There's no way it would hold up in court. Perhaps the court of public opinion but nowhere else.

I think this in itself proves that the technology is far from state-of-the-art.

Google and Apple are not in the business of providing canonical evidence and should not be.

> High-tech state-of-the-art tracking technology from Google and Apple indicates that these people are somehow involved in the disappearance of a missing person.

It is rather odd that you insist on this when you know it to be false. The technology is not state-of-the art because it is missing the crucial feature of telling you how confident it is in its assessment. These people were clearly not involved and the tracking app was simply malfunctioning.

In my opinion this clearly shows how irresponsible it is to make an app like this which recklessly reports results without providing information on their accuracy and reliability. Of course the app will disclaim any sort of liability, but common sense tells you there will be life-and-death situations such as this where incorrect results will have consequences.

> How dumb would the officer look if he let a suspect destroy evidence, escape, or otherwise pull something on the claim that they have to pee?

There's a lot of ways in which the American system is deliberately set up to let some of the guilty go free and requires a certain degree of responsibility for those detained, charged, or imprisoned in order to preserve a set of rights that are important related to basic human dignity.

So yeah, particularly in situations like this, I'm comfortable saying sure, risk the possibility that (as yet established) evidence might be destroyed or that subjects of interest might escape detention. Strict detention practices should be sustained by meeting a high standard for suspicion.

But maybe better than that would be if we could have a system that included both reasonable pursuit of justice and a respect of basic rights. Seriously. Is it really impossible to give detainees and opportunity to urinate while protecting evidence? I doubt it. Search the damn bathroom, then search the detainee. Then, unless you've found anything that absolutely requires further undisturbed careful investigation and documentation, escort them to the bathroom for a reasonable amount of time. Part of the job. Particularly when you don't know that they're guilty of anything.

There's nothing in the article to say that the residents were arrested. An arrest is the threshold for controlling someone's legitimate actions: if the police don't have enough evidence to arrest the person, then they shouldn't be limiting their movements. That is the whole point of arrest (and the related burden of proof required to make an arrest).

To restrict someone's actions without legal authority - such as arresting them - is illegal.