Too Many Perry Mason Re-runs?

[AZcachemeister]

Since there are some cachers who do not log online (to prevent 'being tracked'), I waas wondering what those 'in the know' might think about the possibility of a cacher's log(s) being used in court.

 

Could they be used to prove, or disprove, someones whereabouts at a particular time?

[+Renegade Knight]

"I stole your cache and left this crummy note"

 

I think it would work.

[+Ambrosia]

There is no way to prove that they really were at a particular place or time, even it they wrote it in the log.

 

Maybe if it was a good webcam cache...

[+sept1c_tank]

Funny you should ask; I was walking earlier, with my GPS (tracking) and wondering if the tracks could be used to prove whereabouts.

[peter]

I was walking earlier, with my GPS (tracking) and wondering if the tracks could be used to prove whereabouts.

If the tracklog is still in the GPS and includes the timestamps it would be pretty good evidence. But it could still be faked - either by hacking the GPS or by using a GPS Simulator that puts out signals just like the GPS satellites and is sometimes used to test navigation systems

[+Ambrosia]

Funny you should ask; I was walking earlier, with my GPS (tracking) and wondering if the tracks could be used to prove whereabouts.

My husband used the gps history to show a judge that he really wasn't speeding like the policeman said he was. Everything was dropped.

[+The Leprechauns]

All that a log entry would prove is that the writer had access to the internet at the particular moment in time when the log was entered into the database, whether by home or office computer, wireless or cellphone. I would think that the log entry online and in the logbook would be circumstantial evidence of whereabouts. It's easy enough to say you visited 8 caches on the 2nd when you actually visited them on the 3rd.

[+AuntieWeasel]

I've occasionally wondered what use could be made of the big, sweaty DNA samples I leave in the physical log books in high Summer.

 

Ewwww.

 

Sweaty weasel.

[ju66l3r]

Actually, if subpoena'd (or if he were just a nice guy in someone's defense), I'm sure Jeremy could show web logs for when the actual log was written.

 

Many things can suffice for time-dating that could easily be forged with some forethought. In general, a photo with the day's newspaper in it serves as a way of time-dating things. Sure, if you needed to back-date something you could rummage through your recycling or whatever, but that's where reasonable doubt will come into play, etc.

 

If you're going to use geocaching as an alibi, then the investigators will likely determine what your normal method for geocaching is (did you waypoint the cache, if it had multiple points did you input those into the GPSr as you determined them too, did anyone see your car in the parking lot, etc) and whether you logged the cache on that date (online or not) wouldn't be the only factor considered but it couldn't hurt.

 

If you didn't log online normally, then a log online could be suspicious and the lack of it couldn't be used to ruin your alibi (because it wouldn't make sense for there to be one since you don't log online).

[+CurmudgeonlyGal]

All that a log entry would prove is that the writer had access to the internet at the particular moment in time when the log was entered into the database, whether by home or office computer, wireless or cellphone.  I would think that the log entry online and in the logbook would be circumstantial evidence of whereabouts.  It's easy enough to say you visited 8 caches on the 2nd when you actually visited them on the 3rd.

Can I quote you on that?

 

 

-=-

michelle

[+WARedBear]

Funny you should ask; I was walking earlier, with my GPS (tracking) and wondering if the tracks could be used to prove whereabouts.

We had a murder case here in Spokane, WA a few years ago where the police suspected the father of murdering his son. They installed a GPS tracking device on his car and then turned up the heat. The suspect returned to where the body was and moved it to another location. The police were able to track his where abouts and find the body. Soooo....yes...it can be used...against you.

[Jeremy]

Actually, if subpoena'd (or if he were just a nice guy in someone's defense), I'm sure Jeremy could show web logs for when the actual log was written.

We have contacted users in the past to assist in a murder investigation. I speculate that the Law & Order: Criminal Intent show on May 8th may have been taken from that police investigation ("ripped from the headlines" as the L&O crime machine say)

 

As per our privacy policy we can't really give your information out unless we have a court order.

[+carleenp]

Funny you should ask; I was walking earlier, with my GPS (tracking) and wondering if the tracks could be used to prove whereabouts.   

We had a murder case here in Spokane, WA a few years ago where the police suspected the father of murdering his son. They installed a GPS tracking device on his car and then turned up the heat. The suspect returned to where the body was and moved it to another location. The police were able to track his where abouts and find the body. Soooo....yes...it can be used...against you.

I am working on a Law Review article concerning police use of GPS for tracking people. That case is one of the ones I am using. The article is curently on hold because of several pending appellate decisions.

 

The question of admissibility of track logs would depend on too many circumstances for me to adequately explain it here. In the end it would depend on what was trying to be proved and if various rules of evidence were met. I would guess that in some circumstances they would be admissible and in some they would not be.

 

Edit: Oh, and yes, I plan to mention geocaching somewhere in the article, even if it is only in a footnote.

