In Florida, Secrecy Around Stingray Leads To Plea Bargain For a Robber

schwit1 writes The case against Tadrae McKenzie looked like an easy win for prosecutors. He and two buddies robbed a small-time pot dealer of $130 worth of weed using BB guns. Under Florida law, that was robbery with a deadly weapon, with a sentence of at least four years in prison. But before trial, his defense team detected investigators' use of a secret surveillance tool, one that raises significant privacy concerns. In an unprecedented move, a state judge ordered the police to show the device — a cell-tower simulator sometimes called a StingRay — to the attorneys. Rather than show the equipment, the state offered McKenzie a plea bargain. Today, 20-year-old McKenzie is serving six months' probation after pleading guilty to a second-degree misdemeanor. He got, as one civil liberties advocate said, the deal of the century.

Comments

About right

[amiga3D]

6 months probation is about right for what he did anyway. I can't believe they're clogging prisons with petty criminals like this then turning violent criminals out because of over crowding. A BB gun as a deadly weapon? They're turning the legal system into a farce with that kind of bullshit.

Re:About right

[jpapon]

Seriously... what's the point of putting someone in prison for four years for that? If anything a sentence like that is just as likely to turn them to harder, more violent crime than rehabilitate them.

It makes much more sense to give first time offenders for stupid crimes like this a year of probation, a significant amount of community service, and forced enrollment in some sort of vocational school / work program.

You don't reform people by making them sit on their asses for four years talking to other criminals. You reform them by putting them to useful work.

Re:About right

[manwargi]

High recidivism is good for shareholders in privatized prisons. This is a system that profits more from harsher sentences and more prisoners, not fewer.

Re:About right

[Zontar The Mindless]

That's assuming that reform is the goal. That's a noble but probably naïve assumption.

Re: About right

[spire3661]

You dont understand the crime. The VICTIM determines, by thier natural reaction, what the crime is. If i BELIEVE that you are threatening me with a weapon, it doenst matter what it turns out to be. The fear it induced is the basis of the crime, not the actual item.

Re: About right

[dasunt]

You don't consider the threat of being shot and then having your property taken a violent crime? The fact the weapon turned out to not be able to shoot bullets doesn't matter, nor should it.

Assume a criminal has either the choice of a BB gun or a regular gun to commit a crime with.

In scenario A, the BB gun is considered a lesser offense than robbing someone with a regular firearm.

In scenario B, the BB gun is considered the same as robbing someone with a regular gun.

Under which scenario do you assume that more people are held up with weapons that are actually capable of killing them? In which scenario are more crime victims shot?

Being tough on crime sounds good, but it can have unintended consequences.

Re:About right

[Anonymous Coward]

So armed robbery is a crime you feel just fine letting someone out with a slap on the wrist? This is a violent crime (threatened deadly force), not a victimless crime like smoking that pot. This kind of action that is unacceptable. You may not prey on other members of society. If you do you are going to be removed from society for a long time.

It is not important that he got only $120 in pot. He could have robbed someone that had nothing and gotten nothing, would that mean he did nothing wrong? It is not important that he only had a BB gun; He wanted the victim to think it was real and his life was under threat.

Violent crime must be punished and this guy did get one hell of a deal because the cops don't want to disclose their actions. Keep in mind that this man who committed a violent crime (allegedly) is still able to buy and own a real gun with this misdemeanor on his record. Kind of makes a mockery of the law doesn't it.

Re: About right

[vakuona]

You are over-thinking it here.

Threatening someone with a gun-shaped object should carry the same sentence regardless of whether it turned out to be a real gun or not.

Actually shooting someone with a gun should carry an even higher penalty. If you use a fake gun, you obviously don't get to shoot anyone with it, so you will naturally not be charged for shooting anyone, but you don't get to benefit from the fact that you misled your victims as to the ultimate level of violence you were able to commit.

Call your congressman

[Mr. Freeman]

Call your congressman and ask them why they're using illegal surveillance tools to let criminals get away.

Re:Justice just doesn't work

[Anonymous Coward]

This. There should not be an incentive for pleading guilty. One should never have their freedom taken away merely for inconveniencing the system.

And, if they were so keen not to reveal their kit, couldn't he have refused to bargain all the way, waiting for the judge to insist at each stage that this equipment be exposed? Or is the judicial system too broken to throw out a case where a prosecutor has deliberately changed the charge because it refuses to follow the judge's instructions on the initial charge?

Deal of the century?

[Njovich]

I'd still rather take the deal bankers got when they effectively stole billions and we gave them more money.

Re:Why is the government scared to talk about thes

[sjames]

Because the uses are highly illegal, nearly certain to intercept the calls of law abiding citizens, and absolute proof that they intend to become big brother as soon as they can.

Re:Why is the government scared to talk about thes

[spire3661]

Because they dont want to give anyone standing to force the issue into a court they cant withdraw from. You cant sue if you dont have standing. They want to keep the tool without allowing it to be vetted by the justice process.