Baltimore Prosecutors Withdraw Evidence Rather Than Talk About Police Department's Stingray Usage
from the should-go-back-to-simpler-days-of-planting-evidence-and-falsifying-reports dept
They justify the use of Stingray devices (IMSI catchers/cell tower spoofers) by pointing out how great they are at catching criminals. They justify the secrecy surrounding them by claiming the release of any details will compromise investigations. And then they pull something like this.
Baltimore prosecutors withdrew key evidence in a robbery case Monday rather than reveal details of the cellphone tracking technology police used to gather it.So… great for catching crooks but not all that great at keeping them caught. How embarrassing. That has to suck for Baltimore citizens, who have just discovered their local PD prizes non-disclosure agreements over putting bad guys away.
City police Det. John L. Haley, a member of a specialized phone tracking unit, said officers did not use the controversial device known as a stingray. But when pressed on how phones are tracked, he cited what he called a "nondisclosure agreement" with the FBI.Which most people would take to mean don't go around spilling the details to normal citizens, family members or journalists. But as we've seen repeatedly, law enforcement agencies have taken this FBI-required NDA to mean (very conveniently, I might add) that they're allowed to tell no one. Goodbye, crusty old "due process" ideals. Hello, parallel construction.
But in this case, the judge responded with an obvious statement -- one that is made far too infrequently.
"You don't have a nondisclosure agreement with the court," Baltimore Circuit Judge Barry G. Williams replied.Then Judge Williams called the PD's bluff: explain the evidence's origin or face contempt charges. Faced with this, the prosecution folded.
It's no secret the Baltimore Police Dept. has a Stingray device. Here's a document from 2009 containing the city council's approval of the Stingray purchase. Here's another document showing the PD's request for additional funds to upgrade the device. The general public is already aware of the device's existence and capabilities, and yet, the police balk at discussing it publicly, even if it means potentially damaging a prosecutor's case.
It's not just the phone-related evidence that's being withdrawn. It's everything derived from that Stingray-related search, including a handgun.
This isn't Judge Williams' first experience with police officers unwilling to discuss Stingray usage. The Baltimore Sun reports he also dealt with a non-discussion of the technology back in September. The device was used to track a phone (and a suspect) to a certain location. When Williams asked how the officers ascertained that the suspect actually had the phone on him, they actually invoked national security rather than answer the question.
"This kind of goes into Homeland Security issues, your honor," [Sgt. Scott] Danielczyk said.Williams nailed this response, too.
"If it goes into Homeland Security issues, then the phone doesn't come in," Williams said. "I mean, this is simple. You can't just stop someone and not give me a reason."That's how this is supposed to work. If law enforcement agencies want to deploy super-secret technology, then they shouldn't be able to drag evidence of unexplained origin into the courts with them. Allowing them to have it both ways steamrolls due process.
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: baltimore, courts, non-disclosure, secrecy, stingray, surveillance
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Kudos to the judge
On a semi-related note, the fact that they were willing to withdraw key evidence rather than explain how they got it makes it pretty clear that the justification that they need the stingray towers to 'catch criminals' is nothing more than a nice sounding lie.
They are willing to let a potentially guilty individual walk rather than inform the court of just how they got the evidence against them, so clearly they believe the secrecy surrounding the stingray use/tech is of higher importance than actually catching and stopping criminals.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Kudos to the judge
I suspect it is more a case of secrecy, or face actions and public outcry for breach of the 4th amendment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Kudos to the judge
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Kudos to the judge
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Kudos to the judge
You are a shining example of an inorant citizen that need something taught to them.
So listenup fukwads..
If the phone or other cell service wireless device, car, ipad, laptop data card, what ever, is not moving you move your stingray, take multiple DF (Direction Finging) readings continuiously that feed in to, ironically, the stingray's iPad app, and blammo perp caught!, along with all of the sexts you can shake your stick at!
Being better than all you peeons IS AWESOME!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Kudos to the judge
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Kudos to the judge
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Kudos to the judge
Hey, way to raise support for your cause. Not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Kudos to the judge
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Kudos to the judge
These things can't listen to phone calls. The only communications they intercept are between devices, not between people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Kudos to the judge
Perhaps what they're really afraid of people finding out is that that's not true.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Kudos to the judge
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Kudos to the judge
That would mean they would have to actually connect the phone calls to a provider's backhaul. I doubt they're doing that from a plane.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Kudos to the judge
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Kudos to the judge
Don't stingrays often mess up cell communications in the area where they're being used?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Kudos to the judge
They most certainly can. That doesn't mean they did in this case, though.
"The only communications they intercept are between devices, not between people."
And how does that not count as "electronic communications"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Kudos to the judge
That depends on the definition of "communications". We know the exact definitions of words is very important in the law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Kudos to the judge
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Kudos to the judge
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Kudos to the judge
That's. Very. Funny. In. A. Very. Twisted. Sort. Of. Way.
Please get off my planet. Your existence scares me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Erosion of the exclusionary rule...
I'm surprised the cops didn't take the gun, the wallet, the credit card, and the keys and sue the property, because civil forfeiture. Good on the Judge for calling them on it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This isn't working out well in Baltimore
So we actually need the machinery of justice to work effectively: identify the perpetrators. Accumulate evidence against them. Arrest them. Prove, in a court of law, that they are guilty. Do so in full compliance with the Constitution so that police or prosecutorial malfeasance doesn't result in a mistrial or a verdict thrown out on appeal.
In other words: do it by the book, the way it's supposed to be done. Dot i's. Cross t's. No shortcuts, no bullshit "ooooh national security" crap, no parallel construction, none of that.
