Should The Police Be Allowed To Portray Truthful Evidence?

Eric Karsseboom, a local police officer, is shot in East Oakland. The Oakland Police Department and the FBI then tracked down the suspect with the use of StingRay, a device that spoofs a cell tower monitoring all mobile communications in an area. The operation of the law enforcement department is unethical, as they didn't fulfill their duties. They should have obeyed the constitution about defendant rights, should have presented truthful evidence when necessary, and should have not intruded privacy.

It's common sense that judges and defendants should be allowed to examine evidence presented in the case. Moreover, the Sixth Amendment explicitly grants the defendant the right to be informed of the nature and cause of accusation. It's the duty of the law enforcement department to obey the policies set by those conventions and constitutional laws. However, the

The usage of the devices, on the other hand, may render this task impossble. Many users of StingRa agree that they will "purge" all data, including both those relevant to the suspect and those not. For example, an Oakland police officer states that "Pursuant to standard practice, after the location operation, OPD did not retain any information captured by the device ... This information is deleted after every operation." [1] Clearly, they deleted the data used to locate the suspect as well. Without such data, the police cannot make sure that their search result is justified. Furthermore, the deletion of the data allows the prosecutors to suppress evidence favorable to a defendant, also known as Brady disclosure. Daniel Rigmaiden, the defendant of US v. Rigmaiden who discovered StingRay use during a search for him, points out that "It's ridiculous to think that all data needs to be deleted from a Stingray in order to protect the privacy of third parties". [2] The police should keep the data related to the case and disclose them if