Curious

A routine request in Florida for public records regarding the use of a surveillance tool known as stingray took an extraordinary turn Tuesday when federal authorities seized the documents before police could release them....

The government has long asserted it doesn’t need a probable-cause warrant to use stingrays because the device doesn’t collect the content of phone calls and text messages, but instead operates like pen-registers and trap-and-traces, collecting the equivalent of header information. The ACLU and others argue that the devices are more invasive than a trap-and-trace.

Recently, the Sarasota police department revealed it had used stingrays at least 200 times since 2010 without telling a judge because the device’s manufacturer made it sign a non-disclosure agreement that police claim prevented them from telling the courts.
I would think the courts would have some questions about that principle!

5 comments:

battleblue1 said...

I really don't get this - it calls attention to the matter and gives the appearance of wrongdoing. If everything is legal and aboveboard, then redact what you have to redact and release the documents.

Eric Blair said...

Police. State.

Texan99 said...

This really, really, really doesn't sound right.

Grim said...

"Sorry, we can't tell the court what happened -- we signed an NDA." I'd love to see that argument put forth before a judge.

Texan99 said...

"Your Honor, we're bound by omerta. . . ."