Jump to content

Cops put GPS tracker on man's car. Man removes it. Theft?


Gil Bang

Recommended Posts

 

Indiana Supreme Court Considers Whether Removing GPS Tracker Is A Crime
Justices on the Indiana Supreme Court wonder whether removing a secretly installed GPS tracker from your car constitutes theft.
 

Justice Mark S. Massa
A man who removed a secretly installed GPS tracking device from his SUV is making his case to the Indiana Supreme Court. Justices last week heard the case of Derek Heuring, who had a warrant-authorized tracker placed on his 1999 Ford Expedition by the Warrick County Sheriff's Office on July 11, 2018.

Heuring removed the unmarked box from his vehicle and left it in the family barn. Police eventually became suspicious that the GPS location readings were showing the car as always being parked in the same location. Then the device went dark. Detectives went to the barn to retrieve the tracking device from the car, but it was no longer attached. Based upon this, police applied for warrants to search Heuring's home and that of his parents to find the missing GPS tracker. The warrant application asserted that Heuring had committed "theft" by removing the unidentified, magnetically attached six inch by four inch black box from his car.

While looking through the barn, officers found a meth pipe, which was used to obtain a warrant to search for drugs. During this search, the tracker was found in a locker in the barn. Justice Mark S. Massa wondered whether it could ever be a crime to remove such a device from your own car.

"I'm not looking to make things easier for drug dealers," Justice Massa said. "But if something is left on your car -- even if you know it's the police that are tracking you -- you have an obligation to leave it there and let them track you? If you then take it off you're somehow subject to a search of your home?"

Justice Steven H. David was equally skeptical.

"If someone wants to find me to do harm to me -- and it's not the police -- and they put a tracking device on my car, and I find it and dispose of it after stomping on it twenty-five times, I would hope they would not be able to go to a local prosecutor and somehow I'm getting charges filed against me for destroying someone else's property," Justice David said.

Heuring's attorney Michael Keating argued the police could not allege theft if there was no way for his client to know who owned the tracking device. Keating suggested police could have placed a label on the device indicating ownership, or officers could have come to the door and asked Heuring for the device back. Prosecutors countered that police acted with judicial authorization at every step of the investigation. The justices will issue a final ruling deciding whether the "theft" search warrant was properly issued.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

why in the holy fuck would the citizen owe a municipal entity any follow up on a finding a strange device on their vehicle?

"I'm take this factory radio out...I had better check with all local PDs and see if they own any of this mess."

 

Pure lunacy.  It's not like he cut a tracking device off his ankle and knew its origination, right? For all he knew it was a competitive dealer...

Edited by Iceman
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How would putting a “property of police do not remove” sticker on it affect the legality of removing it?  Anyone could add such a label. 
 

butthurt cops running to the courts for search warrants instead of asking first. 
 

Is my reading comprehension correct in that they got a warrant to search for the device, “found” a pipe instead, then went back and got another search warrant for drugs?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Pato del Muerto said:

How would putting a “property of police do not remove” sticker on it affect the legality of removing it?  Anyone could add such a label. 
 

butthurt cops running to the courts for search warrants instead of asking first. 
 

Is my reading comprehension correct in that they got a warrant to search for the device, “found” a pipe instead, then went back and got another search warrant for drugs?

Do you even "do not remove under penalty of law", bro?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Is the question in the case whether the tracker-theft warrant was valid? 

That would seem to have more implications in this case than whether a conviction for theft on these facts can stand.

Yes, that is the question. Defense has argued there wasn't probable cause for the crime of theft because removing an unwanted device from your car can't be theft. However, the statute under consideration is a little tricky:

"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"

Just going by a strict reading, it does seem he knowingly exerted control over property he knew wasn't his. 

I haven't listened to it yet, but the oral argument is available online: https://mycourts.in.gov/arguments/default.aspx?&id=2421&view=detail&yr=&when=&page=1&court=&search=heuring&direction= ASC&future=True&sort=&judge=&county=&admin=False&pageSize=20

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Just going by a strict reading, it does seem he knowingly exerted control over property he knew wasn't his.

 

2 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

So if I throw a baseball into his car and later he takes it out, can I allege theft?

This.

