New Emails Show That Feds Instructed Police To Lie About Using Stingray Mobile Phone Snooping
from the that's-not-how-it's-supposed-to-work dept
We've been covering the increasingly widespread use of Stingray or similar mobile phone tower spoofing equipment by law enforcement. The stories have been getting increasingly bizarre lately, starting with the news that police were claiming that non-disclosure agreements prevented them from getting a warrant to use the technology. And then, there was the recent news that the federal government was regularly stepping in to claim ownership of documents related to the technology (even when it's used by local police) in order to block them from being obtained under Freedom of Information laws. Just this morning, we wrote about some new evidence that police are claiming they need these devices to stop "weapons of mass destruction," though they then just use them to spy on people suspected of everyday crimes instead.Late last night, the ACLU came out with perhaps the most explosive information so far: a set of internal police emails showing that the US Marshals have been instructing police to lie to courts about the use of such devices. Specifically, rather than revealing the use of the tool, they're told to just tell the court they got the information from a "confidential source." While affidavits may initially note the use of such a device, the police are told to submit a new affidavit after the fact without mentioning the Stingray, and seal the old one, so that it never becomes public. The key parts of the email are highlighted below:
This is stunningly bad.
As some legal experts are quick to note, this seems like an astoundingly stupid move by both the US Marshals and the local police who took them up on their request. That link, includes quotes from a number of legal experts interviewed by Cyrus Farivar at Ars Technica, some of whom are actually supportive of the use of Stingrays, but who note that this effort could very well be fraud on the court.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: cell phone spoofing, fraud on the court, law enforcement, lying to court, sarasota, stingray, surveillance, us marshals
Reader Comments
The First Word
“Kyllo v. United States
I think they are afraid of Kyllo v. United States.They are using these things without getting a warrant, yet its very very clear that Kyllo would have these things get a warrant:
(In this case, the search was an IR camera pointed at the home, and used to obtain a warrant looking for a grow room).
Even the dissent in Kyllo was predicated on the observation that "this device didn't penetrate the home, so its OK", which is certainly not the case with a Stingray, which searches within hundreds of homes to find a targeted phone.
I think they are (rightly) afraid that if warrantless use of Stingrays ever saw the inside of a courtroom, the resulting derived evidence would be thrown out by an angry judiciary.
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Is there even such a thing anymore?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The fact that they intentionally lie and use "confidential Source" in disclosure documents to a defendants counsel to hide the fact that a stingray was used to gather information on a person just further shows the effort the U.S. Government will go to hide the spying on it's own citizens through illegal means.
I foresee a lot of cases where people are charged because of Stingray evidence getting tossed one day because of the state intentionally lying about the "confidential Source" in a case.
I guess when the U.S. Government and the State violate your constitutional rights issue it's not an issue anymore. A travesty in the making is what this has become.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is a legal bomb waiting for it's time. We've heard of overzealous prosecutors hiding evidence to make the conviction in court. You now have evidence of collusion between the USG and the police to hide the source of the evidence in violation of criminal law proceedings. How long do you think it is going to take for some that have been falsely convicted on doctored evidence to have this in court?
Over the years, we've had a lot of those jailed as guilty having been proved never to have committed the crime through DNA. You now have another avenue that may turn out to be the same.
Bush wanted to be known as a war time president. What he really wanted was war time executive powers. All of those transferred into this police state mentality. The war is over unless Obama can drag us back into Iran. With that comes the lack of need for the spying apparatus on it's own citizens. You are now seeing the fight back to reclaim peacetime activities which of course the USG doesn't want to give up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The US Government.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Kyllo v. United States
They are using these things without getting a warrant, yet its very very clear that Kyllo would have these things get a warrant:
(In this case, the search was an IR camera pointed at the home, and used to obtain a warrant looking for a grow room).
Even the dissent in Kyllo was predicated on the observation that "this device didn't penetrate the home, so its OK", which is certainly not the case with a Stingray, which searches within hundreds of homes to find a targeted phone.
I think they are (rightly) afraid that if warrantless use of Stingrays ever saw the inside of a courtroom, the resulting derived evidence would be thrown out by an angry judiciary.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Kyllo v. United States
Let's be more clear.
An IR camera is a purely passive device; it receives and decodes radiation.
An IMSI catcher (the kind of device which AFAIK this "Stingray" thing is) is an active device; it transmits "beacons" pretending to be a cell tower, and then talks to cell phones (thus both sending and receiving).
It does not "search" hundreds of homes. It broadcasts radiation (thus it "penetrates" hundreds of homes). The targeted phone answers, as it would answer to a legitimate cell tower.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Kyllo v. United States
A warrant is what makes otherwise illegal actions legal, but if no warrant is required, those actions can't be illegal without one.
