Printable View
Very interesting case. I'll bet it ends up in the SCOTUS.
LINKQuote:
Cops put GPS tracker on man’s car, charge him with theft for removing it.
...... the state of Indiana charged a suspected drug dealer with theft for removing a government-owned GPS tracking device from his SUV. This month, the state's Supreme Court began considering the case, and some justices seemed skeptical of the government's argument.
“Skeptical” is hardly the word I would choose. Laughing uproariously would be a better choice.
Same here, but it got this far......Quote:
Originally Posted by wacojoe
Under the facts of this case this one is going no where. However, I could see it differently if the device was labeled as government property belonging to the so and so police department. That might make it different IF the suspect destroyed or disposed of the device not just merely removing it from his vehicle.
I think he should have attached it to his neighbor's car. It would have driven the cops nuts.
King says it all, all Americans are getting to a point of that other side.
:dunno:...BenQuote:
"I found this thing attached to my car...I knew it didn't belong to me, and I didn't want to be accused of stealing it, so not knowing what else to do, I took it off and stored it in a safe place...If the rightful owner contacted me, I planned to return it..."
The results are in:
:clap: :clap: :clap:Quote:
Last Thursday, Indiana's highest court made it official, ruling that the search warrant that allowed police to recover Heuring's meth was illegal. The police had no more than a hunch that Heuring had removed the device, the court said, and that wasn't enough to get a search warrant.Even if the police could have proved that Heuring had removed the device, that wouldn't prove he stole it, the high court said. It's hard to "steal" something if you have no idea to whom it belongs. Classifying his action as theft would lead to absurd results, the court noted.
"To find a fair probability of unauthorized control here, we would need to conclude the Hoosiers don't have the authority to remove unknown, unmarked objects from their personal vehicles," Chief Justice Loretta Rush wrote for a unanimous court.
The high court's ruling has big implications for Heuring's case. Under a principle known as the exclusionary rule, evidence uncovered using an invalid search warrant is excluded from trial. Without the meth recovered in this search, prosecutors might not have enough evidence to mount a case against him.
The law allows a good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule in some cases where police rely on a warrant that later proves defective. But Justice Rush concluded that exception doesn't apply here.
"We find it reckless for an officer-affiant to search a suspect's home and his father's barn based on nothing more than a hunch that a crime has been committed," the court wrote. "We are confident that applying the exclusionary rule here will deter similar reckless conduct in the future."
SOURCE
I don't like drug dealers but under the facts of this case I think the court made the right decision as I predicted months ago.
I don't like drug dealers either, but we all lose if the 4th is not strictly enforced. Better to lose one conviction than to lose our rights.
Yes
Absolutely.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike
Hunter
Agree..Quote:
Originally Posted by Honda
But after much (not that much) thought... I would drive the 80 or so miles to the big truck stops on I-81.. attach the transmitter to a road tractor with Quebec or Ontario tags... (or a seagoing cargo container?) let them track that ride.. :) :)