Slashdot Mirror
Ruling on GPS Tracking Devices
djembe2k writes "Score one for civil liberties. The NY Times is carrying a wire story (free reg. required, yadda) reporting that the Supreme Court of Washington state ruled today that a warrant is required by police to use GPS tracking devices to track suspects. A warrant actually was obtained in the case at hand, but the prosecutors argued that they hadn't really needed one, and they lost on this point. Here's the full text of the ruling."
> OTOH, do I want the police to have to wait to get a warrant before they can use this technology to trace, say, an actual violent criminal? Yes, you do. Warrants require at least PROBABLE CAUSE to be shown to an independent magistrate. Warrants (in theory) keep the police out of the average joe's hair, and doesn't allow them to use GPS on YOU. I'm all in favor of this ruling. Technology may change, but the basic rights and freedoms that we enjoy don't.
What we're talking about here is the police actually going to your car and placing a tracker on it. It seems to me that there is a significant difference between this and, say, using an inbuilt navigation system in your car to track you.
My view is that, whereas the first option might be ok in some circumstances with a warrant, the real danger to liberties is when the second option starts to become viable. If the police are investigating a specific crime, and they have evidence that leads them to suspect you, then they will be able to convince a judge to let them track you and gain a warrant, which is pretty benign so long as proper processes are followed and there is enough transparency to monitor their activities. What would be scary would be if they could just check up on anyone, any time, because we all have GPS in our cars or phones and implanted in our brains.
What will be interesting will be to see how the two scenarios are construed by the courts: is it a more serious matter to track someone using their own GPS than it is to place a tracker on their vehicle, or vice-versa? I hope the bar is set higher for the use of someone's own GPS device, or at least set to the same height. It is all to easy to envisage a police policy arguing that there is no harm is using the GPS system to 'check' where people are without their knowledge - kinda how the compulsory location identification technology in phones is justified because it lets emergency services find idiots who phone 911 and then fail to give their location. Once there is some degree of ambiguity the system is open to all kinds of abuse. Therefore I think the best solution would be for a warrant to be required for any kind of tracking to occur.
It's great to see the law actually adapt to a new scenario with some degree of success, anyway.
Read Pynchon.
It is the job of the police to determine if enough evidence exists to capture and charge a person with being guilty of a crime. I would hate to live in your world where anyone can be dragged up on any charges and left to the mercy of a jury.
what IS the difference between using a GPS device to track someone and just following him around?
According to the nyt article, the ruling states that a warrant is required to attach a GPS device to a suspect's vehicle. I think there is a clear philosophical (and constitutional) difference between following someone around a placing an electronic bug on their car. Thus this ruling is not just about privacy, but also about the sanctity of private property.
As surveilence technology becomes more prevelant and more sophisticated, this ruling may be an important precedent indeed.
That would come from investigations. If they have information about something, then you as the defense, will have to determine where the information came from and if they broke the law.
An accused violent criminal. Keep in mind, this is happening before the guilt is determined.
Fight Spammers!
Ummm.. what are you talking about? "GPS is publicly available information..."
What does that mean in this context? They're not just sitting there with a handheld reciver getting a signal from the sats. They actually placed a GPS reciever ON the guy's car.
This is a step past putting a bumper beeper on the car and following him from a distance with it(which requires a warrent AFAIK). This enabled them to let him drive for a few days, and then they could retrive the device and download all his trips.
Mind you, I think this is a very good use of technology, as long as it is regulated by warrents(as was decided).
Um... how is that different to using a phone tap and not crediting its use, or any one of a number of other surveillence investigative techniques?
"an actual violent criminal" - just make sure you don't put the cart before the horse. It's way to easy to say that the police should have every power to deal with 'actual' criminals, but no-one should be treated as guilty until after they have been to trial. There is an immense danger in implicitly removing the presumption of innocence by granting the police unchecked discretionary powers they would traditionally need to show good reasons to a judge to use.
Read Pynchon.
"the liberty to break the law"
This is a totally facetious argument. You can justify any excess by making stupid laws and then saying that 'liberty' doesn't extend to allowing people to break the law.
