this post was submitted on 26 Aug 2026

290 points (99.0% liked)

News

38972 readers

2800 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil

Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.

2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.

Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.

3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.

4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.

Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.

5. Only recent news is allowed.

Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.

6. All posts must be news articles.

No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.

7. No duplicate posts.

If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.

8. Misinformation is prohibited.

Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.

9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.

All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.

10. Don't copy entire article in your post body

For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 3 years ago

MODERATORS

JonsJava@lemmy.world

gedaliyah@lemmy.world

little_cow@lemmy.world

290

Wisconsin Cops Tracked a Man Across State Lines With Flock Cameras to Arrest Him for Weed (gizmodo.com)

submitted 1 day ago by 52fighters@lemmy.sdf.org to c/news@lemmy.world

35 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Brown County Sheriff’s Department in Wisconsin used Flock cameras, which record the license plates of every vehicle that passes by them, to identify and arrest a resident of Wisconsin for purchasing marijuana. Per the report, the cops used Flock’s network of cameras to track the man as he drove from Wisconsin, where possession remains a misdemeanor punishable by up to six months in jail and a $1,000 fine for a first offense, to Michigan, where recreational weed purchase and possession are legal.

Per the report, the cops looked up his license plate and found that he “travels to Michigan frequently.” Of course, they couldn’t prove by the cameras alone that he was going to Michigan to buy weed. But apparently just going across state lines is enough to create suspicion. In a criminal complaint filed by the police against the man, they call Michigan a “known source state for marijuana as it is legal there.”

all 36 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] FluorideMind@lemmy.world 28 points 1 day ago (2 children)

I don't see how going to a different state gives them probable cause. No way this is legal.

[–] krakenx@lemmy.world 12 points 1 day ago

The searches came to light in a Wisconsin criminal complaint against Edward Abrams-Phillips, who was wanted for bail jumping on domestic violence charges. But the criminal complaint makes clear that beyond the bail jumping and domestic violence charges, police specifically studied Abrams-Phillips’ interstate travel to create the pretext for searching his car for marijuana. The bail jumping charge was dismissed; Abrams-Phillips was found guilty only of weed possession in the case, according to the court records.

So they did have probable cause in this case since they were already tracking him and he wasn't allowed to leave the state.

[–] ApathyTree@lemmy.dbzer0.com 13 points 1 day ago

Wisconsin is full of billboards about legal weed in surrounding states.

Brown county, for example, has advertisements for at least half a dozen dispensaries, all put up on the highway leading to the UP, many of which tell you exactly how many miles it is to the dispensary.

Just ridiculous to even bother at this point.

[–] onionsinmypores@sh.itjust.works 11 points 1 day ago

Same tech they've used to try and arrest a woman from Texas for getting an abortion.

[–] tea_n_typewriters@lemmy.world 75 points 1 day ago

Surely this will make the people accept these.

[–] HeronHouseHamilton@lemmy.zip 39 points 1 day ago (3 children)

There's a restaurant in a small town in Michigan that I enjoy often. The town is home to five weed shops and not much else.

I drive there from Indiana, so I fully expect to be pulled over at some point.

[–] idiomaddict@lemmy.world 14 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Waste their time

[–] Janx@piefed.social 1 points 1 day ago

Pinch their butts.

[–] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Yeah I remember the many years where "going to Michigan" implied "to buy weed" in Ohio

[–] Hikermick@lemmy.world 3 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

You may already know but it is now illegal in Ohio to possess weed bought from outside Ohio

[–] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 1 points 9 hours ago

I didn't know that (moved away last year), but I'm very not surprised. The state government was pissed we legalized weed and went out of their way to make it hostile including crazy taxes and putting the revenue into cop budgets

[–] SGGeorwell@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Brewster’s?

[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 day ago

Nah, that place is too Punky for me..

#ReferenceFromBeforeMyOwnTime

[–] jpreston2005@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

jesus christ, I used to drive to D.C.

Fuck me I'm glad I found an alternative

[–] Janx@piefed.social 0 points 1 day ago

"dOn'T tReAd On Me!" ^(Tread on teenagers and minorities, pls!)^

[+] FishFace@piefed.social -56 points 1 day ago (4 children)

man arrested for crime

[–] newthrowaway20@lemmy.world 20 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

It's not a crime to travel.

Oh God. I sound like a sovereign citizen.

[–] chuckleslord@lemmy.world 15 points 1 day ago (1 children)

They deeply broke the 4th amendment while doing nothing more than profiling a man for traveling. They then laid in wait for him to return to the city and performed an illegal search (illegal because the justification for said search comes from a 4th amendment violation) once they had him. Without the illegal search prior, they had no justification for the search that actually found the pot.

