Man charged with theft for removing police GPS tracker from his car

Cops tracked the man's car because they suspected he was dealing meth.

Read the whole story

 

[darthg8r]

If I put a quarter on the hood and you took it, would that be petty theft?

 

[mmiller7]

I don’t know how theft is defined in the USA — and strongly suspect these particular police didn’t care anyway — but in the UK it involves a perpetrator being aware that they’re doing something dishonest, intending that the owners never get the thing back, and taking a concrete step that removes the owners’ control over the item in favour of the thief.

This case would appear to satisfy exactly zero of those criteria.

It should be the same here - commission of a crime generally requires "Mens rea" - the intention of wrongdoing. In this case the device is already in his possession. Moving it from his vehicle to his home cannot be said to intend theft.

It's not quite that simple.

The statute in Indiana is:

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

The device clearly wasn't his, so he knowingly and intentionally exerted unauthorized control, and it was almost certainly to deprive whoever was tracking him of the use of the tracker. Check on all that for mens rea.

I haven't seen pictures of the device...but was it labeled "GPS TRACKING DEVICE" or "PROPERTY OF SHERIFF OFFICE"?

If it was just a random unlabeled box, I have to wonder if they knew what it was for at all. I'd probably assume such a thing was road trash that was somehow kicked up and managed to stick on my car. Which has happened with bags, boxes, and other bits of junk.

What this turns on is the "of another person" bit.

If you or I would have attached the tracker to his car, we would have - for various reasons - been likely considered to have "abandoned" the property and there'd be no theft. The big question here is whether or not that applies to the government, and the answer seems to be no.

Indeed -- sounds "abandoned" to me if someone dumped it on/in someone else's property intentionally. That actually sounds more like littering / tampering with a vehicle / vandalism.

The fact that the tracker wasn't labeled at all is, in my opinion, probably the only reason this has gone as far as it has. If it was labeled "Property of the Sheriff" and there was a law on the books (aka constructive notice) that the government retains property rights to placed GPS trackers, which it sounds like there is, this guy would be hosed.

If it really was unlabeled, that seems so much more absurd to expect him to know who it belonged to or what it's for.

I guess the lesson here...maybe any time we find something unexpected on/under/in our car we should call 911 and report a suspicious package. Then the bomb squad can render the GPS tracker safe.

EDIT: Fix quote tags

 

[1voltpp]

What's to keep the state from leaving a twenty dollar bill on a driveway then waiting for the homeowner to "steal" it. The cops wait a day or two and file theft charges. Let's say this guy is a family man and is down on his luck so heads to the market for food and feeds his family. The guy has never been in trouble before and has certainly never stole before. The cops use this and get a warrant and search his house and take his guns. Could this be a case of entrapment? Is this a way for the government to take a look around your house. This is a very slippery slope.

 

[Adreaver]

I don't think they particularly care about the theft charge.

The issue is the drug charges.

If the theft charge is thrown out as illegitimate, it follows that the warrant to search the home was illegitimate, and any evidence gathered by said search constitutes "fruit of the poisonous tree" and can't be used in court.

So this guy will walk on drug charges for which the police have hard evidence on a technicality.

That said, the police are wrong here. Their warrant was illegitimate, and all the evidence should be thrown out. Police conduct needs to be 100% aboveboard or their authority simply cannot be trusted.

One thing seems mysterious to me, a non US, non lawyer bod: if one can get together sufficient reason to place a tracker on someone's car, why wouldn't that also be sufficient reason for a search warrant? I appreciate that there's obviously some difference between the two in the US, otherwise there'd not be this fuss, but I'd be grateful for the explanation.

Also not a lawyer, and this has probably been covered in the multiple pages since you posted, but I can explain.

In the US, we have the 4th Amendment to the Constitution, which reads as follows:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

I bolded the operative portion for effect. A warrant must specify what the police are looking for, and where they are looking for it, and they must have probable cause to believe that the thing they want is where they think it is. If they got a warrant to track the car it means they had probable cause to believe that the car was being used in the meth dealing operation. The lack of warrant for the house indicates that either a) the police didn't know the man's home address (and thus couldn't "particularly describe the place to be searched"), or b) the police didn't have any reason to believe he was dealing drugs out of his home (in which case the warrant is not merited "upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation").

I am also not a lawyer, but I have lived in the US my entire life.

 

[ZenBeam]

Even if he knew it belonged to the Sheriff's Office, why isn't "take this inside and wait for someone to come asking for it" a reasonable approach to returning it? How is that theft?

(It may be a stupid approach if you're a meth dealer, but that doesn't make it theft.)

 

[mmiller7]

If I ever find a tracker on my car, I will park it at a busy shopping mall and re-attach it to a car with out of state plates. Not stolen. Moved.

I would mount it to a local police car. Not stolen, returned!

edit: Thinking more about this and my luck. I would them be charged with visiting prostitutes, driving at reckless speeds, and loitering for than 2 hours at the local doughnut shop.

You forgot tampering with a government vehicle, providing false information (tracking something not yourself), and probably somehow still theft.

 

[wvmikep]

I don’t know how theft is defined in the USA — and strongly suspect these particular police didn’t care anyway — but in the UK it involves a perpetrator being aware that they’re doing something dishonest, intending that the owners never get the thing back, and taking a concrete step that removes the owners’ control over the item in favour of the thief.