In fact, the liberty to break the law is essential. If you have no choice about the matter, you're not really being good, just controlled. People shouldn't commit crimes because they don't want to commit crimes, not because the police have a tracking implant placed in everyone's head at birth to monitor their thoughts and actions.
Furthermore, I don't see how the judge is making an arbitrary distinction. What is the difference between this and asking for a wiretap or search warrant?
Read Pynchon.
Some people can justify any invasive use of technology by arguing that exactly the same thing could be accomplished, if only we had a police officer to monitor every citizen, so it must be OK. A funny argument, because nobody in their right mind wants to live in a society where every citizen is shadowed by a cop for no reason.
The question isn't whether police have the "right" to do this; the question is whether "We The People" feel like telling our police forces to use this tactic, or not. There is nobody to tell us (collectively) that we must.
I was wondering if this might actually constitute tresspass to property, as they are messing with your car without your knowledge or consent and without necessarily believing that you are guilty of anything.
The police do not, for instance, have the ability to enter your home without your consent in the absence of a warrant, so how is this different? If an ordinary citizen did it they would be guilty of tresspass for sure.
Read Pynchon.
I live in Spokane where this creep killed his daughter. The cops got a warrant before they put the tracking device on his vehicle, just in case.
I'm pretty sure the WA State Supreme Court ruling was that they have to get a warrant before they put a GPS tracking device somewhere.
But I bet if somebody was a "terrorist" we can bypass warrants and judges. Thanks Patriot Acts One and Two!
When you realize that most new cars have GPS as well as cellphones, the requirement of the State to get permission to aquire the data BEFORE THE FACT is extremely important. After all, without such oversite the abuse is enourmous. Mess with the local deputy's daughter and a dead body just might be found near where you made out last night! Get the idea. You were there for way to long, so you must have commited the crime, right? Unrestricted access opens up all new ways of setting honest people up. There's nothing special about granting GPS for someone who's already a suspect and you would search their house or grounds. It's only 15 minutes of paperwork to protect our freedom!
And that's really the issue here. With the laughablely low standards for warrants these days [in car faxes, phone-a-judge, patriot? act] , is there really any reason NOT to simply follow the few procedures we have left? We expect tripliate paperwork for the simplest screw on a FAA certified aircraft, how much dicipline should we expect from a man with a GUN comming after ME or YOU! We might be KILLED too!
It freaks my brain that they WEREN'T required before. Somewhere in Washington there is a guy with a reciver capable of plotting every stupid thing you do in a day. If he's got a floor plan of your house, he can tell how many times a day you take a leak.
Any kind of serious survelliance without a warrant...The only possible reason you'd want to be able to do that is so you could track people for whom a judge would refuse to give a warrant. I had my property searched WITH a warrant which had been issued because I TALKED to someone who was indicted in a crime. Guess that was too much bother for old Ashcroft. Bastard. I think he should be required to submit AT ALL TIMES to every violation of civil liberties outlined in the so-called Patriot Act...especially the one about "enemies of the state" being held in Cuba with no trial, forever. I think the founding fathers would have named him an enemy of the state.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
Bzzzt. Read the case.
... '{W}hat is voluntarily exposed to the
general public and observable without the use of enhancement devices from
an unprotected area is not considered part of a person's private affairs.' ... The court has also affirmed as constitutional
searches involving sense-enhancing devices such as binoculars or a
flashlight, allowing police to see more easily what is open to public view. ... 'However, a substantial and unreasonable
departure from a lawful vantage point, or a particularly intrusive method
of viewing, may constitute a search.' ... Thus, where police used an infrared thermal device to detect heat
distribution patterns within a home that were not detectable by the naked
eye or other senses, the surveillance was a particularly intrusive means of
observation that exceeded allowable limits under article I, section 7.
Where a law enforcement officer is able to detect something at a lawful vantage point through his or her senses, no search occurs under article I section 7.
citations omitted for readability purposes
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
What is really interesting is that law enforcement officials really did "just suppose" that it was their right to use this technology to build a case without restrictions, authorization, or even explination.
