Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Well they get it back. This is far less ambiguous then a case I read about years ago when someone found one on their car. In that case, they started tracking him because of a sketchy friend. Kid took it off and sold it on eBay. Turns out you can’t tamper with a wiretap. I think the wiretap is the least of her problems if she is up in federal drug charges.


Wouldn’t you need intent?

At least in the Indiana case that was why the charges did not stick for the man who took it off. He plausibly didn’t intend to ruin a wiretap or steal the device because he thought it was some random thing and he took it off his car.

> “To find a fair probability of unauthorized control here, we would need to conclude the Hoosiers don’t have the authority to remove unknown, unmarked objects from their personal vehicles,” Chief Justice Loretta Rush wrote for a unanimous court.


It's also easy to argue that the car owner had no reason to think it was law enforcement that put it there and not a private investigator or a stalker.


Yes, it's in the preceding paragraph before the cited one.


"the Hoosiers"? I know what the word means, obvi, just seems an odd wording for a judicial finding.


It's written by Indianans for the Indiana Supreme Court.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: