COPS PUT GPS TRACKER ON MAN’S CAR, CHARGE HIM WITH THEFT FOR REMOVING IT

[Trik'Stari]

11 hours ago, Bombastinator said:

Doesn’t matter.  It’s not the actual problem I think.  IF the original problem isn’t killed on its own merits THEN this one might need to be dealt with.

If I was a lawyer for this guy I'd be pushing this straight to jury trial.

 

Seems remarkably easy to make the argument "you find a device attached to your car, you didn't put it there, it wasn't there before, literally anyone would have removed it. If anything, it's the governments own fault for putting it in such an easy to find spot.".

[Bombastinator]

3 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

So, I talked to my roommate, a former investigator, and his take is that this is just another abuse of power by a judge and corrupt cops.  You can't expect a civilian to know that your device is government property if it is unmarked.  Removing it should be expected, especially considering they found a foreign, to them, device on their car.  This won't likely hold up well in court for the investigators, but then again if it goes into the same corrupt judge's court room then it likely would.  However, you have to factor the jury in too.

It’s Illinois state Supreme Court.  Original judge or jury not a factor. @mr moose also provided a video which has a more in depth and very different timeline.

[imreloadin]

The main issue here is that they used the remove to justify an illegal search (meaning without a warrant) of the man's home. This could set precedent as a way to circumvent obtaining a warrant for searches as they could just not secure the device fully and when it falls off claim that the suspect removed it and then proceed to do the search they so desperately want to do. They could also attach it without a fully charged battery and wait for it to shut off and use that as justification to perform the search. The most terrifying aspect of this is the precedent it will set if it's not struck down by the SC. My guess is that it's far easier to obtain a warrant to monitor the location of someone's vehicle versus obtaining one to search someone's home...

[Bombastinator]

1 minute ago, imreloadin said:

The main issue here is that they used the remove to justify an illegal search (meaning without a warrant) of the man's home. This could set precedent as a way to circumvent obtaining a warrant for searches as they could just not secure the device fully and when it falls off claim that the suspect removed it and then proceed to do the search they so desperately want to do. They could also attach it without a fully charged battery and wait for it to shut off and use that as justification to perform the search. The most terrifying aspect of this is the precedent it will set if it's not struck down by the SC. My guess is that it's far easier to obtain a warrant to monitor the location of someone's vehicle versus obtaining one to search someone's home...

As far as I can see literally Nothing was done without warrants.  There were apparently 3 different ones.  The third one was apparently fairly expansive and covered the inside of the house. (See @mr moose’s video) The question is should the second warrant have been granted in the first place?

[HanZie82]

Yeah there's to much info missing to make an educated guestimation on how things should proceed. So im not gonna mix into it anymore.
Just glad i dont live in a damn police state like that.

 

[Bombastinator]

17 minutes ago, HanZie82 said:

Yeah there's to much info missing to make an educated guestimation on how things should proceed. So im not gonna mix into it anymore.
Just glad i dont live in a damn police state like that.

 

Yeah.  I’m too old to leave or I would.  It’s scary in here and getting worse.