12

7 comments

[–] jobes 6 points (+6|-0)

A lawyer for the government acknowledged that it wouldn't be theft to remove a tracking device put there by a private party. But he argued that things are different when the government has a warrant to use a tracking device. The device had a legal basis for being on the car, the lawyer argued. By removing it and preventing tracking, Heuring was depriving the government of the use of its property.

So how is someone supposed to know whether a suspicious item attached to their car is really truly property of the government that was attached with a warrant, and not something stuck there by a third party?

[–] ScorpioGlitch 5 points (+5|-0)

Furthermore:

A lawyer for the government acknowledged that it wouldn't be theft to remove a tracking device put there by a private party...The device had a legal basis for being on the car

Does not change a thing: simply because of who owns it doesn't mean that it's suddenly theft. Don't want your stuff gone? Don't put it on my car. Simple.

[–] Chaoticneutral 5 points (+5|-0)

Since when does the government get special privileges anyway. Oh wait, we’ve let them take miles of liberties.

[–] [Deleted] 4 points (+4|-0)

The guy will likely win since the device wasn't marked as police property, and could have been put there by anyone.

[–] [Deleted] 5 points (+5|-0)

Lol he should have then put it on a over the road semi truck.

[–] ThinWhiteDuke 2 points (+2|-0)

If this guy was a whole lot smarter he would have left the device on his car while he bought his groceries and visited grandma, and taken it off and left it in his driveway whenever he went to buy or sell meth. That's how you throw the cops off.

[–] JudenHager 1 points (+1|-0)

Crap all those ads under my wipres I been removing will now be considered theft! Fucking ads!