This case would appear to satisfy exactly zero of those criteria.

It should be the same here - commission of a crime generally requires "Mens rea" - the intention of wrongdoing. In this case the device is already in his possession. Moving it from his vehicle to his home cannot be said to intend theft.

It's not quite that simple.

The statute in Indiana is:

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

The device clearly wasn't his, so he knowingly and intentionally exerted unauthorized control, and it was almost certainly to deprive whoever was tracking him of the use of the tracker. Check on all that for mens rea.

What this turns on is the "of another person" bit.

If you or I would have attached the tracker to his car, we would have - for various reasons - been likely considered to have "abandoned" the property and there'd be no theft. The big question here is whether or not that applies to the government, and the answer seems to be no.

The fact that the tracker wasn't labeled at all is, in my opinion, probably the only reason this has gone as far as it has. If it was labeled "Property of the Sheriff" and there was a law on the books (aka constructive notice) that the government retains property rights to placed GPS trackers, which it sounds like there is, this guy would be hosed.

Take it off. Leave it on the ground where you found it. Drive away.

 

[Adreaver]

Am I the only one bothered by him being charged with trafficking drugs despite no drugs being found? Yes they found drug paraphernalia, so charge him for trafficking drug paraphernalia, but paraphernalia are not drugs. Shit many corner stores sell meth pipes; you can even buy them on Amazon, and yet no one is accusing those merchants of trafficking drugs. It seems somewhat hypocritical and an inconsistent application of the law.

We don't know the specific paraphernalia that was found.

If they found a meth pipe, they have basically nothing beyond possession of paraphernalia, which is only a misdemeanor in many places if you don't have actual drugs to go with it.

If they found scales, vacuum sealers, etc, that points to trafficking. Especially combined with whatever evidence they had that let them get the warrant to put the tracker on the car in the first place.

 

[Cydonos]

What a fucking obscene argument. It's basically tailor-made to allow them to manufacture probable cause to invade your home. All they have to do is put a GPS tracker somewhere fucking obvious and then wait for you to remove it like any sane human would.

I think the defendants lawyers should absolutely point this out!

 

[Derecho Imminent]

I'm really pissed off there are 7 damn pages of people bitching about the definition of theft instead of arguing why the law allows a tracking device to be attached in the first place.

Focus people.

Because, with a warrant searches are legal. And tracking is clearly a kind of search. So, with a suitable warrant tracking is legal. Nobody is arguing about that aspect because it's completely reasonable.

Arguable. A warrant to search implies they search and leave, not search continuously forever. An unending search is imo an unreasonable intrusion to your privacy.

I would expect that the warrant here had a specified timespan, not unending.

Oh sure. You expect them to come to the guy and ask for it back when the warrant expires? Clearly they would extend the warrant for as long as it takes. In effect, unlimited.

Search warrants are supposed to be "Search the premises and see if you find it", not "keep looking and if you dont find anything keep looking until you do".

 

[Einbrecher]

The fact that the tracker wasn't labeled at all is, in my opinion, probably the only reason this has gone as far as it has. If it was labeled "Property of the Sheriff" and there was a law on the books (aka constructive notice) that the government retains property rights to placed GPS trackers, which it sounds like there is, this guy would be hosed.

The judges seem skeptical beyond that. There seems to be constitutional issues here.
If you cannot remove the government property, how is that not deprivation of the part of your property to which it is attached?
If moving it a few feet is theft, how is driving it around for miles not? The police could, at a whim, declare that your taking off with it is theft. There certainly is no legal principle that a thing on or in a vehicle is considered stationary. (If you drive the getaway vehicle for bank robbers you're considered an accessory. If you toss someone in your car and drive them across state lines that's a federal kidnapping charge. So how is taking government property on a ride not theft?) If you cannot know what is and is not illegal then the law is impermissibly vague.

I wish it had been included in the article (because it's in the court memo linked in the article), but the crucial facts here are the series of events which the court found to be probable cause to justify the warrant.

The police, at some point after losing signal, went to check the car to see if it was still attached. It was no longer attached, and they knew of only one instance where one of these things just fell off.

In other words, the fact that it was no longer on the car is what led them to say, "theft."

There is no slippery slope here where, simply by taking the tracker for a ride, the person would be considered to have stolen it. The entire purpose of the tracker is so that they take it for a ride. It's covered in the warrant. You'd have a clear as day case of entrapment if merely driving it around constituted theft.

So again, the kicker here is that the tracker was no longer attached to the car. The probable cause was that he removed it, and that removal was what was considered theft. That's what the judge quoted in the article is iffy about, and for good reason.

The state is "technically" right here. It is, on paper, theft. But is that an interpretation this court wants to uphold? So far, unfortunately, yes. We'll see what Indiana's Supreme Court does with it.

 

[truemore]

So what if he had moved to another persons vehicle? Or what if he just disconnected the battery? Or if it fell off in his driveway is he guilty, prove he didn't do it. Or what if the dog did it or his kid?

I have to say the stupidity of the arguments boggles my mind because if they enforce this then a police officer can just say he put the device on the vehicle, but put it on the property and say the suspect took it off so poof they have probable cause to search the property and get a warrant.

I am think the justice system is blind, but stupid, usually not for long. These kind of hair brained arguments tend to get crushed rather quickly.

