Ruling on GPS Tracking Devices

Registration NOT required by gatesh8r · 2003-09-12 17:16 · Score: 5, Informative

--
Karma whorin' since 1999

No Reg Links by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-12 17:18 · Score: 4, Informative

Honestly people, why keep linking to the "reg required" links?

Re:No Reg Links by flonker · 2003-09-12 23:27 · Score: 2, Interesting

Why doesn't /. become a NYT partner, and automatically replace all NYT links with partner links. They link to enough articles that I feel like I'm reading the NYT anyway.

Hmm by wmspringer · 2003-09-12 17:20 · Score: 5, Interesting

Not sure what I think about this. On the one hand, I have to favor any ruling that increases privacy. On the other hand, what IS the difference between using a GPS device to track someone and just following him around? Is it merely that it allows someone to be tracked without significant effort or expense, thus expanding how much information can be collected with limited resources?

--
Twenties Retirement

Re:Hmm by Txiasaeia · 2003-09-12 17:32 · Score: 3, Funny

Or, one could argue that, by being followed in the first place, they obviously committed a crime and the police are just in the usage of GPS technology.
I, for one, welcome our new GPS overlords.

--
Condemnant quod non intellegunt.
Re:Hmm by prospero14 · 2003-09-12 17:40 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.
Re:Hmm by anagama · 2003-09-12 17:50 · Score: 1

It's more than an issue of cost savings. WA has previously ruled that cops can't go around checking houses for strange infrared patterns without a warrant (grow operations). As technology progresses, it will become easier and easier to peer through walls into your private affairs. This case is good because it says that even though we may be able to do those things, before the police are allowed to, they must show at least a little evidence that the search is reasonable. Note that getting a warrant does not require the same caliber of evidence needed to convict a person. In this case, it came down to an affidavit that the cops searched everywhere and found no child, that a red pubic hair was found in bed (Jackson = red head, girl too young to have them), and Jackson was the only person around. As you can see, getting a warrant was not an onerous task. From that point on, rake in the cost savings all you want. From the case:

If police are not required to obtain a warrant under article I, section 7 before attaching a GPS device to a citizen's vehicle, then there is no limitation on the State's use of these devices on any person's vehicle, whether criminal activity is suspected or not. The resulting trespass into private affairs of Washington citizens is precisely what article I, section 7 was intended to prevent. It should be recalled that one aspect of the infrared thermal imaging surveillance in Young that troubled us was the fact that if its use did not require a warrant, there would be no limitation on the government's ability to use it on any private residence, at any time regardless of whether criminal activity is suspected. Young, 123 Wn.2d at 186-87.

As with infrared thermal imaging surveillance, use of GPS tracking devices is a particularly intrusive method of surveillance, making it possible to acquire an enormous amount of personal information about the citizen under circumstances where the individual is unaware that every single vehicle trip taken and the duration of every single stop may be recorded by the government.

We conclude that citizens of this State have a right to be free from the type of governmental intrusion that occurs when a GPS device is attached to a citizen's vehicle, regardless of reduced privacy expectations due to advances in technology. We hold that under article I, section 7 a warrant is required for installation of these devices.

--
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
Re:Hmm by timeOday · 2003-09-12 17:51 · Score: 5, Insightful

Sure, and the difference between a bottle rocket and an bazooka is "just" a bigger bang.
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.
Re:Hmm by David+Price · 2003-09-12 17:51 · Score: 5, Informative

