Slashdot Mirror


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

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.

27 of 251 comments (clear)

  1. And? by TemperedAlchemist · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:And? by msauve · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    2. Re:And? by stenvar · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:And? by Bartles · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

    4. Re:And? by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Federal Marshals ARE the DoJ. 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. Not gonna happen.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    5. Re:And? by tysonedwards · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

      --
      Thirty four characters live here.
    6. Re:And? by gstoddart · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    7. Re:And? by swillden · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    8. Re:And? by fuzznutz · · Score: 4, Informative

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

    9. Re:And? by Required+Snark · · Score: 4, Insightful
      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.

      --
      Why is Snark Required?
    10. Re:And? by camperdave · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    11. Re:And? by Darinbob · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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?

    12. Re:And? by rahvin112 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The president is not omnipotent.

      There is a reason that pre-9/11 there were laws on the books that limited the powers of the FBI and other federal police service's. We relaxed a LOT of those restrictions after 9/11 and a we're reaping the corruption those laws used to prevent.

      There is not much that's scarier than a someone who thinks they are doing the right thing by violating someone else's rights. It's a quick jump right into real fascism (not the word bandied about around the internet that most people don't know what it means and are misusing it). What makes real fascism so scary is that the people behind it are true believers that they are doing the right thing.

  2. Perjury? by Hairy1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?

  3. Re:Illegal, but very useful. by scottbomb · · Score: 4, Informative

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

  4. pejury by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  5. Does this taint any verdicts? by ShaunC · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Thanks to the War on Drugs, it's easier to buy meth than it is to buy cold medicine!
  6. Papers please, comrade. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  7. Signal by SleepyHappyDoc · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    --
    Stasis is death. Embrace change.
    1. Re:Signal by turp182 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Here's more info regarding the link that NormalVisual provided.

      Spidey is an Android app that tracks the cell towers available at a location and can supposedly notify you when new towers show up (or at least identify them by comparing against prior scans).

      I've been trying to use it, but I can't get it to pick up more than one tower at a time, in downtown St. Louis (I would expect several towers to be visible).

      Here's a presentation about the application:
      https://docs.google.com/presen...

      Here's the download link for the app:
      https://rink.hockeyapp.net/app...

      --
      BlameBillCosby.com
  8. Re:Why are all of you so naive ? by Runaway1956 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
  9. Perjury anyone? by EmperorOfCanada · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  10. Re:The feds are scared by NormalVisual · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

    --
    Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
  11. Re:Why are all of you so naive ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It isn't a partisan issue, but if anyone can fix it, it's the current administration. Previous administrations are no longer in power and future administrations haven't been elected yet. Obama could stop it but doesn't, so of course it's his fault.

  12. App to detect stingray by EmagGeek · · Score: 4, Insightful

    A stingray is basically just a base station emulator, right? It should be theoretically easy to detect whether or not your phone is connected to one based on the output power setting on your phone's radio, and knowing the distance to the legitimate towers around you.

    Since all phone adjust their power output to the minimum necessary to maintain a link to the base station, If the power setting on your phone is too low for the distance, there is a good chance you are connected to something much closer to you.

    All we need is an app that knows where all of the towers are located (freely available information on the web) and that can make a reasonable calculation as to how much power should be required to maintain a link for a given phone position.

    Any thoughts?

  13. Re:Why are all of you so naive ? by ganjadude · · Score: 4, Informative

    Did the Obama administration pass the Patriot Act?

    yes, actually he did, he re authorized it making it his now, he could have easily declared it over but instead he kept the power. it is his fault that we still have it

    Did the Obama administration create the secret courts?

    we dont know if he did or not, but we do know he is using them, there is no point in worrying about past presidents abuse when we have a current one abusing power

    Which surveillance laws, exactly, did Obama have passed?

    once again we simply dont know being that the most transparent government is about as transparent as tar, but we do know that under obama surveillance has increased, again this is something that he could have rolled back but didnt

    --
    have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
  14. Re:Why are all of you so naive ? by sjames · · Score: 5, Informative

    Actually, it *IS* their job.

    Meanwhile, this is the Department of Justice. It is most CERTAINLY their job to obey the Constitution and such basics as not commit or suborn perjury.