 

[Einbrecher]

I don’t know how theft is defined in the USA — and strongly suspect these particular police didn’t care anyway — but in the UK it involves a perpetrator being aware that they’re doing something dishonest, intending that the owners never get the thing back, and taking a concrete step that removes the owners’ control over the item in favour of the thief.

This case would appear to satisfy exactly zero of those criteria.

It should be the same here - commission of a crime generally requires "Mens rea" - the intention of wrongdoing. In this case the device is already in his possession. Moving it from his vehicle to his home cannot be said to intend theft.

It's not quite that simple.

The statute in Indiana is:

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

The device clearly wasn't his, so he knowingly and intentionally exerted unauthorized control, and it was almost certainly to deprive whoever was tracking him of the use of the tracker. Check on all that for mens rea.

What this turns on is the "of another person" bit.

If you or I would have attached the tracker to his car, we would have - for various reasons - been likely considered to have "abandoned" the property and there'd be no theft. The big question here is whether or not that applies to the government, and the answer seems to be no.

The fact that the tracker wasn't labeled at all is, in my opinion, probably the only reason this has gone as far as it has. If it was labeled "Property of the Sheriff" and there was a law on the books (aka constructive notice) that the government retains property rights to placed GPS trackers, which it sounds like there is, this guy would be hosed.

Take it off. Leave it on the ground where you found it. Drive away.

Which, reading this court opinion, seems to be something the court would have zero problem with.

The reason they said "theft" was probable here was because they lost signal on the device, and in the one case the department was aware of where a tracker had simply fallen off a vehicle, it still transmitted and they were able to locate it and recover it.

Because it wasn't transmitting here, that led them to believe (whether you agree or not) that he had taken it, destroyed it, etc. because it was no longer attached to the vehicle and they couldn't find it.

So it stands to reason that by taking it off and leaving it somewhere they can find it, you're fine.

 

[ZenBeam]

I'm really pissed off there are 7 damn pages of people bitching about the definition of theft instead of arguing why the law allows a tracking device to be attached in the first place.

Focus people.

Because, with a warrant searches are legal. And tracking is clearly a kind of search. So, with a suitable warrant tracking is legal. Nobody is arguing about that aspect because it's completely reasonable.

Arguable. A warrant to search implies they search and leave, not search continuously forever. An unending search is imo an unreasonable intrusion to your privacy.

I would expect that the warrant here had a specified timespan, not unending.

Oh sure. You expect them to come to the guy and ask for it back when the warrant expires? Clearly they would extend the warrant for as long as it takes. In effect, unlimited.

Search warrants are supposed to be "Search the premises and see if you find it", not "keep looking and if you dont find anything keep looking until you do".

You'e a bit loony, to be arguing that the warrant was illegal because you think they would extend it.

 

[Einbrecher]

I don’t know how theft is defined in the USA — and strongly suspect these particular police didn’t care anyway — but in the UK it involves a perpetrator being aware that they’re doing something dishonest, intending that the owners never get the thing back, and taking a concrete step that removes the owners’ control over the item in favour of the thief.

This case would appear to satisfy exactly zero of those criteria.

It should be the same here - commission of a crime generally requires "Mens rea" - the intention of wrongdoing. In this case the device is already in his possession. Moving it from his vehicle to his home cannot be said to intend theft.

It's not quite that simple.

The statute in Indiana is:

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

The device clearly wasn't his, so he knowingly and intentionally exerted unauthorized control, and it was almost certainly to deprive whoever was tracking him of the use of the tracker. Check on all that for mens rea.

What this turns on is the "of another person" bit.

If you or I would have attached the tracker to his car, we would have - for various reasons - been likely considered to have "abandoned" the property and there'd be no theft. The big question here is whether or not that applies to the government, and the answer seems to be no.

The fact that the tracker wasn't labeled at all is, in my opinion, probably the only reason this has gone as far as it has. If it was labeled "Property of the Sheriff" and there was a law on the books (aka constructive notice) that the government retains property rights to placed GPS trackers, which it sounds like there is, this guy would be hosed.

Even if they labeled the tracker, I don't understand how this isn't entrapment. It was literately planted by the police such that it was technically already in his possession. Would he have stolen the tracker if it wasn't on his car or did the actions of the police by where they placed it either coerce or compelled his taking of it? If it was on someone else's car or front porch or any place else other than on his own property, would he have taken it?

Also, if the "Property of the Sheriff" is a fraudulent label, to what degree does the person returning it get safe harbor for doing so? Let's say there is a rival meth dealer named Heisenberg and he wants to encourage the police to look into Heuring. Why not just get Heuring to self incriminate himself by getting him to "return" a tracker that claims to be police property but was actually put together by Heisenberg. According to the court documents, this is a 4 inch by 6 inch little block box. Wired magazine has photos of GPS trackers that fit that description. Seems like something someone could figure out how to make a reasonable mock fake or possibly get hold of the real thing. The person that returns it to the police may become a person of interest to the police for why they would be targeted by someone planting device claiming to be police property but actually isn't.

What if the target of the device claiming to be police property has nothing to do with drugs. Does a girlfriend of a jealous boyfriend deserve to get probing questions by the police merely for returning a device the boyfriend fraudulently marks as being police property?

