Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

When It Comes To Spy Gear, Many Police Ignore Public Records Laws

Posted by timothy on from the muck-rocks! dept.

v3rgEz writes What should take precedence: State public records laws, or contractual agreements between local police, the FBI, and the privately owned Harris Corporation? That's the question being played out across the country, as agencies are strongly divided on releasing much information, if any, on how they're using Stingray technology to collect and monitor phone metadata without judicial oversight.

11 of 78 comments (clear)

  1. The Constitution is Clear - Tenth Amendment by Bodhammer · · Score: 3, Informative

    "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

    --
    "I say we take off, nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure."
    1. Re:The Constitution is Clear - Tenth Amendment by currently_awake · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Illegal terms in a contract are null and void. Any contract requiring illegal activity is not a legal (enforceable) contract. It's sad that police are not experts on the law, it's worse that we have no way to force them to follow/obey the law.

    2. Re:The Constitution is Clear - Tenth Amendment by onproton · · Score: 5, Interesting

      "The test for whether one is living in a police state is that those who are charged with enforcing the law are allowed to break the laws with impunity." -- J. Roland

    3. Re:The Constitution is Clear - Tenth Amendment by radarskiy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "Just because they conflict with public record laws doesn't make the terms illegal."

      That is *literally* what the word "illegal" means.

      Your example is irrelevant because it is a conflict between to contracts, not a contract and a law.

    4. Re:The Constitution is Clear - Tenth Amendment by radarskiy · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I recommend that you clarify your comment or else someone might mistake you for believing that the States are sovereign rather than the people.

      Unlike the First Amendment, the Fourth through Sixth Amendments do not specifically constrain the federal government therefore they protect the people against the States as well. In addition, the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment specifically constrains the states.

  2. Silly rabbit by penguinoid · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Laws are for the little people.

    --
    Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
  3. No prosecutor is going to rock the boat by schwit1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is real life - not Law & Order. The prosecutor can do little if he alienates the police and feds. To that end his ambition will ALWAYS trump the law or his oath.

    1. Re:No prosecutor is going to rock the boat by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Insightful

      To that end his ambition will ALWAYS trump the law or his oath.

      That is what the voters want. They will vote for the guy endorsed by the police over someone who was merely ethical. If you want things to change, look for who the police endorse, and then vote for the other guy. Convince others to do the same. The police should not be allowed to choose their political masters.

    2. Re:No prosecutor is going to rock the boat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      In an adversarial system the prosecutor is theoretically supposed to zealously apply the criminal law. Theoretically the source of the problem are the legislatures, who have passed sweeping criminal laws that permit prosecutors to slap even petty criminals with a ridiculously long list of charges with ridiculous penalties. This is why everybody takes a plea deal.

      In reality, though, I agree that prosecutors have an ethical duty to not apply the overreaching criminal laws that the legislature keeps passing. But because the laws exist, and the prosecutor is sworn to uphold them, it's kind of difficult to accuse any prosecutor who doesn't out-and-out flout the law (like hiding evidence) for being unethical.

      If you're seriously interested in the issue, I suggest reading "The Collapse of American Criminal Justice", by the late Harvard law professor William Stuntz. Not only was Stuntz one of the nations' pre-eminent scholars on criminal justice, he was a conservative evangelical. I mention that only because I want to point out that the book is not some kind of left-leaning, free Mumia Abu-Jamal type thing. Not only are the theories solid (including debunking broken window policing, etc), it's actually a ridiculously well researched historical survey of the history of American criminal justice. The book is chock-full of numbers and statistics going all the way back to the founding of the country, many of which he and his research assistants had to compile themselves. In other words, it contains a lot of strong, original research. He backs up his theories (none of which are earth shattering or especially controversial) with hard evidence. What's great about the book isn't some deep insight, just that it paints an unobjectionable and comprehensive picture of the evolution of the system in a way that has never been done before. You can't _not_ disagree with this conclusions, no matter your political persuasion.

      The sad thing is that American criminal laws have been getting more strict since almost the very beginning, although slavery and immigration brought some ups-and-downs along the way. But the degeneration has basically been 200-year-long trend.

  4. Slashdot Is Fox News for Lefties But Worse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The linked to article, written by the organization that's trying to get the records, is more fair than the Slashdot summary. If you read the actual article, you'll see that it's not a case of policy "ignoring public records laws". In a lot of the cases, the states are claiming that Stingray documents fall under the exceptions IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS LAWS. That's not "ignoring the law." If the requesting party appeals, they still have to convince a judge that that's the correct interpretation of the law. In the states where the documents don't potentially fall under such an exception, they still have a *contract* with the federal government that requires them to allow the federal government to exhaust their own legal options before releasing the data. The Contract Clause "No state shall .... pass any ... Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts" combined with the Supremacy Clause (which basically says that the constitution and federal laws made in accordance with it are the law of the land, "anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.") give the federal government a very good chance of preventing disclosure by taking the case to a federal court. The rule of law doesn't mean that the government doesn't have any powers or that all legal disputes are settled the way YOU want them to. Everything about this situation is a perfect example of the rule of law working exactly as it should. There's a disagreement, conflicting contracts and laws, and legal ambiguity, so the parties will have to GO TO COURT to sort it all out.

  5. Re: In other news... by ad454 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Interested comment from an Anonymous Coward, who is too scared to stand behind their words.

    The fact is that numerous polls in many countries including the USA show that there is unfortunately significant public support for increasing police powers and decreasing oversight.

    Keep in mind that these same idiots also vote for the same corrupt politicians from the same corrupt parties as well.

    When the sheeple finally reach their breaking point and have enough, they end up supporting whatever nut cases can best sell them the simplest counter-production solution which best promotes the fantasy that they can have their cake and eat it too. (Think USA rightist tea parties and Greek syriza leftists.)