So your argument is that the police should be using the evil tools they already (supposedly) have?

Way to paint with a broad brush. It's not legal in many jurisdictions.

Also Stingrays are passive not active devices - if the theoretical Uber driver is out of range, it won't see the Stingray as a tower.

Yeah, every cop investigating every crime is on shaky ground and up to no good because they have Stingrays. That's quite the logical Deus Ex Machina.

The point being made is that a cop is not ever going to need to use Uber, that they shouldn't use Uber, and that (if for some reason they get all the way to court having used Uber as the basis for their evidence) they should have known that they shouldn't use Uber. Further, if they did need Uber, it would be by way of tracking the app's use from the suspect's phone directly.

Enough with the derailment tactics already, this doesn't make for a civil discussion. Bringing in new arguments like referring to stingrays (as itf they were owned or used universally) is BS and just a way to avoid responding to the legitimate question that was presented by the gp.

Any place using such a novel technique as tracking someone on Uber is almost universally likely to have access to a stingray. A stingray is arguably a more accurate and legally enforceable device.

And to add (edit): It's not a derailment, it's the logical conclusion that any area that has enough economic activity to be target by Uber definitely has enough resources to supply LEA with a stingray.