While I would like it if Heuring wasn't dealing in methamphetamine, I also think there is aspects to this case that go beyond just one target and seems like the type of case the ACLU would weigh in on.

I'm not sure why you think turning in something labeled "Property of the Sheriff" to the Sheriff, only to find out that it's not the Sheriff's property, would incriminate you for anything.

"Oh, it's not yours? Alright, then I'm going to toss it in the trash."

There's nothing incriminating about that. If it isn't the sheriff's tracker, it's not like they're going to arrest you or detain you and question you as to why you have a GPS tracker attached to your car. It's not illegal to be the victim of having a tracker placed on your car. Trackers, on their own, aren't illegal devices. You can buy a tracker for your dog, for instance. I installed a GPS tracker on my own vehicles.

It's not like the person labeling these things as Property of the Sheriff is going to be the one to turn them in. Maybe they'd take it in as evidence for another case, but beyond taking your name/phone number, what is there to be gained?

Even if everyone knows you're the big meth dealer in town, again, nothing about handing them something that's labeled as their property, even if done fraudulently, is illegal, unless you were the one who labeled it.

 

[BigAssRat]

I don’t know how theft is defined in the USA — and strongly suspect these particular police didn’t care anyway — but in the UK it involves a perpetrator being aware that they’re doing something dishonest, intending that the owners never get the thing back, and taking a concrete step that removes the owners’ control over the item in favour of the thief.

This case would appear to satisfy exactly zero of those criteria.

It should be the same here - commission of a crime generally requires "Mens rea" - the intention of wrongdoing. In this case the device is already in his possession. Moving it from his vehicle to his home cannot be said to intend theft.

It's not quite that simple.

The statute in Indiana is:

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

The device clearly wasn't his, so he knowingly and intentionally exerted unauthorized control, and it was almost certainly to deprive whoever was tracking him of the use of the tracker. Check on all that for mens rea.

What this turns on is the "of another person" bit.

If you or I would have attached the tracker to his car, we would have - for various reasons - been likely considered to have "abandoned" the property and there'd be no theft. The big question here is whether or not that applies to the government, and the answer seems to be no.

The fact that the tracker wasn't labeled at all is, in my opinion, probably the only reason this has gone as far as it has. If it was labeled "Property of the Sheriff" and there was a law on the books (aka constructive notice) that the government retains property rights to placed GPS trackers, which it sounds like there is, this guy would be hosed.

So if someone puts THEIR bumper sticker on my car, then I can't remove it because I am removing someone else's property from my vehicle and denying their rights of use?

 

[tonylurker]

What a fucking obscene argument. It's basically tailor-made to allow them to manufacture probable cause to invade your home. All they have to do is put a GPS tracker somewhere fucking obvious and then wait for you to remove it like any sane human would.

If you find a GPS device attached somewhere obvious, just call the cops and say "I think there's a bomb on my car" and wait for the cops to remove it. Doesn't matter if it's obviously not a bomb, you are not an explosives expert, you have no way to know

Or, if it's very small, and it's labeled as property of the police, you can remove it, go to the police station and say "Hey, I found this laying next to my car. It says it's yours".

If you were going to go the "suspicious device on my car" route, you should first move the car to a public place where inspecting your car wouldn't be suspicious. A parking lot outside an auto parts store, one of those do it yourself carwash stations, ...

That way the commotion is much bigger and more of a hassle for the police. Plus, it might lead to the information about what the "suspicious device" was getting leaked to the press. It would do you and your case absolutely no good, but if you're a criminal in the first place, I'm guessing you'd get off on the giant commotion this caused.

 

[strykerman]

Just another in a long list of reasons not to blindly support police.

nothing wrong with blindly supporting law enforcement in general, but in individual and particular situations always force them to be honest and meet the burden of proof in their work.

Also never rely on them to defend you, rely on them to document events, but make sure you defend yourself. They will take 5-10 minutes to respond, if they ever decide to actually intervene (stoneman douglas HS had cops that did nothing.)

Get an AR-15, a shotgun, and a handgun and a carry permit if your state requires one. carry everywhere you can. If you are injured because you did not carry because the business owner prevented you from carrying, or the government outlawed it, sue the owner or the government for preventing you from defending your own life.

 

[starlark]

Isn't the operator of a vehicle liable for the contents of the vehicle when operating said vehicle, i.e. that person can be charged for unlawful possession of any potential unlawful item in the vehicle, regardless of whether they knew it was there or not? Wouldn't that fact of law (if I am not mistaken of course) run contrary to the government's argument?

In that case, they would probably argue that the tracker isn't technically in the car.

Cut to people taping meth to the underside of their car. "I don't know how it got there man but it's not mine!"

 

[RedFoxx]

I call this the manufacturing of probable cause. None existed to begin with, and the use of a CI tells me they had nothing. I dont see this flying. Just more dirty shit our cops do.

I call it, "making stuff up"....in hopes you get a stupid judge to go along. In this case, mission accomplished.

 

[tonylurker]

Just another in a long list of reasons not to blindly support police.

nothing wrong with blindly supporting law enforcement in general, but in individual and particular situations always force them to be honest and meet the burden of proof in their work.

Also never rely on them to defend you, rely on them to document events, but make sure you defend yourself. They will take 5-10 minutes to respond, if they ever decide to actually intervene (stoneman douglas HS had cops that did nothing.)

