Vancouver police may not own a controversial cellphone scanning device known as a Stingray, but they borrowed the technology from the RCMP and used it at least once, according to the B.C. Civil Liberties Association. It’s the result of more than a year of trying to pry information about law enforcement’s secretive use of the devices, which has come out through an inquiry by B.C.’s Information and Privacy Commissioner. “The answer to those questions has now been received: Yes, they have used an RCMP’s Stingray and yes, they would do so again,” wrote the BCCLA’s Micheal Vonn. A Stingray is a device that mimics a cellphone tower and tricks cellphones into transmitting “pings” to the device, allowing officers to catch texts, calls and the phone’s precise location. The Vancouver Police Department told CTV News in a statement that they used the device in 2007 to track the victim in an abduction case that is now an investigation into a possible homicide. The VPD wouldn’t specify the case. “The VPD does not own and has never owned this device,” wrote Const. Brian Montague. “On this occasion almost a decade ago, the VPD’s request to the RCMP for assistance in the use of this device was authorized by the Officer in Charge of RCMP E Division Special 'I' and based on exigent circumstances." No evidence was generated in that search, he said. The Stingray is widely used in the United States: it has been used by at least 57 agencies in 22 U.S. states in investigations that range from simply finding a missing person via their cell phone to secretly tracking the targets of covert investigations. Late last year, the VPD refused to confirm or deny it had the technology in a response to a freedom of request from Pivot Legal Society. Pivot Legal Society appealed, and police then claimed they didn’t own the device. But it turned out they had borrowed the technology, the BCCLA said. “The VPD provided us some context for its previous use of a Stingray and on the basis of the information they gave us, we can vouch for their past use (and they say there’s only been one) being legitimate, appropriate, and properly authorized,” Vonn wrote. American police forces have been very secretive about the technology’s use. In Baltimore, for example, the FBI struck a deal with local police and the state’s Attorney’s Office to never disclose the Stingray device. The Baltimore Sun learned the authorities agreed to drop cases if they risked revealing the technology. But in July a New York federal judge ruled the Drug Enforcement Agency needed a warrant to track a suspect’s phone, arguing using a Stingray was very similar to tapping a land line. The judge said evidence in the case couldn’t be used. The BCCLA also points to Germany’s federal regulation on Stingray use, calling it the “Gold Medal for Stingray transparency and accountability.” Germany has had federal regulations since 2002 which specifies that a warrant is required, it can only be used to investigate serious crimes, it can only be used to track someone and not listen to the content of any communication, among other things. “Contrast that with Canada, where we have absolutely no policy or regulatory response to police and intelligence agencies’ use of Stingrays despite the RCMP having had Stingrays for over a decade,” Vonn wrote. “How do we fix this? I suggest we take our cue from Germany. Why, there oughta be a law… in fact, it is arguable that for appropriate constitutional protection, there must be a law,” she wrote.