Someone affixed something to my vehicle, placed something within my vehicle, etc.  Hell, let's say I just come up on my car in my driveway and find a backpack set on the hood.  I take it off and put it in my garage.  Under this fact pattern, I would be charged with theft....presuming that the person who put it there lawfully placed it there.  But that's where it breaks down -- how can you determine that I KNEW of that distinction (that it was lawfully placed there)?  What if it was placed there by a burglar running from my neighbor's house?  Or what if it is a device intended to hurt me when I start the car, placed there by an angry neighbor?  For the tracking device, how would I know it wasn't illegally placed there by a jealous husband who thinks I'm banging his wife (and to be sure, I definitely am, but I always drive a rental car to our meetups because I ain't dumb)?

This case stinks like hell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Yes, that is the question. Defense has argued there wasn't probable cause for the crime of theft because removing an unwanted device from your car can't be theft. However, the statute under consideration is a little tricky:

"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"

Just going by a strict reading, it does seem he knowingly exerted control over property he knew wasn't his. 

I haven't listened to it yet, but the oral argument is available online: https://mycourts.in.gov/arguments/default.aspx?&id=2421&view=detail&yr=&when=&page=1&court=&search=heuring&direction= ASC&future=True&sort=&judge=&county=&admin=False&pageSize=20

Yeah I looked that up.  And compared to Texas'.

Quote

A person commits an offense if he unlawfully appropriates property with intent to deprive the owner of property.

With deprived meaning cause the loss of a "major part" of the value.  In Texas, I don't think this would be theft.  At least not in George Dix' crim law class.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jury has to use their brains at some point.  I know that seems far flung, but holy hell...

I did the grand jury things for 3 months a while back and I can easily see the group I served with poo-pooing that case. 

 

Us to the DA, "you want us to indict him over that bullshit?  Go fuck yourselves."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Pato del Muerto said:

Like an ankle monitor, a person should have to be aware of the court order that allows the vehicle tracking. 

The person is aware that it was strapped to their ankle and why. A random box stuck to my car? WTF did that come from?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, RPM said:

The person is aware that it was strapped to their ankle and why. A random box stuck to my car? WTF did that come from?

Right. So cops should be required to obtain a court order to install it, and also tell the vehicle owner that they are installing it. should put an end to some of their fishing 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, I think some of yall are focused on the wrong element.  It's intentionally deprive the rightful owner of value.

If he had destroyed it, or began using it himself (and even then), or disposed of it, then it's pretty clear.  Because he arguably "held it for safekeeping" you cant really infer any intention to deprive.

Unlawfully exert control/appropriate is a less fruitful ground for doubt at least in Texas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dahobbs said:

Yes, that is the question. Defense has argued there wasn't probable cause for the crime of theft because removing an unwanted device from your car can't be theft. However, the statute under consideration is a little tricky:

"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"

Just going by a strict reading, it does seem he knowingly exerted control over property he knew wasn't his. 

I haven't listened to it yet, but the oral argument is available online: https://mycourts.in.gov/arguments/default.aspx?&id=2421&view=detail&yr=&when=&page=1&court=&search=heuring&direction= ASC&future=True&sort=&judge=&county=&admin=False&pageSize=20

What a terribly written law.

Moronic

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Buddy of mine got drunk at the strip club and took a taxi home. The strip club handed him a bottle of water as they shoved him into the cab. He was pretty drunk and opened the bottle and was telling a story to his buddy, and can't talk without using his hands and was spraying water all over the cab. 

The cabbie got out of the cab and started shoving him and provoking him into a fight. A few years earlier a few of our coworkers were killed by a cabbie not too far from where he was. Thinking of that he shoved the cabbie away, got in the cab and started to drive. He got about 20 feet before he realized he was right in front of his apartment. So he pulled into a parking lot, left it running, walked back towards his apartment, told the cabbie to fuck off, and went into his apartment and fell asleep.

A few hours later the police were at the door and arresting him for grand theft auto. Cabbie was never more that 75 feet from his cab. Cabbie changed his story with the police and DA multiple times once he figured out he might be charged for assault. Buddy hires a lawyer and gets plea deals done with assistant DAs multiple times, but each time when it comes time to go to the hearing to sign the paperwork the DA who made the deal had left or been fired, and he had to go through the whole process again.  Each time the new DA assigned would offer something like 10 years in prison as the plea bargain, they would get within a week or two of going to trial, then they'd come to an agreement of a year or two of probation, then they would quit and his case would not get picked up by anyone for months. He racked up an unbelievable amount of legal bills during this time.

