More than likely, unless you're an attorney or in law enforcement, you have no idea what the picture above is. It's commonly known as a "Stingray Surveillance Device," and state and local law enforcement officials all across the country have been purchasing these devices in order to combat crime in their jurisdictions. What is the "Stingray?" It's an electronic device that allows police to retrieve information remotely from cell phones, in helps of tracking down suspects in crimes.
How does the Stingray work? The Stingray is designed to act as a fake cell phone tower that once turned on will then pinpoint cell phones in an area and trick the cell phones into sending it's location to the Stingray along with data information. This can be done even when your cell phone is not making phone calls.
A bigger issue that many people have raised, is that this technology doesn't just track cell phones of suspects; it tracks cell phones and transmits data of non-suspects who happen to be in the area of someone the police are targeting. This obviously could lead to the discovery of information that could incriminate a person not under investigation for any crime.
For example, the local police may use Stingray technology in hopes of tracking and gathering information about a suspected identity thief in an apartment building. In addition to tracking the suspected identity thief's phone, they also gather information about a neighbor in the building whose phone has information on it regarding drug dealing, including names of clients, types of drugs and amounts sold, etc. The police would likely then transfer that information to the appropriate unit and then begin an investigation on the drug dealer as well. Opponents of the technology assert that this potential information discovered would be inadmissible in court as the information was obtained inadvertently and without probable cause. Law enforcement advocates point out though that information that is gathered through the device that is not deemed beneficial to crime prevention is quickly discarded and deleted, thereby eliminating the potential for abuse.
While the vast majority of Americans would have no problem with this type of technology being used in foreign countries by our intelligence agencies to combat terror, there has been a blow back from civil liberties groups and criminal defense attorneys claiming that this technology is being used by state and local law enforcement in violation of the 4th Amendment's protection from Unreasonable Search and Seizure. So, which states are currently using this technology?
Currently, law enforcement officials in only a handful of states have purchased the technology, but those states are often some of the most populous. There's currently litigation pending in the courts regarding this issue, and sooner rather than later we'll likely have an official determination on the constitutionality of this new technology.
That having been said, this technology is not going away, and it would be naive and foolish to think the courts are going to outright ban the use of Stingray Surveillance Devices. Most likely the court will do what they normally do in cases such as this; they will carve out an exception to the 4th Amendment, where they allow the use of the device, but put restrictions on the use of it. Conservatives and law enforcement officials will praise the ruling as a victory for justice and order, while Liberals and civil liberties advocates will ultimately condemn the overall ruling, but try and highlight the fact that law enforcement now has to jump through more hoops than they originally did in order to convict a suspect when using the Stingray device.
The immediate fallout from the ruling will also be substantial. The ruling will of course increase the use of Stingray technology as local and state law enforcement officials purchase the newly mandated crime prevention devices. Additionally, it will increase the appeals and challenges to the use of the technology as criminal defense attorneys claim the technology was not implemented in the proper manner by which the courts intended. Local and state law enforcement officials will be required to go through extensive training regarding the use of the surveillance equipment, and prosecutors will also have to familiarize themselves with the process to ensure defendants are not acquitted on procedural technicalities that allow evidence to be excluded.
Technology always grows faster than the law, creating reactive litigation and judicial rulings that are often outdated as a new form of technology supplants devices the law was designed to restrict. We'll continue to see further instruments implemented to combat crime and subsequent challenges to the way in which those instruments are utilized.
No comments:
Post a Comment