The opinion addresses your question:
[Note: the Court of Appeals is the lower court being overruled here]
The Court of Appeals also held that use of the GPS devices was merely sense augmenting, revealing information that Jackson exposed to public view. The court noted that law enforcement officers could legally follow Jackson on his travels to the ministorage compartment and the two gravesites. We do not agree that use of the GPS devices to monitor Mr. Jackson's travels merely equates to following him on public roads where he has voluntarily exposed himself to public view.
It is true that an officer standing at a distance in a lawful place may use binoculars to bring into closer view what he sees, or an officer may use a flashlight at night to see what is plainly there to be seen by day. However, when a GPS device is attached to a vehicle, law enforcement officers do not in fact follow the vehicle. Thus, unlike binoculars or a flashlight, the GPS device does not merely augment the officers' senses, but rather provides a technological substitute for traditional visual tracking. Further, the devices in this case were in place for approximately two and one-half weeks. It is unlikely that the sheriff's department could have successfully maintained uninterrupted 24-hour surveillance throughout this time by following Jackson. Even longer tracking periods might be undertaken, depending upon the circumstances of a case. We perceive a difference between the kind of uninterrupted, 24-hour a day surveillance possible through use of a GPS device, which does not depend upon whether an officer could in fact have maintained visual contact over the tracking period, and an officer's use of binoculars or a flashlight to augment his or her senses.
Re:Hmm by afidel · 2003-09-12 18:37 · Score: 4, Informative

Actually it was the Supreme Court of the United States in Kyllo V. U.S. that the majority stated:

"Thus, obtaining by sense-enhancing technology any information regarding the home's interior that could not otherwise have been obtained without physical intrusion into a constitutionally protected area constitutes a search"

This can be logically extended to cover any activity not occouring in full public view and to any technological augmentation of the police's natural abilities. That case was arguably the most important one heard by this supreme court because they basically decided that advancement of technology does not give the police an unlimited liscense to observe the populace.

--
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
Re:Hmm by David+Price · 2003-09-12 18:44 · Score: 1

Just thought of something else. Even if you don't see an intrinsic difference between the GPS tracker and a 24-hour police tail, the GPS still has more functionality that makes it harder to justify as an investigatory measure that should be available without a warrant.

A police officer tailing you without a warrant may not follow you onto private property where he does not have permission to go. If you turn into the driveway of your thousand-acre ranch that's surrounded by vision-obscuring terrain like hills or trees, he cannot follow in order to see whether you're going to the ranch house or the isolated spot where they think the body or drugs or whatever are hidden.

The GPS tracker, however, will blithely continue to broadcast your coordinates, giving the police more information about your movements than our hypothetical, Constitutionally sound tail cop would be able to learn.

The only way to bring a remedy to this situation would be to have a database encompassing everywhere the suspect might possibly go, dividing space into points our tailing cop might be able to see from a public vantage point and points he would not be able to see. The information that the tracker emitted when the suspect was in protected areas would have to be thrown out before anyone with the investigation could view the GPS logs. This would restore the GPS tracker to the capacity of an infinitely skilled police tail who nonetheless respects the suspect's privacy rights.

It should be clear that the above scheme is utterly ridiculous and could never work. And because such a scheme is the only means for safeguarding the rights of a suspect when he goes onto private property, the GPS tracker may not be used without a warrant at all.
Re:Hmm by Spazmania · 2003-09-12 19:04 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.
Re:Hmm by toast0 · 2003-09-12 19:26 · Score: 2, Funny

Your bad joke is an aggravating factor in sentencing you for the crime of spelling harassment.

--
Need a Catering Connection
Re:Hmm by toast0 · 2003-09-12 19:31 · Score: 1

it should be noted that in this case the GPS device was a store and retrieve type, and not a broadcasting type.

Of course, all a would be trackee has to do is destroy the car, since it's evidence. :)

Or create a network of tunnels to drive through and leave the car in while hiding the body. If the tunnels are constructed properly, GPS signals will not be able to penetrate to the device... I suppose a dead reckoning device could be used for tracking then, but i don't know that they make devices good enough for that

--
Need a Catering Connection
Re:Hmm by RevSmiley · 2003-09-12 19:35 · Score: 1

Following someone around for 24/7 2.5 weeks without probable cause would be considered harrasment if the police did it and stalking if you or I did it. IF it's important enough to place limited manpower to follow someone around for 24/7 X 2.5 week it's important to get a warrant if you are going to short cut that and use a GPS tracking device.