After a couple of years he finally got a plea signed. I think it was total bullshit as while he did deprive the cabbie of his cab for 2 minutes, he never had intent to permanently deprive him, very similar to this case. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, RPM said:

The person is aware that it was strapped to their ankle and why. A random box stuck to my car? WTF did that come from?

Yeah, I'm sorry, but if I find something on my car that isn't supposed to be there I'm taking it off.

"Hey, I found this on my car!"

explosive.png

 

"Well, don't take it off.  Wouldn't wanna deprive the owner of it's value."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

 

This.

Someone affixed something to my vehicle, placed something within my vehicle, etc.  Hell, let's say I just come up on my car in my driveway and find a backpack set on the hood.  I take it off and put it in my garage.  Under this fact pattern, I would be charged with theft....presuming that the person who put it there lawfully placed it there.  But that's where it breaks down -- how can you determine that I KNEW of that distinction (that it was lawfully placed there)?  What if it was placed there by a burglar running from my neighbor's house?  Or what if it is a device intended to hurt me when I start the car, placed there by an angry neighbor?  For the tracking device, how would I know it wasn't illegally placed there by a jealous husband who thinks I'm banging his wife (and to be sure, I definitely am, but I always drive a rental car to our meetups because I ain't dumb)?

This case stinks like hell.

I listened to the oral argument. I would say 4 of the justices were very skeptical this could be theft. I am too, but the wording of the statute is still problematic in my opinion. The other thing to keep in mind, the case isnt about whether he actually committed theft, but whether probable cause existed. I do think there is some validity to the argument that he would have a ton of defenses available at trial, but that it's still possible for probable cause to exist. 

The other thing to consider is that the exclusionary rule has an exception for good faith basis. Here, the cops did actually get a warrant before searching. Thus, you would have to argue that the cops were unreasonable in believing probable cause existed even in the face of a finding of probable cause by a judge. I think a likely result here is a clear judicial finding that these facts cant constitute probable cause of theft, but that the exception applies to this particular case. Future officers would then be on notice that similar efforts in the future would not pass muster and the exclusionary rule would apply. 

Let me be clear though, I wouldn't advocate for that outcome. I think these facts suck and that the law shouldn't permit this to be theft or for cops to use that alleged theft to get a search warrant. I think there is nothing here to indicate the defendant knew the property belonged to the cops and that he intentionally deprived then of its use, thus there was no reasonable basis for the cops to believe probable cause existed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

Yeah I looked that up.  And compared to Texas'.

With deprived meaning cause the loss of a "major part" of the value.  In Texas, I don't think this would be theft.  At least not in George Dix' crim law class.

Yep. How is the monitor less valuable in the locker versus on the car?  Cops just pissed their device was found.  Too bad. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Also, I think some of yall are focused on the wrong element.  It's intentionally deprive the rightful owner of value.

Hell, by that line of reasoning, the cops are guilty by changing the vehicle into a tracking device, and thus, theft.

The accusation is a confession.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

 

This.

Someone affixed something to my vehicle, placed something within my vehicle, etc.  Hell, let's say I just come up on my car in my driveway and find a backpack set on the hood.  I take it off and put it in my garage.  Under this fact pattern, I would be charged with theft....presuming that the person who put it there lawfully placed it there.  But that's where it breaks down -- how can you determine that I KNEW of that distinction (that it was lawfully placed there)?  What if it was placed there by a burglar running from my neighbor's house?  Or what if it is a device intended to hurt me when I start the car, placed there by an angry neighbor?  For the tracking device, how would I know it wasn't illegally placed there by a jealous husband who thinks I'm banging his wife (and to be sure, I definitely am, but I always drive a rental car to our meetups because I ain't dumb)?

This case stinks like hell.

 

1 hour ago, RPM said:

The person is aware that it was strapped to their ankle and why. A random box stuck to my car? WTF did that come from?

I thought it was a bomb....my bad

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...