Edited May 3, 2005 by carleenp

[+AtoZ]

NO!

Also I do not think there is any validy as to the acceptability of GPS data in courts.

cheer

[Jeremy]

I am not a lawyer, but it would take a lot of sophistication to make up NMEA sentences, while general time stamp data from a track log IMO isn't too difficult. If NMEA was used to track someone it could be strong circumstantial evidence. That is, if the court can prove that you were the one to create your own track data. Did I watch enough Law & Order to make sense?

 

As for site logs, the log is made after the find unless you used a WAP browser to log it. If you used WAP you would have a timestamp and (from site logs) an IP address to match. If you contacted the wireless provider you could find out what mobile device sent that post to match it to the cell phone that logged it.

 

Of course this is all hypothetical, but interesting.

[+carleenp]

NO!

Also I do not think there is any validy as to the acceptability of GPS data in courts.

cheer

GPS data has been used as evidence in court in a number of cases. For a famous example, it went through full Daubert testing (no I am not going to take the time to explain what that means, google is your friend) in the Scott Peterson case.

 

From the Daubert on the Web blog

[Colonel Mustard]

Almost everything and anything is admissible as evidence in a court case if it is germain to the case and acceptable to the court. There are way too many variables to answer yes or no.

[ju66l3r]

As per our privacy policy we can't really give your information out unless we have a court order.

Without going back and re-reading the privacy policy, can you let me know if *I* were to ask you for *my* web log information, would it be available to me?

 

That's what I meant by you being a nice guy...otherwise, I had assumed a subpeona would be necessary.

[Jeremy]

Without going back and re-reading the privacy policy, can you let me know if *I* were to ask you for *my* web log information, would it be available to me?

Is there something you need to tell us ju66l3r?

[+Strapped-4-Cache]

...if it is germain to the case and acceptable to the court...

After reading this I couldn't help hearing Jackie Gleason in his best Sheriff Buford T. Justice voice:

"The **** **** Germans ain't got nuttin' to do with this..."

 

Returning you now to the thread currently in progress...

[+huggy_d1]

Who's to say online cache logs have anything to do with reality? There are a good many caches where the cache is written opposite reality and the logs follow along in that same misdirection. How is that anywhere close to the 'truth'?

 

I view online logs just like opinions. I believe the logger has the right to say what they want regardless of the amount of 'truth' conveyed therein. I know a good many folks say "GREAT CACHE", and while that is one person's opinion it may vastly differ from my own.

 

The day we are required to log the truth will be the day I have to quite geocaching. Periodic misdirection in logs is part of the fun on some caches to keep everyone on their toes

 

[AZcachemeister]

OK, what if the 'hard copy' log in the cache is 'bracketed' by other (presumably disinterested) cacher's logs?

[+carleenp]

OK, what if the 'hard copy' log in the cache is 'bracketed' by other (presumably disinterested) cacher's logs?

If logs met the evidentiary rules for being admissible, they would be allowed. Whether they would meet those, would depend on so many factors that it would take a full blown article to describe them. They might be or might not. I suspect that a general hard copy print out of cache logs would not be admissible (issues with hearsay, foundation, relevance, best evidence, and others come to mind). But you never know, it depends on too many factors. Other cacher's logs that had nothing to do with the matter would be irrelevant, so if someone who was a party to the action objected, they would be marked out. Again it would depend on many factors.

[+The Leprechauns]

"It would depend."

-- Carleenp

 

"If the log is legit, you must acquit."

-- Johnny Cochran

[AZcachemeister]

hard copy print out of cache logs

I meant the actual handwritten logbook from the cache!

Perhaps the 'other' cachers could be called in to verify that they wrote those logs before and after the one in question?

[+Yamahammer]

Sounds circumstancial to me in any event. Maybe I need a witness and notary to verify I was there, at the cache, when I found it. I kid.

 

[+WascoZooKeeper]

hard copy print out of cache logs

I meant the actual handwritten logbook from the cache!

Perhaps the 'other' cachers could be called in to verify that they wrote those logs before and after the one in question?

How many logbooks have you actually seen where every single entry was in proper chronological sequence?

[+Gretch_Mess]

Could they be used to prove, or disprove, someones whereabouts at a particular time?

A piece of evidence does not have to be conclusive to be admissible. Usually, a point of fact is proven by many little pieces of circumstantial evidence. Ultimately, the trier of fact (usually a jury) would weight the credibility of the evidence and reach a conclusion.

 

A cache log, whether online or physical, would be admissible in court; however, it would be subject to impeachment. The opposing lawyer may challenging the authenticity of the log entry (namely, did the purported person actually make the entry) as well as the timing of the entry when made. Forensic experts can opine on the authenticity of handwriting and the age of ink. When the log was signed relative to other entries could help authenticate the time of entry.

 

Perhaps Law and Order should integrate this theme into a show . . .