The simple reason, as other posters have pointed out, is attachment of a device to a person or his possessions requires some form of interference with those possessions or the person.
Anything which involves intrusion should require a warrant.
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
The prosecutor had to add that in to crank up the fear level. OOO! Those bad criminals now have privacy rights. What would be a more accurate statement is, the court had expanded privacy rights for all citizens. But, of course, that doesn't get the soccer moms worried enough to ask for a repeal of the Bill of Rights.
And the argument that the cops can freely place a GPS on your car and track you because it's just like tailing you, is flawed. A much closer analogy would be to say that they can secretly place a bug on your clothing because that would be the same as following you around listening to your conversation.
Score one for civil liberties....the Supreme Court of Washington state ruled today that a warrant is required by police to use GPS tracking devices to track suspects.
Which brings us to the Patriot Act, which makes this ruling totally moot if you get some feds involved that can mutter the t-word. As in "Oh yeah. I almost forgot judge that we thought he might be like a terrorist and stuff, so no warrant required." Although why even explain it to a judge when a military tribunal will do? But why bother with a tribunal when you can just hold the person indefinitely without ever charging them?
But it sure is a relief to have this one on the books. If we ever get the constitution back, it might even matter.
what IS the difference between using a GPS device to track someone and just following him around?
Its like the difference between Junk Mail and Spam.
It costs quite a bit of money to send junk mail, so there is a natural limiter on how much is sent. Moreover, its traceable so folks sending junk mail don't get too egregious with fraud.
Spam on the other hand, is mostly fraudulent and because its cheap to generate, it arrives in an unmanageable deluge.
Tailing someone is expensive. You have to have an officer or two in their own vehicle. You also can't do a whole lot of it... Its conspicuous. Folks notice, wonder what the cops are up to, and start asking questions.
The GPS device is comparativly cheap. Once installed, you can passively watch a person's comings and goings for months. And it doesn't stick out like a cop car does. If they don't need a warrant, what's to stop them from tracking every person who looks at them cross-eyed? And if you seem to spend time at an odd location, well, that's a place the cops should check out, now isn't it?
The caselaw has a more pragmatic viewpoint: without a warrant, look but don't touch. The moment you want to attach or open or do anything like that, you need a warrant.
Sadly, this means that the automated floating police cameras from the sci fi movies would be A-OK for use without a warrant.
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
On the other hand, what IS the difference between using a GPS device to track someone and just following him around?
What is the difference between tapping someones phone and just listening to their conversation? Inevitably, there is a huge grey area between the clearly acceptable and the clearly unacceptable.
There is no Right answer to this. The judgment given by this court accords with my prejudices. Trailing someone with GPS is intrusive and an infringement of privacy. OTOH it is a valuable way of detecting crime. The intermediate position of requiring a warrant from a court (which should be impartial; if it isn't, that is a different problem) seems to me a good balance.
I think "just following him around" for long periods is also intrusive. However, it would be very difficult to frame a ruling saying exactly how long it was justifiable for a policeman to follow a suspec. However, sheer economics works for us here: it is too expensive for police to put a 24 hour track on someone unless they have a really good reason. So, while purist theory might ask for a law, real world econmics mean thatit isn't necessary. But the GPS device (a) changes the economics completely, and (b) provides a nice simple, enforcable test.
So, IMO, this is the system working right in developing the application of the law to reflect new technology
Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
Yes, and hopefully by requiring a warrant they require that the judiciary be involved in any police surveillance activities using GPS: that, after all, is the point of having a warrant. A judge is supposed to always be in the loop to determine if what the police are proposing to do with a suspect is legal, just, and/or necessary. Judges aren't perfect, of course, but that's a hell of a lot better than just letting the cops do whatever they please. The police, of course, resent that oversight because they perceive it as being invasive, after all, who wants to have someone looking over their shoulder? Perhaps they should look to their own feelings in that regard before they go planting GPS boxes in people's cars.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.