In first, U.S. judge throws out cell phone 'stingray' evidence

For the first time, a federal judge has suppressed evidence obtained without a warrant by U.S. law enforcement using a stingray, a surveillance device that can trick suspects' cell phones into revealing their locations.

U.S. District Judge William Pauley in Manhattan on Tuesday ruled that defendant Raymond Lambis' rights were violated when the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration used such a device without a warrant to find his Washington Heights apartment.

The DEA had used a stingray to identify Lambis' apartment as the most likely location of a cell phone identified during a drug-trafficking probe. Pauley said doing so constituted an unreasonable search.

"Absent a search warrant, the government may not turn a citizen's cell phone into a tracking device," Pauley wrote.

The ruling marked the first time a federal judge had suppressed evidence obtained using a stingray, according to the American Civil Liberties Union, which like other privacy advocacy groups has criticized law enforcement's use of such devices.

"This opinion strongly reinforces the strength of our constitutional privacy rights in the digital age," ACLU attorney Nathan Freed Wessler said in a statement.

It was unclear whether prosecutors would seek to appeal. A spokeswoman for Manhattan U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara, whose office was prosecuting the case, declined to comment.

Stingrays, also known as "cell site simulators," mimic cell phone towers in order to force cell phones in the area to transmit "pings" back to the devices, enabling law enforcement to track a suspect's phone and pinpoint its location.

Critics of the technology call it invasive and say it has been regularly used in secret to catch suspect in violation of their rights under the U.S. Constitution.

Keep drug dealers in business.

Stingrays capture the location information of everyone in a given area, without any warrants or subpoenas, no matter whether the person is suspected of a crime or not.

Cell phone location information can reveal what doctors and medical treatment one receives, what meetings or political gatherings they attend, where they worship, if they own a gun, and so much more.

But who cares about the Fourth Amendment when we're talking about drug dealers, right? After all, it's not like Big Government would ever abuse such technology....

BS! They are routinely used to serve “no knock” warrants.

So routinely, in fact, that the Cato Institute has an interactive map of all the incidents where things went wrong using this tactic:

http://www.cato.org/raidmap

So it didn’t take me long using that resource to find incidents debunking your claim, such as:

Jose Guerena

At 9:30 a.m. on May 5, 2011, officers from the Pima County SWAT team served a warrant on the home of Jose Guerena, an honorably discharged Marine and veteran of two combat tours in Iraq. Pima County SWAT officers approached the Guerena residence and announced the service of a search warrant and sounded a siren. Guerena was asleep after working the night shift at a mine when his wife woke him, saying that she heard noises outside and a that man was at their window. Guerena told his wife to hide in a closet with their 4-year-old son and grabbed an AR-15 rifle. SWAT officers breached the front door and saw Guerena pointing his rifle at them. The officers fired 71 rounds, hitting Guerena with 20 and mortally wounding him. Guerena never disabled his weapon’s safety. The officers retreated from the front of the house and searched neighboring residences that had been hit by bullets that penetrated the far side of the Guerena home. Guerena’s wife, Vanessa, asked emergency operators for help via telephone while police remained outside for approximately 45 minutes. Guerena had been arrested a couple years earlier, but had no criminal convictions and the police found nothing illegal in his home. Guerena’s brother was the primary focus of a drug investigation that brought police to the Guerena residence. The OathKeepers, an organization of current and former military and law enforcement personnel that encourages non-violent disobedience of unlawful orders to infringe on the rights of U.S. citizens, marched in protest of the Guerena raid. Sources: Fernanda Echevarri, SWAT raid fatal drama is revealed in 911 call, Arizona Daily Star, May 14, 2011. Brother of Marine and Iraq War vet killed by Arizona SWAT team was the focus of drug probe, U.K. Daily Mail, June 3, 2011. Hundreds march in protest for Jose Guerena, KVOA.com, May 30, 2011.

A lot depends on the crime I would say. For example, if you knew someone had abducted your daughter and the police tracked the person by his cell phone to find his location. The police surround the location, but unfortunately the person has already killed your daughter. Would you want a judge to rule that they had to let the person go because they did not have a warrant? Remember time was of the essence, and in this scenario they did not waste the time to secure a warrant.

Now of course I have given a worse case scenario here, but with this ruling it would apply in that situation as well.

How does the system create laws that safeguard the innocent while targeting the guilty? It may not even be possible. So certainly it is a tough thing to answer whether the judge was right or wrong, because in so many instances it is debatable. Some would say that obtaining the warrant is the right approach, while others would say the girl's safety was more important, so not securing the warrant is the way to go. Who is right?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.