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.

12 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 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!
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
  2. 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.

  3. 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!
  4. 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.

  5. 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.
  6. 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
  7. 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.

  8. 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.