Grand jury declines to indict Ohio man charged with destroying Flock camera
A grand jury declined to indict an Ohio man charged with destroying a Flock surveillance camera, according to court records. The decision marks a rare legal setback for the license-plate reader company, which has faced growing scrutiny over privacy concerns. The man had faced a felony charge for allegedly damaging the device.
A grand jury declined to indict an Ohio man charged with destroying a Flock camera, according to court records.
- openasocket
For those that don't know, grand juries declining an indictment is extremely rare. A grand jury is basically a check on prosecution, that they have to have some initial evidence before charging someone with a felony. The standards are much lower than the subsequent criminal proceedings.
The grand jury only hears from the prosecution, there is no defense involved. Only a majority of the grand jury has to sign off, not unanimous like in an actual trial. The standard of evidence is just probable cause, not beyond a reasonable doubt. The rules of evidence are relaxed, meaning hearsay and other evidence can potentially be introduced that would normally be barred from a trial.
Because of the above, the rate of indictment from a grand jury is very high, over 90%. Most prosecutors will go their entire careers without getting a "no true bill" (meaning the grand jury did not sign off on an indictment). There's a saying that "a grand jury would indict a ham sandwich." So the fact that there was no indictment here is a big deal. It will probably hurt that prosecutor's career.
- dredmorbius
This is not a jury nullification (which is an emergent property of US Constitutional double-jeopardy protections), but a failure to indict, that is to bring criminal charges (a "bill of indictment") for potential criminal conduct.
In this instance, the case has been dismissed, but might conceivably be brought again.
Why grand juries make the decisions they do is hard to determine, as their operations are (usually) secret. This may have simply been a case of insufficient evidence of a crime, or identity of the suspect ("probable cause"), as appealing as a broader backlash theory might be.
Much of this article appears to be either speculation or unsourced information if there was in fact resistance to bringing a Flock case by this grand jury. The latter might indicate a violation of secrecy oaths by jury members or other court officers.
Specific practices vary by state, not all of which use grand juries. All federal criminal cases rely on a grand jury.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_juries_in_the_United_Sta...>
- VikingCoder
I got my catalytic converter stolen twice.
I hear Flock cameras have even more valuable materials inside them.
- aizk
This reads like a newspaper snippet you discover in a cyberpunk video game.
- imglorp
The article neglected to mention Flock isn't just for ALPR any more. It's been widely reported as collecting cell info, wifi and bluetooth from motorists, which seems far, far outside any "public safety" charade. There's no way to opt out from this data collection for passerby. The accused might even want to claim self defense against an assault on their rights.
- SoftTalker
Why would a simple vandalism charge go to a grand jury?
- trashface
The guy had to post a $10K bond, does he get that money back?
- ohbeishah9Ienus
https://makerworld.com/en/models/3107766-flock-sock-flock-ca...
- forgotusername6
To me this is strange. In the UK I'm so used to ANPR I just assumed my car is tracked wherever I go. There were a few incidents when the automatic speed cameras first came out, filling them with expanding foam so they exploded etc but even those died out after a while.
- exabrial
Hell yes! Absolute win