The court said it was doubtfull if the police could have gone 24/7 X 2.5 weeks without being detected using a GPS didn't give them a free pass on that. Having had a warrant was therefore required. The had one so it's no big deal.

--
As you can see I don't care about my karma.
Re:Hmm by afidel · 2003-09-12 19:43 · Score: 1

Sure they make gyroscope augmented GPS tracking units. They are used in commercial airliners and some other applications. They are not as cheap as say a Garmin eTrex but they aren't so prohibitivly expensive that they couldn't be used in a lojack type application.

--
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
Re:Hmm by tallrook · 2003-09-12 20:01 · Score: 1

what IS the difference between using a GPS device to track someone and just following him around?

The judge said the differnce is that it would be next to impossible for the investigotors to follow the suspect 24 hours a day, for weeks without loosing him and without being noticed.

GPS tracking is simple, cheap, and hard to detect.
Re:Hmm by screenrc · 2003-09-12 20:42 · Score: 1

Seems the Court of Appeals has more common sense that the Supreme Court:
"The Court of Appeals also held that use of the
GPS devices was merely sense augmenting,

Of course. When the subject is under surveillance, the GPS tags might not
enhance your vision, they might not enhance hearing, but they do
enhance your ability to perceive the world. Common sense? No, not for
the Supreme Court which is not willing to share such simple reasoning. The
Supreme claim that it is ok to use binoculars, flashlight, and hearing aids
to enhance senses you already have (into a new super-natural state),
but it it not ok to add new senses via GPS, infrared detectors, etc,.
WFF, if binoculars are permitted so should GPS detectors. At least that
is what even children will tell us.

revealing information that Jackson exposed to public view. /

Jackson took great pains to preserve his privacy: he kept his movements secret,
he borrowed a different truck, he was cautious nobody is following, he
ensured that nobody is looking. He wanted to
stay private. He wanted privacy. So what if he "exposed himself to public view"?
He did exposed himself to public view, but he wanted privacy. And he was able
to get it!

Note: I am not taking a position for or agaist privacy. It is just that I
read things that seem silly, which as adults
we have heard for so often that they no longer seem silly.
Re:Hmm by numark · 2003-09-12 20:53 · Score: 1

That's basically what the judges said. Their point was that a police force wouldn't be able to track someone for weeks 24 hours a day, and therefore it's collecting information in a way that the police wouldn't normally be able to. Therefore, a warrant is required.

--
Want Slashdot headlines on your site? Try SlashHead
Re:Hmm by hazem · 2003-09-12 21:41 · Score: 1

hus, unlike binoculars or a flashlight, the GPS device does not merely augment the officers' senses, but rather provides a technological substitute for traditional visual tracking. Further, the devices in this case were in place for approximately two and one-half weeks. It is unlikely that the sheriff's department could have successfully maintained uninterrupted 24-hour surveillance throughout this time by following Jackson.

It would be interesting to see if this rationale could be used against unattended automatic speeding detectors and red-light cameras?
Re:Hmm by AlecC · 2003-09-12 23:07 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.
Re:Hmm by ekidder · 2003-09-13 00:16 · Score: 1

In Indiana, automatic speeding cameras and such are not legal. The reasoning (or so I am told) is that in order to be fined for a traffic violation, you must be informed by a police officer as the violation is occurring (pulled over and such).
Re:Hmm by ScrewMaster · 2003-09-13 01:05 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.
Re:Hmm by ScrewMaster · 2003-09-13 01:09 · Score: 1

Almost enough to make me want to move to Indiana. I live in Illinois, and I see those things all over the place.

--
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Re:Hmm by anthony_dipierro · 2003-09-13 06:00 · Score: 1

On the other hand, what IS the difference between using a GPS device to track someone and just following him around?

