This is outstanding. It may be a baby step, but at least it's a baby step in the right direction for once.
US drug squads told to get a warrant before tracking mobile phones
A US federal judge in New York State has pushed back against Uncle Sam's Drug Enforcement Agency's use of Stingrays, saying evidence collected by the fake phone masts isn't admissible. A Maryland judge ruled in 2015 that investigators need court-approved warrants to set up pretend cellphone towers that track people by their …
COMMENTS
-
Wednesday 13th July 2016 12:08 GMT matchbx
the Judge is wrong about one thing
"The judge also slaps the DEA for simple laziness: previous requests for warrants for cell phone data (such as carrier data about calls made and tower locations) in the case had been granted by magistrates, which “suggests strongly that the Government could have obtained a warrant to use a cell-site simulator, if it had wished to do so”
It's not about laziness..... it's about changing norm. if you can get just one case like this passed the right Judges then it forever changes the system.
-
-
Wednesday 13th July 2016 13:15 GMT Aodhhan
In all likeliness, the DEA realized this but whomever was the officer in charge was ignorant to the differences between a normal cell phone warrant to listen in on conversations (which was granted), and setting up their own cell tower to track it.
The DEA could have gotten a warrant in less than 30 minutes, and already had more than enough information to convince a judge. So, I don't believe this was laziness it was ignorance.
So now, whenever law enforcement asks for a warrant to listen in on cell phones, they will add tracking and setting up mock cell towers along with it. Not a huge or crazy case.
-
Wednesday 13th July 2016 13:52 GMT Woodnag
The point of the warrant
It's not that getting a warrant is much of a nuisance, but more that if a warrant is shown to be legally required to use hoovered up traffic, then historical cell traffic can't be admitted as evidence. So we will get more cases involving reconstruction of evidence.
The interesting issue will be if whether a case can be thrown out because the only hook that got the case investigated in the first place was an 'incidental intercept', i.e. without a warrant with the relevant reason and/or defendant's name on it.
-
-
-
Wednesday 13th July 2016 17:52 GMT asdf
not the end sadly
Excellent news but my guess is this will be get appealed where the Feds will be hoping to shop for asshats that believe "to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures" doesn't apply in our brave new digital world with big bad terrorists and our eternal war on drugs.
-
Wednesday 13th July 2016 22:44 GMT quxinot
Doesn't matter. The "War on Terror" continues unabated, giving the executive branch of the federal government power without limit nor oversight.
And right on time for the elections. Let's hand the reigns to the idiot or the dickhead, and see what happens.
Same bullshit as ever, despite the glimmer of light from one judge in NY.