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

[Gil Bang 26069]

 

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.
 

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.

[Iceman 2730]

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 November 17, 2019 by Iceman

[Fuck Tim Beck 3834]

I would have either 

1. Attached the device to the nearest wild animal (possum, raccoon, hog) 

2 Dropped of device at the nearest donut shop 

[Pato del Muerto 52667]

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?

[Cajun 11760]

Quote

While looking through the barn, officers found a meth pipe, which was used to obtain a warrant to search for drugs. 

Of course they did.

 

[Cajun 11760]

There's so many other fun ways Heuring could have responded...

[tx 3 putt 77658]

LuLz @ ‘found’ a meth pipe 

[52-80 19275]

He could've put the tracker on police chiefs car

[RPM 26381]

4 minutes ago, 52-80 said:

He could've put the tracker on police chiefs car

He's tailing YOU Chief!

[Dennis Taylor 18894]

It's actually pretty plausible that a '99 Expedition wasn't going anywhere 

[atomheartbevo 89895]

7 hours ago, Fuck Tim Beck said:

I would have either 

1. Attached the device to the nearest wild animal (possum, raccoon, hog) 

2 Dropped of device at the nearest donut shop 

3. Nearest truck stop, lots of 18 wheelers headed out-of-state.   

[immortal13 4059]

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?

[immortal13 4059]

6 hours ago, tx 3 putt said:

LuLz @ ‘found’ a meth pipe 

Yeah, I'm not buying that either

[Bevo 13609]

6 hours ago, 52-80 said:

He could've put the tracker on police chiefs car

Lots of good choices: ex-wife, chief of police, mayor, mother of mayor/chief of po po, Fed judge, FBI...

[conVINCEd 21474]

He should’ve put the gps inside a banana peel, and stuck it up the tailpipe of the police chief’s car.

[Buffsoldier 1895]

[woohorn 1131]

Good thread.

Rain on my windshield-gone.

Bird shits on my car-gone.

AMP leaves flyer under my wiper-gone.

Racoon getz stukz in grillz-gone.

Pissed ex paints "prick" on my 1970 AMC Gremlin-gone.

Strange "box" appearz underz my truck....

[RPM 26381]

School bus would have been a good choice. "We think he's stalking one of the cheerleaders. He follows her bus twice a day and has gone to every away game."

Edited November 18, 2019 by RPM

[immortal13 4059]

But is it really stolen if they know exactly where it fucking is?

[Dewey 3299]

All they found was a meth pipe in a barn?  Good detective work there, Lou

[Brisketexan 105483]

This case seems really stupid.

Oh, and I trust that "we found a meth pipe" about as much as I trust Tom Herman telling me we've fixed everything and are gonna win out.  Maybe even less.

[Armybrat 40942]

12 hours ago, immortal13 said:

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

Then I am really fucked with the bed tag police.

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861]

21 hours ago, Gil Bang said:

Prosecutors countered that police acted with judicial authorization at every step of the investigation.

um. . . isn't that the problem?

[El Diablo 4232]

Andrei, you've lost another GPS tracker?

[Anastasis 23471]

"Prosecutors countered that police acted with judicial authorization at every step of the investigation."

 

LOL. 

[HOOKEM4 5051]

A 6"x4" box??? I need the last dimension on this thing. Are cops running around installing trackers larger than a brick to peoples car???? Lulz.

[Texas_Rocks 347]

Of course they found a meth pipe. Never mind that it was probably in one of the cops vehicles before they found it on the property.

That’s an almost standard procedure. Not even joking.

[TwiceHorn 31647]

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.

[Dahobbs 17717]

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

[Pato del Muerto 52667]

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

[Brisketexan 105483]

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.

[TwiceHorn 31647]

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.

[Iceman 2730]

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."

[Pato del Muerto 52667]

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

[RPM 26381]

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?

[Pato del Muerto 52667]

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 

[TwiceHorn 31647]

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.

[Larry T. Spider 1747]

The most comical part is the meth pipe they “found”.

[Cajun 11760]

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

[blacklab 11957]

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. 

[Cajun 11760]

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!"

 

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

[Dahobbs 17717]

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. 

[Johnny Sack 8397]

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. 

[High Plains Drifter 11054]

Police/surveillance state.

[Iceman 2730]

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.

[immortal13 4059]

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

[Nivek 17016]

Remember when you and your dog are shot, you are depriving the officer of the bullets he needs to protect himself, and stealing/damaging government property.

[crash_davis 23122]

When cops make a traffic stop, they can charge you for theft of their time away from a donut shop.

[Texas_Rocks 347]

lol! What charge would the law conjure up if he removed the device and returned it to them? Cops are the all world champs at being poor losers...and they’ll do pretty much anything to avoid losing a single point.

[HOOKEM4 5051]

I had a cop tell me he could charge me with assault when he was holding me against the back of my explorer by the neck on a traffic stop and I grabbed his wrist bc I was choking. I was 16, he was a grown ass meathead. Cops are so much fun to deal with.