There are some differences, but none of them should matter. If the police want to follow someone around for an extended period of time, they should have to obtain a warrant first.

Now constitutionally it's a completely different story. Is following someone around a search? Is using a GPS device to track someone a search? I'd say yes in both instances. Using the dictionary.com definition (which admittedly pays no attention to the definition at the time of the framing of the Constitution) we read "To make a thorough examination of; look over carefully in order to find something; explore." Now, is either an unreasonable search? I'd say yes in both instances. Apparently the court disagrees with regard to following someone around for an extended period of time.
Re:Hmm by Trailwalker · 2003-09-14 02:04 · Score: 1

The GPS device tracked the car not the suspect. Direct observation by a law enforcement officer would be needed to place the suspect in that car at any given moment. GPS evidence would be worthless without such an observation.

Criminals would be encouraged to borrow someone else's car to carry them to their employment.

How could this be enforced? by revividus · 2003-09-12 17:31 · Score: 5, Interesting

What would prevent using the GPS without a warrant, and simply not crediting its use?

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?

It's not something I've given a lot of thought to, I admit, but it seems the better this sort of technology gets, the more difficult it will become to legislate how it is used.

--

philcrissman.com.

Re:How could this be enforced? by stevezero · 2003-09-12 17:35 · Score: 4, Insightful

> 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.
Re:How could this be enforced? by www.sorehands.com · 2003-09-12 17:42 · Score: 4, Insightful

What would prevent using the GPS without a warrant, and simply not crediting its use?

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.

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?

An accused violent criminal. Keep in mind, this is happening before the guilt is determined.

--
Fight Spammers!
Re:How could this be enforced? by caitsith01 · 2003-09-12 17:45 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.
Re:How could this be enforced? by yintercept · 2003-09-12 18:54 · Score: 1

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?
With rapid communications, I suspect time it takes to get a warrant will decrease to a point where getting a warrant will take about as long as a technical support call.
Re:How could this be enforced? by Spazmania · 2003-09-12 19:34 · Score: 1

What would prevent using the GPS without a warrant, and simply not crediting its use?

That goes to the old joke about the psychic who helps police solve cases by "seeing" information about the crime. There is, of course, no exhibition of special powers. The policeman can't credit the information to his unlawful source, so he arranges for Miss Esmerelda to come up with it instead.

--
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
Re:How could this be enforced? by toast0 · 2003-09-12 19:42 · Score: 1

Wow, so the way to disable the police force is to do something that requires them to get a warrant. In the intervening 5 hours of hold (with dropped calls every 45 minutes or so), the city is ours.

If police shows are to be believed, warrants can be obtained very quickly if necessary. Although at night, you have to wake up the judge first.

--
Need a Catering Connection
Re:How could this be enforced? by afidel · 2003-09-12 19:46 · Score: 1

Nah. Because a judge must ok the warrant the obtaining of a warrant is still relegated to bankers hours when a free judge can be found despite email, faxes, cellphones, etc. There are of course extrenuating circumstances where a judge may be contacted outside court hours but you better have a DAMN good reason to do so.

--
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
Re:How could this be enforced? by Ignis+Flatus · 2003-09-12 20:37 · Score: 1

What would prevent using the GPS without a warrant, and simply not crediting its use?

The answer lies in the question, and it is accountability. A law enforcement office should be required to account for how many of these devices they have, and the whereabouts of said devices at all times.

Also, this technology could police itself. Because it is a GPS beacon, a third-party law enforcement agency at say, state or federal level, could monitor the location of every GPS beacon used by local law enforcement agencies. This would provide a "paper trail" on all such devices and defence attorneys could subpeona the watchdog agency to make certain there was no unauthorized usage by the locals.