Get an AR-15, a shotgun, and a handgun and a carry permit if your state requires one. carry everywhere you can. If you are injured because you did not carry because the business owner prevented you from carrying, or the government outlawed it, sue the owner or the government for preventing you from defending your own life.

but only if you are white. If you aren't, the cops may yell, "drop the weapon" and open fire, when you turn around with a look of confusion on your face. you may have been in your rights, but that does you no good when you are dead.

 

[Mr. Fusion]

I'm really pissed off there are 7 damn pages of people bitching about the definition of theft instead of arguing why the law allows a tracking device to be attached in the first place.

Focus people.

Because, with a warrant searches are legal. And tracking is clearly a kind of search. So, with a suitable warrant tracking is legal. Nobody is arguing about that aspect because it's completely reasonable.

I hear your argument and generally agree.

Your comment, however, raises the question of "was the tracking warrant sufficient?" Does a tracking warrant require a lesser level of probable cause than a search warrant? I believe they require the same amount of evidence and I have seen no appellate decision suggesting otherwise. (In United States v Jones, 2011, the Supreme Court said a tracking device is as intrusive as any other search, thus requiring a warrant)

If they had sufficient probable cause for a tracking warrant then they did not need a warrant for stolen property. So why would they get one? My guess is the magistrate applied a lesser level of probable cause in order to get the tracking warrant and they understood that that evidence would not suffice for a search warrant of the home based on drug evidence. That caused the ruse for the stolen tracker search warrant.

 

[Derecho Imminent]

I'm really pissed off there are 7 damn pages of people bitching about the definition of theft instead of arguing why the law allows a tracking device to be attached in the first place.

Focus people.

Because, with a warrant searches are legal. And tracking is clearly a kind of search. So, with a suitable warrant tracking is legal. Nobody is arguing about that aspect because it's completely reasonable.

Arguable. A warrant to search implies they search and leave, not search continuously forever. An unending search is imo an unreasonable intrusion to your privacy.

I would expect that the warrant here had a specified timespan, not unending.

Oh sure. You expect them to come to the guy and ask for it back when the warrant expires? Clearly they would extend the warrant for as long as it takes. In effect, unlimited.

Search warrants are supposed to be "Search the premises and see if you find it", not "keep looking and if you dont find anything keep looking until you do".

You'e a bit loony, to be arguing that the warrant was illegal because you think they would extend it.

Its just common sense, but thats not even necessary to make the point.

For the sake of argument, lets say a normal search warrant is good for 2 weeks. I hope you will agree that if the police come into your house and search it night and day for 2 weeks straight that that would be unreasonable even with a warrant. Its an unreasonable intrusion on your privacy. And just because its a gps tracker instead of a home search doesnt mean the intrusion doesnt exist. A continuous search should not be allowed in the first place.

 

[Mr. Fusion]

I'm really pissed off there are 7 damn pages of people bitching about the definition of theft instead of arguing why the law allows a tracking device to be attached in the first place.

Focus people.

Because, with a warrant searches are legal. And tracking is clearly a kind of search. So, with a suitable warrant tracking is legal. Nobody is arguing about that aspect because it's completely reasonable.

Arguable. A warrant to search implies they search and leave, not search continuously forever. An unending search is imo an unreasonable intrusion to your privacy.

I would expect that the warrant here had a specified timespan, not unending.

Oh sure. You expect them to come to the guy and ask for it back when the warrant expires? Clearly they would extend the warrant for as long as it takes. In effect, unlimited.

Search warrants are supposed to be "Search the premises and see if you find it", not "keep looking and if you dont find anything keep looking until you do".

No.

A tracking warrant is similar to a phone tap. They do have a specific time limit that they may be in place. They also usually have specifics on where they may be placed. Like a phone tap that is looking for the subject to speak something incriminating into the phone and whom else is involved, a tracking device is looking for the subject's contacts surreptitiously.

While phone taps require the subject be notified at some point, a tracking warrant does not as far as I know. Phone taps are legislated while tracking warrants are not.

 

[tooki]

I apologize for going full hyperbole....

If the final decision in this case is that removing the GPS device from his car and putting it in his house is theft then I fully expect to see a court case in the near future where a person shot by police and surviving to also get an additional charge of thievery for stealing the cops bullets.

Well, here’s something rather similar:
http://loweringthebar.net/2014/08/ferguson-cops.html

 

[PuiuCS]

At this point you could even argue that the drugs might have been planted by the cops. This is what happens when the law enforcers don't follow the law or use ambiguous claims/loopholes.

 

[Lostviking]

I think the only way the government should prevail in a case like this, is if the device is specifically labeled as government property AND he didn't return it to them. If he mailed it back, then it wasn't stolen.

 

[Sulla]

If I found it on my car and it was labeled "property of sheriff's dept" or such, I'd just go return it...to the bottom of one of the sheriff's dept cars.

Shoot, I'd do that even if it wasn't labeled "property of sheriff's dept."

 

[Mr. Fusion]

The fact that the tracker wasn't labeled at all is, in my opinion, probably the only reason this has gone as far as it has. If it was labeled "Property of the Sheriff" and there was a law on the books (aka constructive notice) that the government retains property rights to placed GPS trackers, which it sounds like there is, this guy would be hosed.

