Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Not smart to bring the device home, should have attached it to another vehicle.. maybe on another drug dealer's vehicle. I don't like drug manufacturers or dealers but to charge him for theft of the tracker wouldn't be a winner in a trial. The other stuff, absolutely.
Not smart to bring the device home, should have attached it to another vehicle.. maybe on another drug dealer's vehicle. I don't like drug manufacturers or dealers but to charge him for theft of the tracker wouldn't be a winner in a trial. The other stuff, absolutely.
The war on non-corporate drugs is another wrong. The two wrongs aren't adding up to a right here.
I sure hope he wins. Should be illegal for them to track him.
It is if they don't have a warrant. They had a warrant, per the OP's article.
I see no reason why a wire-tap, tracking device or having a detective follow him in an unmarked white van should be illegal as long as there is a warrant.
Not smart to bring the device home, should have attached it to another vehicle.. maybe on another drug dealer's vehicle. I don't like drug manufacturers or dealers but to charge him for theft of the tracker wouldn't be a winner in a trial. The other stuff, absolutely.
I'd have dropped it off in the bottom of a porta-john and then just played dumb after that if asked.
I sure hope he wins. Should be illegal for them to track him.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nng
People in a position of authority who abuse their power like this are just awful. clear abuse of power.
Quote:
Originally Posted by grampaTom
Must be some kind of genius LEO that couldn't put a tracker in a concealed enough place the owner wouldn't find it. Unless the car owner had a tracker detector and used it oftern Hmmmmm
Keep talking.
Within a year or two GPS will be standard on all cars, and then police won't have to attach a device, they'll just get a warrant and pull the GPS data.
Quote:
Originally Posted by banjomike
I think this is like a phone tap that is placed secretly after a warrant is attained.
Yes, it requires a search warrant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by skeddy
poor guy ....
A search warrant to look for the tracker was obtained, and while executing it, deputies allegedly found a glass pipe, such as might be used to smoke methamphetamine, in a desk drawer, according to court records. Based on that paraphernalia, a judge issued another search warrant. Officers then allegedly found the tracker, as well as methamphetamine, pills, a digital scale and a handgun. Heuring was subsequently charged with dealing and possessing drugs and theft.
Well, no one said criminals were big brains.
In looking at the statute:
IC 35-43-4-2 TheftSec. 2. (a) A person who knowingly or intentionally exerts unauthorized control over property of another person, with intent to deprive the other person of any part of its value or use, commits theft, a Class A misdemeanor. However, the offense is: (1) a Level 6 felony if: (A) the value of the property is at least seven hundred fifty dollars ($750) and less than fifty thousand dollars ($50,000); (B) the property is a firearm; or (C) the person has a prior unrelated conviction for: (i) theft under this section; or (ii) criminal conversion under section 3 of this chapter; and (2) a Level 5 felony if: (A) the value of the property is at least fifty thousand dollars ($50,000); or (B) the property that is the subject of the theft is a valuable metal (as defined in IC 25-37.5-1-1) and: (i) relates to transportation safety; (ii) relates to public safety; or (iii) is taken from a hospital or other health care facility, telecommunications provider, public utility (as defined in IC 32-24-1-5.9(a)), or key facility; and the absence of the property creates a substantial risk of bodily injury to a person.
I'm guessing the police are claiming it "relates to public safety."
Within a year or two GPS will be standard on all cars, and then police won't have to attach a device, they'll just get a warrant and pull the GPS data.
Yes, it requires a search warrant.
Well, no one said criminals were big brains.
In looking at the statute:
IC 35-43-4-2 TheftSec. 2. (a) A person who knowingly or intentionally exerts unauthorized control over property of another person, with intent to deprive the other person of any part of its value or use, commits theft, a Class A misdemeanor. However, the offense is: (1) a Level 6 felony if: (A) the value of the property is at least seven hundred fifty dollars ($750) and less than fifty thousand dollars ($50,000); (B) the property is a firearm; or (C) the person has a prior unrelated conviction for: (i) theft under this section; or (ii) criminal conversion under section 3 of this chapter; and (2) a Level 5 felony if: (A) the value of the property is at least fifty thousand dollars ($50,000); or (B) the property that is the subject of the theft is a valuable metal (as defined in IC 25-37.5-1-1) and: (i) relates to transportation safety; (ii) relates to public safety; or (iii) is taken from a hospital or other health care facility, telecommunications provider, public utility (as defined in IC 32-24-1-5.9(a)), or key facility; and the absence of the property creates a substantial risk of bodily injury to a person.
I'm guessing the police are claiming it "relates to public safety."
a GPS is not hard to defeat. You can buy the stuff now to turn it off.
IC 35-43-4-2 TheftSec. 2. (a) A person who knowingly or intentionally exerts unauthorized control over property of another person, with intent to deprive the other person of any part of its value or use, commits theft. . . .
I would say it's not the property of "another person" once it's attached to the car.
Yes, allowing private citizens--who likely have zero specialized training on the subject, may be convicted criminals themselves, are not sworn to uphold the law, and are under no obligation to follow any evidentiary standards for collection and presentation--is a far inferior system to what exists today.
That's not the system being discussed. That's just something you made up because you either don't care about the truth or are too ignorant on the subject to discuss it. Either way quit making things up and try to make honest responses.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
