Slashdot Mirror
Cops Say NDA Kept Them from Notifying Courts About Cell Phone Tracking Gadget
schwit1 writes "Police in Florida have offered a startling excuse for having used a controversial 'stingray' cell phone tracking gadget 200 times without ever telling a judge: the device's manufacturer made them sign a non-disclosure agreement that they say prevented them from telling the courts. The shocking revelation, uncovered by the American Civil Liberties Union, came during an appeal over a 2008 sexual battery case in Tallahassee in which the suspect also stole the victim's cell phone. Using the stingray — which simulates a cell phone tower in order to trick nearby mobile devices into connecting to it and revealing their location — police were able to track him to an apartment."
Confidentiality agreements do not supersede the law, court orders, the constitution, or anything else. Private contractual agreements always take a back seat to binding Law and Court Orders.
The police department in question probably asked for an NDA to give them rationalization for breaking the law.
On one side, they had an NDA prevention any disclosures about the device or it's use. On the other, if they used it they were obligated to tell the courts about it.
The legal solution is simple and obvious: don't use the damned thing. It's the only way to obey the law and avoid breech of contract at the same time.
In a situation where you actually cannot obey the law and a contract at the same time, the contract term is null and void. No legal contract can require a violation of the law.
More likely, they simply lied and made up an excuse where they look stupid, to protect themselves against looking criminal.
Most likely the NDA requires that they ask the court to seal documents, if it mentions the courts at all; most likely it was to prevent them from telling the media, or anybody else.
Using illegally gathered location data (for the stolen phone as well as the other $LARGENUMBER people in the area) & then failing to get a warrant to enter the premises after being refused entrance by the suspect's girlfriend is where they fucked up. All evidence past that point is not admissible. Fruit of a poison tree & all that.
Because the police & DA couldn't follow the simple rules that they are supposed to, a thief & rapist is going to walk. We should be livid & LEOs should be getting fired because of this.
There is a war going on for your mind.
Actually there is a law. The highest law. The 4th Amendment forbids general searches, which is the only thing this device enables.
Secondly, they want to apply the third party doctrine, specifically, if you share info with a phone company they can just hoover it up. But none of the people whose cell phones were affected made an agreement to share information with the cops directly -- the cops in this situation are not a third party, they're "the man" in the middle.
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
One can assume ONE of the following is true about the police department:
1. They are completely ignorant of the laws and the Constitution that they have sworn to uphold
2. They conspired to withhold information from the courts.
Either way, I believe that credit should be given where credit is due.
It takes time for someone to actually read the article.
The first responses are usually based on the headline (if we're lucky), the next few made it through at least part of the summary. Some if may be insightful, some not...
But its not until someone's actually read the article that any thing salient to the content of the article can get posted.