The judges seem skeptical beyond that. There seems to be constitutional issues here.
If you cannot remove the government property, how is that not deprivation of the part of your property to which it is attached?
If moving it a few feet is theft, how is driving it around for miles not? The police could, at a whim, declare that your taking off with it is theft. There certainly is no legal principle that a thing on or in a vehicle is considered stationary. (If you drive the getaway vehicle for bank robbers you're considered an accessory. If you toss someone in your car and drive them across state lines that's a federal kidnapping charge. So how is taking government property on a ride not theft?) If you cannot know what is and is not illegal then the law is impermissibly vague.

I wish it had been included in the article (because it's in the court memo linked in the article), but the crucial facts here are the series of events which the court found to be probable cause to justify the warrant.

The police, at some point after losing signal, went to check the car to see if it was still attached. It was no longer attached, and they knew of only one instance where one of these things just fell off.

In other words, the fact that it was no longer on the car is what led them to say, "theft."

There is no slippery slope here where, simply by taking the tracker for a ride, the person would be considered to have stolen it. The entire purpose of the tracker is so that they take it for a ride. It's covered in the warrant. You'd have a clear as day case of entrapment if merely driving it around constituted theft.

So again, the kicker here is that the tracker was no longer attached to the car. The probable cause was that he removed it, and that removal was what was considered theft. That's what the judge quoted in the article is iffy about, and for good reason.

The state is "technically" right here. It is, on paper, theft. But is that an interpretation this court wants to uphold? So far, unfortunately, yes. We'll see what Indiana's Supreme Court does with it.

The question is if there is probable cause that the car owner removed and retained possession of the tracker. Just because the tracker was missing from the automobile is not evidence that the owner still possessed it. Nor has it been established that the car owner is liable for theft by removing a part of his car that he is reasonably unaware is owned by the police. As it is his car he is entitled to modify it in any way he wants to.

Theft is a mens rea crime. That means the thief must know that he intends to deprive the rightful owner of his property. That means the police need to show evidence that the car owner intended to keep the tracker and not return it. THAT is the problem as the car owner had no idea who owned it. (A suspicion that it might be a police tracker is not knowledge that it was and is not sufficient for probably cause.)

 

[drunkanidaho]

So if a cop dumps, say trash, in the back of my truck and I then remove said trash would that be theft of government trash?

What a fucking bullshit argument the cops are making.

That'd just be littering....

No, the way charges get passed out these days, you'd catch one for both theft and littering.

 

[klarg]

I guess, in Indiana, being shot by the police is “bullet theft.”

 

[Einbrecher]

I don’t know how theft is defined in the USA — and strongly suspect these particular police didn’t care anyway — but in the UK it involves a perpetrator being aware that they’re doing something dishonest, intending that the owners never get the thing back, and taking a concrete step that removes the owners’ control over the item in favour of the thief.

This case would appear to satisfy exactly zero of those criteria.

It should be the same here - commission of a crime generally requires "Mens rea" - the intention of wrongdoing. In this case the device is already in his possession. Moving it from his vehicle to his home cannot be said to intend theft.

It's not quite that simple.

The statute in Indiana is:

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

The device clearly wasn't his, so he knowingly and intentionally exerted unauthorized control, and it was almost certainly to deprive whoever was tracking him of the use of the tracker. Check on all that for mens rea.

What this turns on is the "of another person" bit.

If you or I would have attached the tracker to his car, we would have - for various reasons - been likely considered to have "abandoned" the property and there'd be no theft. The big question here is whether or not that applies to the government, and the answer seems to be no.

The fact that the tracker wasn't labeled at all is, in my opinion, probably the only reason this has gone as far as it has. If it was labeled "Property of the Sheriff" and there was a law on the books (aka constructive notice) that the government retains property rights to placed GPS trackers, which it sounds like there is, this guy would be hosed.

So if someone puts THEIR bumper sticker on my car, then I can't remove it because I am removing someone else's property from my vehicle and denying their rights of use?

"If you or I would have attached the tracker to his car, we would have - for various reasons - been likely considered to have "abandoned" the property and there'd be no theft."

 

[ambyra]

If the court upholds the theft charge then it's creating a huge opening for people to maliciously stick trackers on cars, with the victims having to worry about getting nailed with theft charges by the police since they have no way of knowing whether the police were the ones who put it there.

I feel like the tracker should be labeled with a “property of US government. Do not remove” for it to be theft. I don’t know why he removed it in the first place. I’d keep it on there, maybe use alt transportation to conduct business. Hasn’t this guy watched breaking bad or Better call Saul? They have long segments on what to do if you’re a meth dealer with a tracker on your car.

 

[O/Siris]

That drug dealer got what he deserved for being so stupid. Since he found the devise and removed he must have realized that it was a GPS devise then he put the devise in with his illegal drugs! So it serves him right!

First, they came for the drug dealers. It wasn't me, so I didn't object...

To borrow from other, greater speakers.

 

[science is good]

The fact that the tracker wasn't labeled at all is, in my opinion, probably the only reason this has gone as far as it has. If it was labeled "Property of the Sheriff" and there was a law on the books (aka constructive notice) that the government retains property rights to placed GPS trackers, which it sounds like there is, this guy would be hosed.

