US Marshals asking local LE to lie on warrants.

[Belmont31R]

US Marshals are asking local LE to lie on warrant applications to hide use of Stingray devices and claim the information came from a CI rather than electronic equipment they're using which acts like a cell tower. Stingrays can be used to intercept data your phone sends out, and triangulate the location.

The US Marshals recently showed up at a local police department and confiscated documents relating to Stingray use before they could be legally turned over to the ACLU in a Florida state information act records request. Maybe they had something to hide?


http://www.wired.com/2014/06/feds-to...bout-stingray/

[C-grunt]

I've seen search warrants where similar equipment was used. If I remember correctly there is a certain verbiage used about the equipment that doesn't give away capabilities and doesn't require lying on the warrant.

But like our old SWAT Sergeant would say "whenever the FEDs get involved it turns into amateur hour".

[montanadave]

Reminds me a bit of the revelations regarding the DEA's Special Operations Division (SOD) which was gathering incriminating evidence from every possible source under the sun then using that information to target individuals with legal "parallel investigations" which permitted them to obtain a legal search warrant and make an arrest, while completely obfuscating the manner in which the defendant and/or criminal act first came to light. Short version: Authorities were using illegal means to identify criminal targets, then "constructing" a legal case to present in court.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...97409R20130805

[Belmont31R]

Reminds me a bit of the revelations regarding the DEA's Special Operations Division (SOD) which was gathering incriminating evidence from every possible source under the sun then using that information to target individuals with legal "parallel investigations" which permitted them to obtain a legal search warrant and make an arrest, while completely obfuscating the manner in which the defendant and/or criminal act first came to light. Short version: Authorities were using illegal means to identify criminal targets, then "constructing" a legal case to present in court.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...97409R20130805

I'm disappointed that journalists basically forgot about that story as soon as it came out.

In this case this tells me the Marshals think it's ok to use our phones to track our location 24/7 via cell phones and intercept the data all without a warrant. Warrantless GPS tracking was struck down as unconstitutional so how is warrant less cell tracking legal?

Isn't part of the NSA issue the general warrants being issued by the FISA court for the metadata? That's controversial because general warrants aren't legal IMO. These guys are collecting that data BEFORE a warrant of any kind is issued. Not even a very legally sketchy general warrant.

[hatt]

Are the locals going along with the request?

[bp7178]

US Marshals are asking local LE to lie on warrant applications to hide use of Stingray devices and claim the information came from a CI rather than electronic equipment they're using which acts like a cell tower.


http://www.wired.com/2014/06/feds-to...bout-stingray/

There is a difference between a confidential source and a confidential informant.

A court order (of which a search warrant is a type of court order) is required to track, which is signed by a judge. Call logs as to in-going and out-going numbers requires a lesser grand jury subpoena to obtain. There is a hierarchy to it, which is spelled out in the ECPA among places. Content of messages and voice calls has always required a search warrant.

All of the language I've seen refers to "using a proven law enforcement technique..." nothing to do with CS or CI.

Bad guys know cell phones can be tracked. Every 12 year-old with an iCloud account knows this. I don't know what the big mystery is. There was a recent Florida case in which all this was brought up.

[montanadave]

Bad guys know cell phones can be tracked. Every 12 year-old with an iCloud account knows this. I don't know what the big mystery is. There was a recent Florida case in which all this was brought up.

While this may be true, it doesn't negate the illegality of conducting a warrantless search to obtain information, then falsifying the source of that information to obtain a legal warrant to bootstrap a criminal arrest and prosecution.

[Javelin]

Federal lawmen practicing free tyranny again. Seems like the same story over and over again with these people. All they do is Lie, steal, threaten, deny then wash rinse and repeat.

[bp7178]

While this may be true, it doesn't negate the illegality of conducting a warrantless search to obtain information, then falsifying the source of that information to obtain a legal warrant to bootstrap a criminal arrest and prosecution.

That isn't what is going on. Have you have any professional actual knowledge on the matter?

[montanadave]

That isn't what is going on. Have you have any professional actual knowledge on the matter?

I do not.

Illegal surveillance. Warrantless search. Po-taa-toe. Pa-tah-toe.

They're presenting false information to a judge to obtain a warrant. As Jack McCoy would say, "Fruit from the poisonous tree."