I grew up in a Southern California beach town. One day my friend and I got pulled into a laundromat and threatened by the owner for stealing sodas from his machine. This sleuth determine it was my friend because of the obvious shoe print markings.... VANS diamonds!!! If you were a kid in the 70s in a beach town and did not have a pair of VANS.... you probably did not exist.
There are a million ways to get caught up in an investigation: VANS shoe print, having same build or gait as perp, grainy video from neighbor camera.... police clear way more people than they charge.
To me this seems a little melodramatic. The police got a warrant, the guy says he rides his bike a lot, they see he did not stop or enter house from GPS. The same technology that traps you can set you free too: If there was ever a charge a judge would throw it out. How did he he enter a home and steal jewelry when he was traveling 10+MPH.
If your family member is a victim and they have no idea who the suspect is, would you expect the police to utilize technology...
To me tracking of words is much more dangerous than location... thought police are ideological and more dangerous than local police.
And who is going to reimburse the poor bastard the money he had to pay a $200 an hour lawyer to protect his rights?
I’m of the opinion that anytime a person who was demonstrated innocent who had to spend money to defend themselves should be reimbursed by the litigating agency. It might make them a little less trigger happy.
The consequences of violating the rights of people should be painful to the authorities.