“Does it instruct you to withhold evidence from the state’s attorney and the circuit court of Baltimore city, even if upon order to produce?” asked defense attorney Joshua Insley.
“Yes,” Cabreja replied, saying he spoke with the FBI last week about the case.
His testimony shows how frequently police are using a cell site simulator technology that authorities have gone to great lengths to avoid disclosing.
In one case last fall, a city detective said a non-disclosure agreement with federal authorities prevented him from answering questions about the device. The judge threatened to hold him in contempt if he didn’t provide information, and prosecutors withdrew the evidence.
Here’s some examples of police hiding behind non-disclosure agreements to illegally spy on Americans:
Here’s another example of police hiding illegal surveillance of Americans. A Maryland State Policecommander told state lawmakers that “Homeland Security” prevented him from discussing the technology.
Notice how law enforcement are marking their surveillance vehicles as ‘Office of Emergency Management’ (OEM). If you guessed it’s run by FEMA/DHS give yourself a gold star!
Click here & here to read more.
It might be a totally legitimate business interest, or maybe they’re trying to keep people from realizing there are bigger privacy problems,” said Orin S. Kerr, a privacy law expert at George Washington University. “What’s the secret that they’re trying to hide?”
The non-disclosure agreement, presented in court, explicitly instructs prosecutors to drop cases if pressed on the technology, and tells them to contact the FBI if legislators or judges are asking questions.
If you’re upset with the above statement wait until you read the FBI memo.
The ACLU received an FBI memo proving DHS controls police departments and the FBI.
“The Erie County Sheriff’s Office shall not, in any civil or criminal proceeding, use or provide any information concerning the Harris Corporation wireless collection equipment/technology… beyond the evidentiary results obtained through the use of the equipment/technology including, but not limited to, during pre-trial matters, in search warrants and related affidavits, in discovery, in response to court ordered disclosure, in other affidavits, in grand jury hearings, in the State’s case-in-chief, rebuttal, or on appeal, or in testimony in any phase of civil or criminal trial, without the prior written approval of the FBI.”
“In addition, the Erie County Sheriff’s Office will, at the request of the FBI, seek dismissal of the case in lieu of using, or providing, or allowing others to use or provide, any information concerning the Harris Corporation wireless collection equipment/technology […] if using or providing such information would potentially or actually compromise the equipment/technology.”