But that's not what's happening. And by screwing it up, they're making Baltimore less safe for those of us who live here or want to take in a ballgame or watch a show or whatever. Yeah, there's a heavily-patrolled bubble around the Inner Harbor that's kept (mostly) safe for tourists, but outside there it's The Wire in a lot of places.
Turn off the Stingray and do police work. Hard, laborious, boring, interminable police work. That's how it's done.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This isn't working out well in Baltimore
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: This isn't working out well in Baltimore
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: This isn't working out well in Baltimore
It hasn't worked. It's not working. It's not going to work.
So it's time to dump it and try something else. ANYTHING else. This isn't a matter of ideology, it's a matter of practicality: continuing down a path that leads inexorably to excruciatingly obvious failure is just plain stupid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: This isn't working out well in Baltimore
Which leads right back to the real crime being done here: the war on drugs. That is the essential point that's always ignored here. It justifies the trillions of dollars spent on law enforcement, the militarization of police, the gutting of the Constitution, the lieing and deception by politicians, the competition between LEOs, the multiplicity of parallel LEOs, and the creation of a ubiquitous crime wave for "abusing" substances.
Stop punishing people for victimless crimes, and all that will become far more sensible, and usable against authentic criminals, those who actually victimize people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This isn't working out well in Baltimore
That said, I favor an approach that treats drug use as a health issue and ending the War on Drugs.
People who cling to the idea of maintaining failed programs because principle are missing the point; the whole idea behind the principles is that putting them into practice is the solution. If it's not, those principles are wrong.
Rehabilitation V Revenge
Wrecking people's lives over minor crimes and misdemeanors isn't solving any problems. I honestly believe that only dangerous people should be locked up and every other criminal should make restitution to their victims as part of a community-based scheme.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: This isn't working out well in Baltimore
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: This isn't working out well in Baltimore
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: This isn't working out well in Baltimore
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This isn't working out well in Baltimore
What's up in Baltimore? Because overall stats say murder and other crime is trending down.
The gang running city jail - is that the private prison industry?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: This isn't working out well in Baltimore
Some of those are gang-related, and even more unfortunately, some of the victims have nothing to do with gangs:
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2014-09-22/news/bs-md-ci-shooting-20140922_1_maryland-shock-t rauma-center-mcelderry-park-baltimore-sun
and
http://www.wbaltv.com/news/woman-child-shot-in-north-bal timore/27269464
A visualization of those (which can be adjusted to show all in 2014, all in the last 30 days, etc.) is here: http://data.baltimoresun.com/bing-maps/homicides/index.php?range=2014&district=all&zipcode=a ll&age=all&gender=all&race=all&cause=all&article=all&show_results=Show+resul ts
Sure enough, if you zoom in, you'll see that the areas around the Inner Harbor (which shows up labeled as such once you zoom in enough) such as Fells Point, the Camden Yards and M&T Bank Stadium, etc. make up a conspicuous island in the middle of the sea. Those areas are blanketed with police on foot, bike, Segway, etc. because that's where the moneymakers are. Or maybe this map sums it up better: http://judgmentalmaps.com/post/84140769295/baltimore
In re gangs running the jail:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2013/04/24/black_guerilla_family_how_a_gang_took_over_baltimor e_s_jails.html
and
http://www.fbi.gov/baltimore/press-releases/2013/thirteen-correctional-officers-amo ng-25-black-guerilla-family-gang-members-and-associates-indicted-on-federal-racketeering-charges
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Umm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
i cant believe that law enforcement would/did actually do anything they shouldn't!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is that on purpose? Otherwise I'd suggest you do a site search or Google search before you decide on a topic. Or you know...read TechDirt more, like the rest of us :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Where does the article say anything about dropping the charges?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Yup, and Jeffrey Daumer is stinking up the place with his protests. Poor guy. Who knew that correctional institution inmates were the last line of jurisprudence?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
BTW: thank you, Judge Williams.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don't understand the FBI or these police departments
And of course the FBI is in exactly the same situation, and certainly should know better than to even offer this tool to PDs on this basis.
The conclusion is that the people we entrust to enforce the law have decided to ignore it when it's inconvenient to them. That's a very sad statement on the state of the US today.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I don't understand the FBI or these police departments
How are we supposed to know the law when the prosecutors don't know the law?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I don't understand the FBI or these police departments
That or evidence laundering, where they get all the evidence from a source that won't stand up in court, and then try and figure out ways to pretend they got it some other, legal, way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
wow - a ray of hope.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Contempt
Instead? Obviously they can't use the evidence, but he should STILL be held in contempt.
The defense generally has the right to see evidence in a case whether or not the prosecution actually uses the evidence in court. (For example, the prosecution generally wouldn't use a fingerprint of an unknown person as evidence - but they still *must* turn that evidence over to the defense.)
If it's truly a "homeland security" issue, then maybe you shouldn't keep using it in robbery cases.
And somehow I think it's uncommon for a prosecutor to simply decide to not use a boatload of evidence because a witness refuses to testify. If this was a "normal" person, they'd be glad to use the prospect of contempt to pressure them into testifying. Prosecutors are willing to allow abuse victims to be jailed for not testifying about their abuse. They'll support a contempt sentence of 20 years even when the testimony is "not critical". They will jail reporters for not revealing sources. But in this case, it's a cop, someone the prosecutor views as being on "their team". So they let it drop.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Contempt
Fucking A! Damned right! Thank you. I was thinking exactly the same thought when I saw this. "You brought evidence into this court that was obviously excluded by Constitutional protections?!? Are you mental?!? Have you even read the Constitution? You swore an oath to protect it as a condition of gaining your job (employment)!"
Fire the @@@@@@@@@@@ (whatever that means in your jurisdiction), and prosecute him for negligence at the very least!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]