Analysis by Kyle A. Lohmeier
As we watch our once-free country slouch closer and closer to tyranny, the times where a win is scored for individual liberty are rare, and worth celebrating. One such victory came yesterday.
“In a first, a Manhattan federal judge presiding over a narcotics case has decided that drug evidence obtained through cell phone surveillance technology called ‘Stingray’ won’t be admissible in court,” wrote Tess Owen at Vice News.
Stingrays, also known as Hailstorms or TriggerFish, mimic a cell phone tower, sending out signals that cause phones to “ping” back with all sorts of information about the phone and its owner, including his or her location.
For the case in question, the Drug Enforcement Administration had an agent drive around town with a Stingray, searching for a suspect’s phone signal. The Stingray is able to measure the incoming signal strength of phones, the stronger the signal, the closer it is to the Stingray. Using this feature, the DEA agent was able to isolate the apartment building where the signal was strongest. Then, the agent went inside and walked up and down the hallways until the device told him which apartment was the suspect’s. Police returned later and asked for permission to search, which was seemingly foolishly granted, and officers found narcotics and paraphernalia.
Judge William Pauley ruled on July 13 that the suspect in the case, Raymond Lambis, had his rights violated when the DEA used the device without first getting a search warrant.
“Research by the American Civil Liberties Union found that at least 13 federal agencies use Stingray technology, including the NSA, Homeland Security, the FBI and the army. In New York (and in many other states), both state and local police are equipped with Stingrays. An investigation by USA Today found that the technology was used even for routine crimes, like petty theft,” Owen wrote.
This sort of technology simply doesn’t belong in the hands of police at any level, local, state or federal, whatever the potential “benefits.” The cops shouldn’t be given any tools whatsoever to assist in the illicit and idiotic “war on drugs.” It should never become easier for the state to put people in prison that didn’t harm the person or property of anyone else against their will. With any good luck, this ruling will have a ripple-effect, though it would need to generate some pretty big ripples.
According to Owen, the NYPD alone used Stingray more than 1,000 times since 2008 without ever once getting a warrant. Now, all those cases may have to be reviewed and I’m wondering how many of them are against non-violent drug offenders?
This technology and other law-enforcement tools like it are expensive and intrusive. They’re another step away from useful policing and another step toward the police state. And the sorts of “crimes” they’re most “useful” in “fighting” shouldn’t be crimes to begin with; using high-tech tools to better fight an unworthy fight will only further erode the public’s already-diminished trust in police.
Owen writes that Pauley’s ruling is being hailed as a victory among privacy and freedom advocates, and rightfully so.
“If carrying a cell phone means being exposed to military grade surveillance equipment, then the privacy of nearly all New Yorkers is at risk,” Owen quoted Donna Lieberman, executive director of the ACLU’s New York branch from earlier this year.
Indeed, just like the Second Amendment covers types of arms that didn’t exist yet, and the First Amendment covers types of speech and expression that weren’t possible in the 1790s, the Fourth Amendment must be considered to include “effects” that didn’t exist at the time the amendment was written, like cell phones.
Leave a Reply