The stingray story gets weirder still

Yeah, so I know I said I’d keep it positive, but I’ve been feeling very unwell indeed and when I’m unwell and I read stuff like this, it’s tough to let it pass without comment. The U.S. Marshals actively encouraged the police to alter a probable cause affidavit (PCA) in cases where stingrays had been used:

If this is in fact one of your cases [wherein a stingray was identified in the PCA], could you please entertain either having the Detective submit a new PCA and seal the old one, or at minimum instruct the detectives for future cases, regarding the fact that it is unnecessary to provide investigative means to anyone outside of law enforcement, especially in a public document.

Ain’t that a doozy? Please keep in mind that we’re talking about cases that have nothing to do with the feds. The U.S. Marshals are interfering with local law enforcement here, asking them to keep the source of their probable cause confidential. Seems to me, if you need to keep your surveillance tools a secret, they can’t be used in cases where stuff like “due process” applies. In theory, that should exclude the Marshals from keeping their tools a secret, shouldn’t it…?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s