If it's not illegal to use such devices, then we could use them on our fellow citizens or even our government without committing illegal wiretapping or espionage. After all, if it's not illegal to do it without a warrant...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
what is a confidential source?
I would say I'm with Mike that acting in this manner is essentially denying accused their fair trial and will lead not only to damage to the justice system but also to mistrials, retrials, and all round expense and hassle which has to be funded by the taxpayer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: what is a confidential source?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Please let this come back to bite them...
Maybe having a few dozen cases and convictions thrown out due to perjury and tainted evidence will convince the police to stop lying about where they got their evidence, though I imagine some perjury convictions and having 'cops' thrown in jail over it would get the message across even better.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Please let this come back to bite them...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Please let this come back to bite them...
Sadly, what usually happens in this scenario is that people froth at the mouth about bad guys "getting off on a technicality", & the media bray for the judiciary to be able to ignore Constitutional protections.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Please let this come back to bite them...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
reading the linked article
"'Theoretically, the judge could hold the requesting officer in contempt or could ask the Justice Department to investigate, which could in theory lead to termination or criminal prosecution. That will never happen�not with this administration. After all, if the [director of national intelligence] can lie to Congress without consequences, surely a law enforcement official can deceive a court without worrying about consequences.'"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: reading the linked article
Judges however, not too long ago, were expected to actually care if people broke the law, and/or were giving false evidence/testimony. Or at least that's how they were seen in the past. Now however... if you've got a badge and/or a high enough position, you could flip a judge the bird and tell them to get bent and they'd probably just take it like the cowards they increasingly are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: reading the linked article
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Transparency?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is global not just in the USA
But why hasn't there been a large publicity about this? Where is the outcry? Many promised that the guilty would pay, so where are the guilty? Yes a news agency shut down, but it was reported the scandal was going on in several countries.
If the local police is in bed with the NSA and the Feds they could also be with the reporters. What better way to stay ahead of things going down in your neighborhood?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This is global not just in the USA
Now that's a scary thought.
Mainly because it sounds absolutely correct as far as the mentality of the federal agencies and the cops are concerned.
And lets face it, the Truth Free Press is little more than well paid whore these days anyway.
That this scenario is real, would be no surprise at all.
---
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
re: re:
---
Re-read the email.
The whole point is that local police- at the behest of the Feds- are instructing other local police to essentially lie about the existence of this device in court documents so its existence isn't revealed.
There's an old saying in defense work...
What do you call an illegal wiretap?
The Confidential Informant"
Police routinely cite 'confidential sources' as being the basis for information that they attained via unconstitutional/illegal means. What this email is basically saying is that whenever someone uses this device, in order to preserve its secrecy, make sure to attribute the information derived to a 'confidential source' or an 'anonymous tip' so you don't have to reveal where it actually came from.
This is not only illegal, but its an insight into the sort of horrifyingly abusive compact that exits between cops everywhere.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Damn government
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Damn government
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Damn government
Until encryption becomes standard on all appliances used by the public, its use will be seen as an admission of guilt by those seeking to gather it all.
---
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Damn government
And this differs from the current "normal" how, exactly?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Damn government
In the old order, you had an expectation of rights and the courts had a duty to protect those rights - the old innocent till proven guilty thing.
This new method allows that to be turned around somewhat to;
You are likely guilty till enough evidence can be found or manufactured to convince a court that you should be locked up.
How often have you heard the claim? - If you're innocent, then you have nothing to hide.
If you encrypt your email, you obviously have something to hide, therefor, you must be guilty of something.
Because you're guilty of something, all of the usual rules pertaining to dealing with a citizen's rights can be skipped and your Guilty Book can be started.
In effect, the start of your dossier, eliminates your legal rights.
The courts assume that if the government has a dossier on you, then you must indeed be guilty of something, and when the government busts down your door, shoots your dog, pistol whips your children and rips the walls out of your house, but finds nothing incriminating, it can use the "dossier" to "prove" they had sufficient cause to arrest you.
Since the dossier, or Guilty Book, cannot actually be shown to the court to prove the government's case against you because to do so would "compromise the agency's ability to use certain investigatory methods in their pursuit of evil-doers", no evidence is actually needed to get a conviction, or failing conviction, allow the government agency to walk away without the need to make reparations for false arrest.
Pretty much, its just semantics trumps the constitution.
---
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Damn government
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Damn government
Drugs eliminate rights and therefor, the need to show evidence.
A Government dossier is Proof of Guilt and eliminates rights and therefor, the need to show evidence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Once it comes out that Stingray technology searches and seizes the contents and metadata of everyone's phone calls inside a five square mile radius. That technology will be declared unconstitutional and equivalent to an untargeted general warrant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
In theory? The judge, defense lawyer, and the law.
In practice? Whether or not they think they can get away with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Confidential informants
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We need a law stating EXACTLY the opposite...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]