http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904194604576583112723197574.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_editorsPicks_1
I found this article very interesting because it brings up the question of whether or not an officer needs a search warrant to use a tracking device in an investigation. This article challenges the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits reasonable searches and seizures, but which was written before the digital age, is keeping pace with times. I don't think they need search warrants to track a person. It was said that this technology also helps with missing people and people injured in accidents. Associate Deputy Attorney General James A. Baker said that these devices are "pen registers," which require a lesser order than a warrant because it's just being used to track a person, not wiretapping into information or conversation. I totally agree with Baker's side. This technology could be used effectively in future investigations.
Christian,
ReplyDeleteI just read this interesting article. Assuming that stingray tracking devices "fall into a category of tools called pen registers," the intrusion of cellphones by these tools continues to elicit debate. Unlike pen registers that the Supreme Court has ruled do not require a search warrant, cellphones include location. While discovering the location of someone can be extremely useful--for example, in the search of missing people--it can also be intrusive in areas such as the home for which the Fourth Amendment specifically protects.
This is a great article, very interesting and the stingray is an ingenious piece of technology. However, the FBI is overstepping its bounds in using this technology without a warrant. I don’t believe that this item should fall into the classification of a “pen register”. The ability to track an individual without their knowledge is not the same as gathering the previous phone numbers called. A lot more information is being gathered; therefore a warrant should be obtained
ReplyDelete“The FBI advises agents to work with federal prosecutors locally to meet the requirements of their particular district or judge, the FBI's Ms. Sabol says. She also says it is FBI policy to obtain a search warrant if the FBI believes the technology "may provide information on an individual while that person is in a location where he or she would have a reasonable expectation of privacy.’ (paragraph 26)
Is this really FBI policy? In the Daniel David Rigmaiden case he was tracked by a broadband card to his apartment complex, a place where he is protected under the Fourth Amendment. The FBI has yet to release the court order and the warrant. But how can a legitimate warrant be granted to obtain evidence where the records of obtaining the evidence are deleted? This type of warrant has the ability to give any user of stingray-type devices an immense amount of power.
The FBI should not under any circumstance be deleting evidence before a case goes to trial. This does not make any sense. If the FBI has a general policy of deleting evidence before it is returned to a judge it leads me to believe that the FBI is doing more with these devices than they want the judge or the public to know.
The stingray is a valuable piece of technology that has the ability to help search and rescue teams and find hiding suspects but it also allows everyone carrying a cell phone to tracked down and found. This is an item that has the ability to be abused by the government. The Daniel David Rigmaiden case will determine the extent to which we trade our personal privacy for the use of cell phones and other new-age technology.