Reply to post: Re: What about me then?

Hey, cop! You need a warrant to stalk a phone with a Stingray – judge


Re: What about me then?

IANAL. My layman's understanding of the major right/left pondian difference is that in the USA you have the concept of "fruit of the poisoned tree", in that all acts leading up to acquiring the evidence must also meet the same standards, otherwise the evidence is tossed out.

Hypothetically speaking if the police enter your property without the correct warrant (or other legal reason) and then discover your meth lab, then they won't be able to submit said meth lab into evidence, because there was not a legally correct route for them to have uncovered said evidence.

Hence why an identity parade is possibly being tossed out, because the cops couldn't have found the accused without having used a warrant required technique without the correct type of warrant.

In the UK you can have such evidence presented against you, unless the judge decides it's not kosher.

The expectations to privacy are also interpreted differently. IIRC the UK (and NZ) view is that your phone contacting a cell tower is a public communication, and therefore not a violation of your privacy if the filth know about it. What was actually communicated is private, but the location (and various other bits of meta data) isn't.

Obviously the US courts feel differently about this if a stingray is used, I'm curious if anyone knows their stance if a non-stingray method (cell tower triangulation etc) is used instead?

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon