Police Secretly Track Cellphones to Unravel Routine Crimes > 자유게시판

• 목록
• 답변
• 글쓰기
• 게시판 리스트 옵션
  • 수정
  • 삭제

BALTIMORE - The crime itself was unusual: Someone smashed the back window of a parked automobile one night and ran off with a cellphone. What was unusual was how the police hunted the thief. Detectives did it by secretly utilizing one of the government’s most highly effective phone surveillance tools - capable of intercepting information from lots of of people’s cellphones at a time - to trace the telephone, and with it their suspect, to the doorway of a public housing advanced. They used it to seek for a car thief, everyday tracker tool too. And a woman who made a string of harassing cellphone calls. In a single case after another, USA Today found police in Baltimore and different cities used the phone tracker, iTagPro shop commonly generally known as a stingray, to find the perpetrators of routine street crimes and incessantly hid that reality from the suspects, their attorneys and even judges. In the process, they quietly transformed a form of surveillance billed as a device to hunt terrorists and kidnappers into a staple of on a regular basis policing.

The suitcase-size tracking methods, which may price as a lot as $400,000, allow the police to pinpoint a phone’s location inside a number of yards by posing as a cell tower. In the process, they can intercept data from the telephones of almost everybody else who happens to be close by, including innocent bystanders. They do not intercept the content material of any communications. Dozens of police departments from Miami to Los Angeles own similar devices. A USA Today Media Network investigation identified greater than 35 of them in 2013 and 2014, and the American Civil Liberties Union has discovered 18 extra. When and the way the police have used these units is mostly a thriller, partially as a result of the FBI swore them to secrecy. Police and court docket records in Baltimore provide a partial reply. USA Today obtained a police surveillance log and matched it with court recordsdata to paint the broadest picture but of how those gadgets have been used.

The records show that the town's police used stingrays to catch everyone from killers to petty thieves, that the authorities repeatedly hid or iTagPro shop obscured that surveillance once suspects obtained to courtroom and that lots of those they arrested were never prosecuted. Defense attorneys assigned to many of those circumstances mentioned they did not know a stingray had been used till USA Today contacted them, even though state law requires that they be informed about digital surveillance. "I am astounded on the extent to which police have been so aggressively utilizing this expertise, how lengthy they’ve been utilizing it and the extent to which they've gone to create ruses to shield that use," Stephen Mercer, iTagPro shop the chief of forensics for Maryland’s public defenders, ItagPro mentioned. Prosecutors stated they, too, are sometimes left at the hours of darkness. Tammy Brown, iTagPro geofencing a spokeswoman for iTagPro shop the Baltimore's State's Attorney. In others, the police merely mentioned that they had "located" a suspect’s phone with out describing how, iTagPro geofencing or they steered they occurred to be in the appropriate place at the fitting time.

Such omissions are deliberate, stated an officer assigned to the department’s Advanced Technical Team, which conducts the surveillance. When investigators write their studies, "they try to make it appear like we weren’t there," the officer said. Public defenders in Baltimore mentioned that robbed them of alternatives to argue in court that the surveillance is prohibited. "It’s shocking to me that it’s that prevalent," mentioned David Walsh-Little, who heads the felony trial unit for Baltimore’s public defender office. Defendants often have a right to know concerning the proof in opposition to them and to problem the legality of no matter police search yielded it. Beyond that, Maryland court guidelines usually require the government to tell defendants and their attorneys about electronic surveillance with out being asked. Prosecutors say they are not obliged to specify whether a stingray was used. Referring to direction-discovering equipment "is enough to position protection counsel on notice that law enforcement employed some sort of digital tracking device," Ritchie said.

In at the least one case, ItagPro police and prosecutors seem to have gone additional to cover using a stingray. After Kerron Andrews was charged with attempted murder final 12 months, iTagPro shop Baltimore's State's Attorney's Office stated it had no details about whether or not a cellphone tracker had been used in the case, according to court filings. In May, iTagPro shop prosecutors reversed course and said the police had used one to find him. "It seems clear that misrepresentations and omissions pertaining to the government’s use of stingrays are intentional," Andrews’ lawyer, Assistant Public Defender Deborah Levi, charged in a court docket filing. Judge Kendra Ausby ruled last week that the police mustn't have used a stingray to track Andrews with out a search warrant, and she mentioned prosecutors couldn't use any of the proof discovered on the time of his arrest. Some states require officers to get a search warrant, partly because the technology is so invasive. The Justice Department is considering whether or not to impose a similar rule on its brokers.