Judge: It's OK For Cops To Create Fake Instagram Accounts

An anonymous reader writes with a ruling that seems obvious in a case about police making a fake Instagram account. A federal judge in New Jersey has signed off on the practice of law enforcement using a fake Instagram account in order to become "friends" with a suspect — thus obtaining photos and other information that a person posts to their account. "No search warrant is required for the consensual sharing of this type of information," United States District Judge William Martini wrote in an opinion published last Tuesday. In other news, an undercover officer still doesn't need to tell you that he or she is a member of law enforcement if you ask.

Comments

Not seeing the issue here

[LordLimecat]

Is anyone confused by the fact that cops can lie in the course of their work? Because thats something everyone should be crystal clear on: they can.

Or maybe people dont understand that things you share with a cop, even "off the record", can be on the record. That, too, is a myth that should be dispelled.

Re:Not seeing the issue here

[Jiro]

I'm not fine even with that. If a cop lies and says he has evidence against a suspect, but the suspect is innocent, he is likely to think the police are willing to frame him, and may falsely confess just to avoid being framed for something worse.

Re:Not seeing the issue here

[matria]

And then the public defender you're assigned because you can't afford a decent lawyer tells you to go ahead and plead guilty to the lesser charge, even though everyone knows it's a false charge (the accusing party has a long history of making such charges and is well-known to the local police and judiciary) since it really doesn't mean anything, and you'll just get probation, but if you take it to trial they'll be mad and will throw the book at you. And two weeks after you are frightened and pressured into pleading guilty, and are sentenced to several years in prison, your lawyer is hired by the state as an assistant prosecutor.

Re:Not seeing the issue here

[Archtech]

That doesn't seem to be quite in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, or the Bill of Rights. "Land of the smart enough to avoid being framed by the justice system" - doesn't have the same ring, does it? Especially since (ironically enough) simply being smart doesn't cut it - you need street smarts, expert knowledge, and best of all contacts.

That's it" "Land of the well-connected".

Re:Not seeing the issue here

[Spamalope]

I will never understand when it became ok for those charged with enforcing the law to lie without shame.

Then in court these professional liars are held up as the most credible of witnesses.

Re:Not seeing the issue here

[davydagger]

because of the "war on drugs, war on crime", they got a whole people scared into giving up their civil rights decades ago, and we now think this is normal. Anytime someone gets a group together to oppose this, they are harrassed by the cops using the same techniques, and made an example of. We are taught in schools, and re-enforced in the media, there is no line between dissent, and rebellion, rebellion and crime, and crime and oppression. The government is our friends, and all critics are criminals. We give a really wide benefit of the doubt to cops.

We create a whole list of fear words like junkie, terrorist, psycho, of which we see a whole underclass ready to swallow society, and the government's wrongs, slight and only exiting to protect us from imaginary enemies. We have TV news shows telling us how we are all the privledged class, and social justice is aimed as us, not the system, while simultaneously misdirecting citizens at eachother.

Our political movements create conspiracies against eachother, and exhonorate the guilty.

Truth is, you're more likely to be shot by a police officer than a crazy on a spree shooting. More likely to die from a hand gun than an infantry rifle, and more likely to be killed by obeiseity than recreational drug use.(3 times as likely)

Sounds fine by me

[Kjella]

As long as the character they create is entirely fictional and not based on impersonating someone they know is a friend of the suspect, I'm fine with it. Cops running around trying to "friend" people in my name is not.

I.D. Please

[magusxxx]

Let's say I own an internet business. I notice that a profile is fake and delete it off the system. Suddenly, I'm told by the police it was theirs. And, if I don't put it back up it's obstruction of justice. Note: Told to do so, not "here's a court order." Does the ruling make this scenario feasible? And if so, what is the liability for the company if they do or don't make the account viable again.

Re: Why wouldn't it be?

[bill_mcgonigle]

Because it's identity fraud which is illegal and it's violating the ToS, which is contract fraud, which is illegal. Well, illegal for the plantation workers, anyhow.