]

And once again we find that it's only true to a government if their own agencies or personnel tell them it's so. A private citizen should be able to produce evidence and have it considered with the same weight as something produced by a policing force. Providing obtaining that evidence didn't violate the law in any way.

You can bet that if it had been the police that can up with that GPS location they would have a warrant in hand tight now.

Hardly a surprise...

[Anonymous Coward]

The Dutch police doesn't even enter an house when there are two of them and they literally hear someone get tortured to death. I'm not making this up; this actually happened. The officers in front of the house could hear screams and moans and did absolutely nothing.

Want more? Neighbors heard a woman cry and scream for help and it sounded so distressful that they called the police. The police came, rang the doorbell an after a small talk they left, never to bother with his again. 3 months later it turned out that the woman in question was being held by her will, prostituted, treated in extreme inhumane ways and well... "The police thinks they may have made a mistake by not entering the premices".

And the list goes on and on.

On the positive side. If you manage to speed a little on the Dutch highways (you know, reckless driving where you dare to drive 85 - 86 km/hr instead of the allowed 80 km/hr) then chances are very high that you will get a speeding ticket. That's where the Dutch police truly excels.

So quite frankly, within this context this can hardly come as a surprise.

Not Bias

[tverbeek]

That's not what this is about at all. The Netherlands is a country that takes its fundamental privacy-from-the-police assurances more seriously than the US does.

Re:Funny...

[lxs]

No Dutch police thought that the iPhone theft was none of their business because that happened on an entirely different continent.

I think you just hit on the crux of the problem!

[King_TJ]

Reality is, cops generally don't want citizens "interfering" in the law enforcement process,in any way, shape or form. That's why you regularly hear stories of individuals getting arrested for chasing down a criminal who broke into their home, etc. etc. The typical line? "Leave that work to the police!"

Sure, they want you to call them and make the initial report (as long as they consider it something serious enough to be worthy of their time and energy -- which varies wildly by department and what they've got on their plate). But they don't want you to do any "detective work" for them.

A friend of mine had his truck broken into, right in front of my house, some years back. They stoke his new Alpine stereo head-unit, his cellphone and his wallet, which he had under the seat. He called the cops and besides dusting for fingerprints on his truck's door, they didn't do much of anything but take an initial report.

He got the idea to try calling his cellphone, and the thief actually answered the phone! He got the guy to agree to meet him in a public parking lot at a certain time, by promising him he'd pay him some cash just to get back his wallet with drivers' license and other info in it (and told him he could keep the stereo). He called the cops to tell them what he managed to arrange, and you know what their response was? They didn't have the time or resources to go out there and wait around for the thief to show up!

After that, he realized he was able to log into his cellphone provider's website and get a detailed call log of everywhere the thief called using his phone. The guy had been using it to call girlfriends, buddies, etc. etc. The log was 3 or 4 pages long with local calls the guy was making! He printed that out and gave it to the cops. Guess what? They still couldn't manage to do anything with it!

He wound up better off just claiming all the losses on his insurance and getting all new stuff .... but it just goes to show? Cops completely disregard any detective work done by anything other then their own people, even if it's really GOOD work that would make an arrest a piece of cake for them.

sorry to interrupt this gun discussion

[roc97007]

Something I don't understand --

> According to the prosecutors, a search warrant is 'a very heavy measure,' that should only be used when there is 'sufficient suspicion.' The theft report by the owner was viewed as 'no objective evidence' in the case."

So, what *would* be considered objective evidence? Does a law enforcement offer actually have to witness a crime before the authorities will pursue it? So, for instance, I'm robbed on the street, but there's no objective evidence that it happened because the crime was not observed? How does that work in The Netherlands?

Double standards for network tracking

[goodmanj]

For those playing at home: network tracking and identification isn't enough to even grant a search warrant for theft of physical property, but it's enough evidence to convict in a case of "theft" of intellectual property.

Double standards much?