The judges seem skeptical beyond that. There seems to be constitutional issues here.
If you cannot remove the government property, how is that not deprivation of the part of your property to which it is attached?
If moving it a few feet is theft, how is driving it around for miles not? The police could, at a whim, declare that your taking off with it is theft. There certainly is no legal principle that a thing on or in a vehicle is considered stationary. (If you drive the getaway vehicle for bank robbers you're considered an accessory. If you toss someone in your car and drive them across state lines that's a federal kidnapping charge. So how is taking government property on a ride not theft?) If you cannot know what is and is not illegal then the law is impermissibly vague.

I wish it had been included in the article (because it's in the court memo linked in the article), but the crucial facts here are the series of events which the court found to be probable cause to justify the warrant.

The police, at some point after losing signal, went to check the car to see if it was still attached. It was no longer attached, and they knew of only one instance where one of these things just fell off.

In other words, the fact that it was no longer on the car is what led them to say, "theft."

There is no slippery slope here where, simply by taking the tracker for a ride, the person would be considered to have stolen it. The entire purpose of the tracker is so that they take it for a ride. It's covered in the warrant. You'd have a clear as day case of entrapment if merely driving it around constituted theft.

So again, the kicker here is that the tracker was no longer attached to the car. The probable cause was that he removed it, and that removal was what was considered theft. That's what the judge quoted in the article is iffy about, and for good reason.

The state is "technically" right here. It is, on paper, theft. But is that an interpretation this court wants to uphold? So far, unfortunately, yes. We'll see what Indiana's Supreme Court does with it.

Portion removed. Misread comment.

I do agree, the court needs to decide if the removal of an object placed with a warrant constitutes theft and/or justifies a second warrant to search a home.

 

[Einbrecher]

The fact that the tracker wasn't labeled at all is, in my opinion, probably the only reason this has gone as far as it has. If it was labeled "Property of the Sheriff" and there was a law on the books (aka constructive notice) that the government retains property rights to placed GPS trackers, which it sounds like there is, this guy would be hosed.

The judges seem skeptical beyond that. There seems to be constitutional issues here.
If you cannot remove the government property, how is that not deprivation of the part of your property to which it is attached?
If moving it a few feet is theft, how is driving it around for miles not? The police could, at a whim, declare that your taking off with it is theft. There certainly is no legal principle that a thing on or in a vehicle is considered stationary. (If you drive the getaway vehicle for bank robbers you're considered an accessory. If you toss someone in your car and drive them across state lines that's a federal kidnapping charge. So how is taking government property on a ride not theft?) If you cannot know what is and is not illegal then the law is impermissibly vague.

I wish it had been included in the article (because it's in the court memo linked in the article), but the crucial facts here are the series of events which the court found to be probable cause to justify the warrant.

The police, at some point after losing signal, went to check the car to see if it was still attached. It was no longer attached, and they knew of only one instance where one of these things just fell off.

In other words, the fact that it was no longer on the car is what led them to say, "theft."

There is no slippery slope here where, simply by taking the tracker for a ride, the person would be considered to have stolen it. The entire purpose of the tracker is so that they take it for a ride. It's covered in the warrant. You'd have a clear as day case of entrapment if merely driving it around constituted theft.

So again, the kicker here is that the tracker was no longer attached to the car. The probable cause was that he removed it, and that removal was what was considered theft. That's what the judge quoted in the article is iffy about, and for good reason.

The state is "technically" right here. It is, on paper, theft. But is that an interpretation this court wants to uphold? So far, unfortunately, yes. We'll see what Indiana's Supreme Court does with it.

The question is if there is probable cause that the car owner removed and retained possession of the tracker. Just because the tracker was missing from the automobile is not evidence that the owner still possessed it. Nor has it been established that the car owner is liable for theft by removing a part of his car that he is reasonably unaware is owned by the police. As it is his car he is entitled to modify it in any way he wants to.

Theft is a mens rea crime. That means the thief must know that he intends to deprive the rightful owner of his property. That means the police need to show evidence that the car owner intended to keep the tracker and not return it. THAT is the problem as the car owner had no idea who owned it. (A suspicion that it might be a police tracker is not knowledge that it was and is not sufficient for probably cause.)

The bar to prove intent is a lot lower than you make it out to be. Whatever the tracker was, it clearly wasn't his. So by taking it and, after 10 days, doing nothing to find the right owner or to allow the owner to retrieve it is all the evidence of intent they need. The guy's lawyer would be all over mens rea if there was an argument there. There's not.

Probable cause. Not "I'm completely 100% sure this is what happened" cause.

They searched the property where the car was located at the point they lost signal. They found the tracker at that property locked in a metal box.

Heuring's lawyers were arguing that the trail of evidence the police had justifying probable cause wasn't enough. That's really all they can argue. The problem is, there aren't any great leaps in the police logic. There's an arguable stretch there, for sure, but nothing about that trail is totally unreasonable on its face.

The court even pretty much said, "We're aware that it's possible for a tracker to just fall off, but in the single instance that such a thing has ever happened we're aware of, the device was recovered because it was still transmitting."

 

[aaronb1138]

I don’t know how theft is defined in the USA — and strongly suspect these particular police didn’t care anyway — but in the UK it involves a perpetrator being aware that they’re doing something dishonest, intending that the owners never get the thing back, and taking a concrete step that removes the owners’ control over the item in favour of the thief.

This case would appear to satisfy exactly zero of those criteria.

