Hb 474 states stingray usage now subject to approval by warrant only

New Hampshire has passed HB 474 stating that LEO's now have to get a warrant before using stingrays for evidence collection.

Personally I think this should be countrywide, however I think if it will only be adopted once a new technology surpasses it's purpose.

link

a reply to: Hewhowaits

Great, stupid constitution. The terrorists win./sarc

"Live Free or Die"

Damn straight.

I raised to think I had a choice in my freedoms.
.

What a dumbass I was...

But, at least I escaped the city. I cannot function in that environment.
Thank god for small blessings.

originally posted by: EternalShadow
"Live Free or Die"

Damn straight.

The flag in my yard says that.

So Law enforcement won't be able to track possible terrorists unless they have a warrant. It is not easy to get a warrant for something like that. I see good points and bad points with this action. I do not know if it is good or bad to start limiting this stuff. If a parent wants to find their kid, the cops should be able to utilize this to identify the location of the phone. Does this block the LEO's ability to track a phone if the parents or spouse is concerned?

a reply to: rickymouse

No it doesn't stop them from using it for locating missing persons. It just stops warrantless usage, which honestly is not much because they can get warrants pretty damn easily.
Before they didn't even have to admit they had the equipment or why they were using it.
At least now there's some type of responsibility involved.

And before it starts-
I am not anti-cop. In fact my freind who is a sheriff joked about using a stingray to track me down and listen in to my conversations.
I told him to leave his window open instead- were neighbors.

a reply to: rickymouse

Well if they want the info (secured private papers) on my device get a warrant.

I do not want to be caught in the megalomania of wide net sensationalized terrorist hoo-haa. Get a warrant, that is what the constitution says, do it.

a reply to: rickymouse
are you actually advocating for warrantless spying ?? These devices are used more to bust drug dealers and gang activity, hardly ever in pursuit of terrorism. Once terrorism is suspected, it falls under federal jurisdiction and the NSA will get anything they need.

This particular bill is designed to stop cops with a grudge from spying on civilians so they can entrap or frame them, or pursue people bypassing the fourth amendment.

originally posted by: rickymouse
So Law enforcement won't be able to track possible terrorists unless they have a warrant. It is not easy to get a warrant for something like that. I see good points and bad points with this action.

When your freedoms are made to suffer and vanish by way of paranoia and "what if" or "could happen" scenarios, the terrorists win.

It's not even a matter of trading freedom for security anymore...ultimately, it's mere convenience that's more important.

Sad.

a reply to: Hewhowaits

This makes me want to move to New Hampshire.

I also am considering moving to a state with out sales or income tax. Too many Democrats up north in Ohio are mucking up the works for us down south.

Good for that. Hope more states follow through. The terrorists win with this. From the Patriot Act to the TSA(which is a messy failure as it is).

a reply to: Metallicus
Hey man, we would love to have you here in Flori-duh! You got sales tax, but no income tax. See, we can compromise! Stick to Tampa Bay area, CENTCOM protects us from Hurricanes with their weather control tech

Worst case scenario, they will direct it towards Plant City or Ruskin.

originally posted by: Hewhowaits
New Hampshire has passed HB 474 stating that LEO's now have to get a warrant before using stingrays for evidence collection.

Personally I think this should be countrywide, however I think if it will only be adopted once a new technology surpasses it's purpose.

link

Ain't that the truth, .gov will always be 10 steps behind technology.

a reply to: Hewhowaits


Great news. IMSI catchers were always on dubious legal standing to begin with. The real problem is that "government" and its actors will always push the boundaries of what is Constitutional, as opposed to making a concerted effort to uphold and preserve our unalienable rights and even appearing to put that at risk would only happen in the strictest of accidents.

Sadly they are all too happy to walk the fine line between tyrannical and constitutional. This was never the system our founders fought and bled for.

How could we have stood back for so many years (over a century, apparently) as a nation while this has been happening under our noses?

The intrusion of having *any* private or otherwise non-public data stolen without your consent is unacceptable. No spurious risk of "terrorism" justifies even squashing one single civil liberty. It just isn't worth it. I'll take my chances in the face of a miniscule threat of terrorism. How dare they use the pretense of *OUR* safety as an excuse to limit and trample upon *OUR* Constitutional rights.