It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

State doesn't have to disclose GPS site

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 12:25 PM
link   

State doesn't have to disclose GPS site


www.nj.com

But Assistant Prosecutor Frank Koldzieski's motion for a protective order argued that disclosure of where the GPS was installed would compromise public safety. The state claimed the information could jeopardize current and future drug investigations.

Coleman agreed with the state's argument and granted the motion against disclosing where the GPS was located. The judge also barred the defense from asking for exact specifications of the device.

"It ties my hands in defending the defendant," said Altman, who vowed to file an appeal.

Reversals of such decisions are difficult, according to law experts.

Under the state's rule of evi dence, official information cannot be disclosed when a judge finds it "will be harmful to the interests of the public."

"The problem for the defendant is, the public interest is whatever the judge decides," said George Thomas, a professor at Rutgers Law School in Newark.

(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 12:25 PM
link   
Wow... I'm usually on the side of the law in cases like this, but for some reason this seems to indicate a precident being set that is fairly dangerous, especially if it goes nationwide. The location of the GPS is meaningless, in fact 99% of this story is basically meaningless on the broad scale of justice and a fair trial. What's concerning to me is the lax definition and application of this "compromise public safety" ruling. This has gotta be a Constitutional violation of the sixth amendment, as it basically renders any evidence gathered by the prosecution as being above reproach by default. All they would have to do is say "public safety" and suddenly the judge can require the jury to consider the evidence while disallowing any effective defense against it by the defendant.

I don't like this at all.

www.nj.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 24-6-2008 by burdman30ott6]



posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 12:59 PM
link   
reply to post by burdman30ott6
 


Interesting article/thread for you on this subject...

You're absolutely right about the precedent-setting nature of the case...

"for our protection"

E-tracking .... the way you drive

Of course the business opportunities are glaring here



posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 01:20 PM
link   
I can see the court's side of the argument here. There are cases where disclosing evidence would endanger public safety. This is not the first time the "public safety" plea has been used; it is actually quite common. So the argument that it would hinder the defense is without foundation.



new topics

top topics
 
0

log in

join