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?
>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?
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?