CRIME FBI Told Cops to Recreate Evidence From Secret Cell-Phone Trackers

ChickenLittle

Contributing Member
https://theintercept.com/2016/05/05/fbi-told-cops-to-recreate-evidence-from-secret-cell-phone-trackers/

FBI Told Cops to Recreate Evidence From Secret Cell-Phone Trackers
Jenna McLaughlin
May 5 2016, 12:11 p.m.

A recently disclosed document shows the FBI telling a local police department that the bureau’s covert cell-phone tracking equipment is so secret that any evidence acquired through its use needs to be recreated in some other way before being introduced at trial.

“Information obtained through the use of the equipment is FOR LEAD PURPOSES ONLY,” FBI special agent James E. Finch wrote to Chief Bill Citty of the Oklahoma City Police Department.

The official notice, dated September 2014, said such information “may not be used as primary evidence in any affidavits, hearings or trials. This equipment provides general location information about a cellular device, and your agency understands it is required to use additional and independent investigative means and methods, such as historical cellular analysis, that would be admissible at trial to corroborate information concerning the location of the target obtained through the use of this equipment.”

The document, obtained by nonprofit investigative journalism outlet Oklahoma Watch, pertains to the use of cell site simulators, or Stingrays — surveillance technology that mimics a cellphone tower to trick cellphones into transmitting location data and other information, sometimes even the contents of calls.

Journalists and activists have uncovered at least 20 similar nondisclosure agreements between FBI and local police about Stingrays in the past few years — but the FBI’s advice about retroactively recreating evidence appears to be new.

Privacy advocates have long warned of “parallel construction,” in which investigators cover up information obtained without a warrant by finding other ways to attribute it — never allowing the source of the original lead to be scrutinized or subject to judicial oversight.

“This is the first time I have seen language this explicit in an FBI non-disclosure agreement,” Nate Wessler, a staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union’s Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project, wrote in an email to The Intercept. “The typical NDAs order local police to hide information from courts and defense attorneys, which is bad enough, but this goes the outrageous extra step of ordering police to actually engage in evidence laundering,”

“Instead of just hiding the surveillance, the FBI is mandating manufacture of a whole new chain of evidence to throw defense attorneys and judges off the scent. As a result, defendants are denied their right to challenge potentially unconstitutional surveillance and courts are deprived of an opportunity to curb law enforcement abuses,” Wessler continued.

One concrete example of law enforcement engaging in parallel construction was the Drug Enforcement Agency’s “Hemisphere” program, in which agents were given access to troves of AT&T’s historical cell phone records and instructed to subpoena those same records to create a separate legitimate evidence trail.
 

Knoxville's Joker

Has No Life - Lives on TB
Are they wanting to drive everything underground? This will push for the use of privatized cell networks that ONLY link with a certain set of towers and will blow smoke up the posterior of any of these tracking devices.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Are they wanting to drive everything undeqrground? This will push for the use of privatized cell networks that ONLY link with a certain set of towers and will blow smoke up the posterior of any of these tracking devices.

And that would give TPTB the foundation for a charge of conspiracy to toss on the pile as well as probable cause.
 

ElevenO

Veteran Member
And that would give TPTB the foundation for a charge of conspiracy to toss on the pile as well as probable cause.



If you buy one felony then the rest are free. If the .gov wants to toss the "rule of law" out the window then so be it. However, they will eventually find out (the hard way) that that's a two way street.
 

Thinwater

Firearms Manufacturer
Other things in law enforcement are also done this way. Crime Stoppers tips are another one. If a tip came in from them detailing a drug dealing operation, the case was started from "An anonymous tip" and any details from the original source had to be independently "Discovered" by the investigator through legitimate (Legal) investigative means. There was nothing sinister about it. It just kept the dealers from knowing who ratted them out. Most of the stuff that came in from fusion centers and other .gov sources was treated the same way, and they did not provide either the source of the info of the method they obtained it. It was given as "Investigative leads only" and it was up to the investigator to utilize normal, legal investigative methods to prove the case. The source of the tip was not revealed beyond being called a "Tip". A "tip" has no legal weight, only the investigators ability to collect and present evidence about the crime. It was basically giving him direction to start and if he found it to be legit, he could work it. If nothing was found, that was the end of it unless something came up later.

I am not saying any of the above is good, bad or indifferent, it is the way it was about ten years ago when I still played the game. It can be taken to far really fast with the modern surveillance state. The biggest problem is when the .gov uses it to attack those they disagree with, like the IRS did a few years ago. Political prosecution is a dangerous thing and undermines what little credibility the .gov still has.
 

Dozdoats

On TB every waking moment
It's always been that way. They will dismiss a case before they admit to using a StingRay or the like in court. This is nothing new.
 
Top