It should be the same here - commission of a crime generally requires "Mens rea" - the intention of wrongdoing. In this case the device is already in his possession. Moving it from his vehicle to his home cannot be said to intend theft.

It's not quite that simple.

The statute in Indiana is:

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

The device clearly wasn't his, so he knowingly and intentionally exerted unauthorized control, and it was almost certainly to deprive whoever was tracking him of the use of the tracker. Check on all that for mens rea.

What this turns on is the "of another person" bit.

If you or I would have attached the tracker to his car, we would have - for various reasons - been likely considered to have "abandoned" the property and there'd be no theft. The big question here is whether or not that applies to the government, and the answer seems to be no.

The fact that the tracker wasn't labeled at all is, in my opinion, probably the only reason this has gone as far as it has. If it was labeled "Property of the Sheriff" and there was a law on the books (aka constructive notice) that the government retains property rights to placed GPS trackers, which it sounds like there is, this guy would be hosed.

And this is exactly why we have trials by jury. Unfortunately, attorneys on both sides have invested heavily in making sure juries are generally incompetent for the tasks required.

The pure legal argument while technically correct is poor logic because it carries inherent process and logic dishonesty. It's clearly constructive approach towards entrapment. The officers, prosecutors, and the judge who granted the later warrant based on theft are objectively awful people on the basis of their actions who have no business being paid taxpayer dollars to work in law enforcement and criminal justice.


Similar situations are why we need statutory limitations on the falsehoods police can tell during an investigation or interrogation. Somehow we've socially developed a culture of law enforcement and criminal justice with rotten core values.

 

[tiosteven]

If you or I would have attached the tracker to his car, we would have - for various reasons - been likely considered to have "abandoned" the property and there'd be no theft. The big question here is whether or not that applies to the government, and the answer seems to be no.

The fact that the tracker wasn't labeled at all is, in my opinion, probably the only reason this has gone as far as it has. If it was labeled "Property of the Sheriff" and there was a law on the books (aka constructive notice) that the government retains property rights to placed GPS trackers, which it sounds like there is, this guy would be hosed.

I think the lack of a label is a boon to the defendant’s case. Otherwise, if a person finds a tracker on their car, they must leave it there just in case it is owned by the police. That sounds like an undo burden on the public. Also, it is unreasonable to expect a normal person to know the law exists in the first place.

 

[Einbrecher]

The fact that the tracker wasn't labeled at all is, in my opinion, probably the only reason this has gone as far as it has. If it was labeled "Property of the Sheriff" and there was a law on the books (aka constructive notice) that the government retains property rights to placed GPS trackers, which it sounds like there is, this guy would be hosed.

The judges seem skeptical beyond that. There seems to be constitutional issues here.
If you cannot remove the government property, how is that not deprivation of the part of your property to which it is attached?
If moving it a few feet is theft, how is driving it around for miles not? The police could, at a whim, declare that your taking off with it is theft. There certainly is no legal principle that a thing on or in a vehicle is considered stationary. (If you drive the getaway vehicle for bank robbers you're considered an accessory. If you toss someone in your car and drive them across state lines that's a federal kidnapping charge. So how is taking government property on a ride not theft?) If you cannot know what is and is not illegal then the law is impermissibly vague.

I wish it had been included in the article (because it's in the court memo linked in the article), but the crucial facts here are the series of events which the court found to be probable cause to justify the warrant.

The police, at some point after losing signal, went to check the car to see if it was still attached. It was no longer attached, and they knew of only one instance where one of these things just fell off.

In other words, the fact that it was no longer on the car is what led them to say, "theft."

There is no slippery slope here where, simply by taking the tracker for a ride, the person would be considered to have stolen it. The entire purpose of the tracker is so that they take it for a ride. It's covered in the warrant. You'd have a clear as day case of entrapment if merely driving it around constituted theft.

So again, the kicker here is that the tracker was no longer attached to the car. The probable cause was that he removed it, and that removal was what was considered theft. That's what the judge quoted in the article is iffy about, and for good reason.

The state is "technically" right here. It is, on paper, theft. But is that an interpretation this court wants to uphold? So far, unfortunately, yes. We'll see what Indiana's Supreme Court does with it.

Your "slippery slope" argument doesn't hold water. There is a clear difference between the tracker being attached to the car and moving with the car, it's intended purpose, and being removed and placed inside a locked cabinet inside the person's home. One of the tenants of the thief was the police were deprived of the use of the tracker. If the tracker is performing its intended activity, that argument no longer holds.

I do agree, the court needs to decide if the removal of an object placed with a warrant constitutes theft and/or justifies a second warrant to search a home.

I'm not sure what you're getting at.

I was replying to someone who improperly read the theft statute and posited a hypo in which, by merely driving the car to which the tracker is attached around and not otherwise touching the tracker, the police could cry "theft." The poster insinuated it's evidence of a slippery slope.

I said there is no slippery slope in that sense because the whole point of a tracker is for it to be driven around. The only reason the police cried theft here is because the tracker was gone and they couldn't find it.

I don't see why that doesn't hold water.

 

[dorkbert]

Search warrants are supposed to be "Search the premises and see if you find it", not "keep looking and if you dont find anything keep looking until you do".

I thought search warrant is "trash the place, maybe something illicit will fell out from somewhere."