Even though he broke the law, there's no way the conviction will stick because the cops fucked their case by doing this shit.

[+] FishFace@piefed.social -16 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Can you explain how profiling someone's behaviour breaks the 4th amendment? Can you explain how this profiling broke the 4th amendment? It seems from the article like the author has taken a police statement saying they used evidence of frequent travel to Michigan to justify the following searches, but it's not like they have a police statement saying that's all they had, from what I can see.

Absence of evidence may be enough for you to decide that American cops have broken the law, but it seems like a bit of an assumption to me.

[–] chuckleslord@lemmy.world 9 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Why was this man's license plate being tracked for him to be caught? If you can answer that question in a manner that implies the cops had suspicion before they did the license plate tracking then you've got a strong case that this gentleman's 4th amendment rights weren't violated.

But I don't think there's any way they knew to search his car where the first step wasn't "Flock told us he goes to Michigan a lot" which, again, isn't a crime nor is it suspicious. But more importantly, it means that the only justification for the search of the car came from an UNNECESSARY search of all the activities of all drivers in Brown County.

Yes, in public there's no expectation of privacy, but that argument hinges on the idea that cops need to spend resources to follow people's movements when they're suspects in a crime. Recent SCOTUS cases have drawn the line that full sweep movement tracking could violate the fourth.

But the bigger deal here is how they knew where to be and when. They setup a sting because Flock pinged that he'd just crossed the border back from MI. So, based on Flock's evidence that this man travels to MI, they began tracking his whereabouts OUTSIDE OF THEIR JURISDICTION. Reminder that reasonable suspicion of law breaking is required for tracking like that, but, more importantly, so is a warrant.

https://youtu.be/gmnL_Y9CsI0 video on Flock's "legality" especially concerning unwarranted mass surveillance

Absence of evidence may be enough for you

I'm gonna hand you back this part of your argument. Trying to force me to prove a negative is a bad look and screams of desperation. But, if you do want to go down that road, I will remind you that you've never given proof that you're not a pedophile and I find that very suspicious. Only pedophiles don't have proof that they're not pedophiles.

[+] FishFace@piefed.social -10 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Why was this man’s license plate being tracked for him to be caught? If you can answer that question in a manner that implies the cops had suspicion before they did the license plate tracking then you’ve got a strong case that this gentleman’s 4th amendment rights weren’t violated.

This may be contained in the video you linked, but I can't watch it now (and don't really want to commit time to watching videos on this) - do you have a written explanation of why this kind of surveillance needs prior suspicion?

When a cop is driving round on patrol, they're looking at everyone for signs that might be suspicious. Cops can only have eyes in so many places, so cameras are a lot more effective than that. You only said that SCOTUS say this "could" make it legally different, though.

I’m gonna hand you back this part of your argument. Trying to force me to prove a negative

I think you are making the positive claim that the police have broken the constitution, and part of that argument relies on the claim that they didn't have any legal path to their search and arrest, and that claim is based on the absence of evidence.

Here's how I'd phrase that: "it's possible from the police's description of events that this was unconstitutional, and we need to demand they provide a full explanation of every step of the investigation."

But, if you do want to go down that road, I will remind you that you’ve never given proof that you’re not a pedophile and I find the very suspicious.

Right, so your accusation that I'm a paedophile based on that lack of evidence would be invalid, right? But you're accusing the police of having done something wrong here, and the only basis you have for that is that they don't have proof that they did it right?

[–] chuckleslord@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

No, I have the proof in this article of wrongdoing. Your argument hinges on this not being all the evidence used, sans proof. You're the person asserting a claim without proof.

So yeah, you're a pedo. Got it!

[–] frongt@lemmy.zip 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Did they have a warrant? If not, it was unconstitutional.

[+] FishFace@piefed.social -6 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I'm not a US constitutional lawyer so I don't know why you need a warrant to get information on people's behaviour. Is a cop not allowed to follow a car for no articulable reason and notice a pattern of suspicious behaviour (a "profile") (like, I dunno, them driving to the houses of a bunch of known drug users) and stopping them based on that?

[–] frongt@lemmy.zip 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

If they were observed stopping at multiple known drug houses, that's fine. Following someone around until you find something you can arrest them for is not.

[–] AbidanYre@lemmy.world 10 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Giving up all our privacy was definitely worth it to catch this guy for a misdemeanor possession charge.

[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

It wasn't a crime in the place where they arrested him, so no, not really.

[–] chuckleslord@lemmy.world 7 points 1 day ago

They arrested him in Wisconsin after laying an extremely illegal search trap for him.