Sign up or login to join the discussions!
Cyrus Farivar - Apr 20, 2015 12:00 pm UTC
The St. Louis case provides yet another real-world example where prosecutors have preferred to drop charges instead of fully disclose how the devices, also known as cell-site simulators, work in the real world. Last year, prosecutors in Baltimore did the same thing during a robbery trial.
According to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the dismissal this month came just one day before a St. Louis police officer was set to be deposed in the robbery case where three men and a woman were accused of stealing from seven people in September 2013.
Neither the office of Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce nor the office of Megan Beesley, a public defender involved in the case, immediately responded to Ars’ request for comment over the weekend. The St. Louis Police Department also did not respond to Ars’ request for comment.
UPDATE 6:22pm CT: Lauren Trager, the spokeswoman for the St. Louis Circuit Attorney’s Office, wrote to Ars: "Please note, despite the perspective of the defense attorney in this matter, the dismissal of the cases was not related in any way to any technology used in the investigation."
While the St. Louis newspaper did not name the suspects, it reported that an unnamed Circuit Attorney spokesman denied any connection between the dismissal and the forthcoming deposition.
According to court records provided by the Post-Dispatch, detective John Anderson told defense attorneys that the cops had used a "proven law enforcement technique" in order to locate one of the stolen phones and eventually the suspects. Anderson refused to elaborate, citing a non-disclosure agreement that he and his agency were bound by.
Brandon Pavelich, one of the victims who was pistol-whipped and needed 18 stitches, told the Post-Dispatch that "he was ‘shocked’ when prosecutors told him the charges were dropped and explained only that ‘legal issues’ had developed."
In 2011, St. Louis police approached prosecutors and the court to work out procedures for using a loaner StingRay, said Circuit Court Judge Jack Garvey, who was part of the discussions. He praised police and prosecutors for their efforts to find the appropriate way to authorize StingRay use.
Police mainly used the device to locate crime victims’ cellphones, with the owners’ permission, Garvey explained. He said he was familiar with the technology, and signed administrative search warrants to authorize its use.
In 2012, St. Louis police sought bids for their own StingRay II in an SUV. It is not clear whether the purchase went through.
The court orders used now in St. Louis require a lesser standard of evidence and do not specifically mention cell site simulators, instead favoring this dense language: "Twenty-four hour a day assistance to include switch based solutions including precision location pursuant to probable cause based information queries and all reasonable assistance to permit the aforementioned Agencies to triangulate target location, including but not limited to terminating interfering service on the target telephone."
You must login or create an account to comment.
Join the Ars Orbital Transmission mailing list to get weekly updates delivered to your inbox.
CNMN Collection WIRED Media Group © 2022 Condé Nast. All rights reserved. Use of and/or registration on any portion of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement (updated 1/1/20) and Privacy Policy and Cookie Statement (updated 1/1/20) and Ars Technica Addendum (effective 8/21/2018). Ars may earn compensation on sales from links on this site. Read our affiliate link policy. Your California Privacy Rights | Do Not Sell My Personal Information The material on this site may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, cached or otherwise used, except with the prior written permission of Condé Nast. Ad Choices