Of course, it'll never be able to catch the police using privately-purchased GPS beacons to tag suspects (and they could easily skim money from drug busts), but GPS could be used on all their other toys, too, so it does show promise as a technology to limit abuse of rights by law enforcement agencies.
Re:How could this be enforced? by danila · 2003-09-12 21:29 · Score: 1

They don't need a GPS to trace a criminal. Most criminals are in prisons already. It's the suspects who are walking around.

--
Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
Re:How could this be enforced? by anthony_dipierro · 2003-09-13 06:08 · Score: 1

What would prevent using the GPS without a warrant, and simply not crediting its use?

Hopefully internal affairs, or a whistleblower. Plus the fact that if it ever was discovered, it would jeoparize the entire case, and a guilty person could go free. Maybe not enough, but what more can you expect?

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?

I have a hard time seeing why GPS would be necessary to track an actual violent criminal during the time it takes to get a warrant. Just monitor the person/vehicle/whatever physically while you wait for the warrant. Or if you're so sure you got the right person and can prove it, make an arrest.

Obviously committed a crime? by n0nsensical · 2003-09-12 17:35 · Score: 4, Informative

It's not the job of the police to determine whether someone is guilty of a crime; that's what juries are for.

Re:Obviously committed a crime? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-12 17:37 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.
Re:Obviously committed a crime? by n0nsensical · 2003-09-12 17:44 · Score: 4, Informative

Even so, there's a difference between obviously having committed a crime and being suspected of having committed a crime.
Re:Obviously committed a crime? by Txiasaeia · 2003-09-12 17:44 · Score: 3, Funny

It's also obviously not the job of /. posters to determine whether the parent was speaking earnestly or sarcastically.

--
Condemnant quod non intellegunt.
Re:Obviously committed a crime? by digitalunity · 2003-09-13 00:26 · Score: 1

Having read about this case in my local newspaper, I think the police were actually correct in their usage of this technology and the judge fouled it up. The judge ruled that the warrant for the usage of the GPS tracker wasn't right. That's messed up. The police suspected that this guy killed a(his?) kid so they got a warrant and put a GPS tracker on his car. The guy leads them out to where he buried the body.

He says he found the child dead already, in bed. Got scared. Went out and buried the body. Right. I believe it, don't you?

I think this is a case of technology being useful when applied lawfully. As long as there is judicial protection from unlawful surveilance, I'm all for this new technology. With a proper warrant, this might be a highly effective tool.

It's hard to make a distinction here, as some convicted sex offenders are required to carry GPS monitors on their ankles. This shouldn't be any different.

If the guy walks, I'm gonna be f*ckin pissed.

--
You can't legislate goodness. Let each to his own destiny, by will of his freely made choices.
Re:Obviously committed a crime? by Max+Threshold · 2003-09-13 13:13 · Score: 1

Bah. Back in the day, cops could let people off with warnings or take delinquent kids home to their parents instead of to juvie. A few cries of discrimination (some justified, some not) ruined it for everyone, and now it's the offical job of police to be fucking assholes all the damn time.
The problem is, a lot of judges and juries still have have this attitude that "if you weren't a heinous criminal, you wouldn't be in my courtroom..."

Uhmmm... okay by mark-t · 2003-09-12 17:36 · Score: 1

Do they need a warrant before they have the right to simply observe a suspect? I admit I don't know for sure, but I'm betting that they don't.

If the police couldn't use GPS for whatever reason, they'd just have someone around to tail them everywhere anyways. Using GPS is just using technology in place of someone actually being there to follow the person. I fail to see why they'd need any more of a warrant to use a GPS to track a suspect than a warrant to monitor someone.

--
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'

Re:Uhmmm... okay by afidel · 2003-09-12 18:47 · Score: 1

Read the ruling they specifically dealt with that issue.

--
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
Re:Uhmmm... okay by RevSmiley · 2003-09-12 19:22 · Score: 1

I am pretty sure if the cops followed you around 24/7 for 2 and a half week with no proable cause it would be considered harassmant. If a private citizen did it I am sure it would be stalking. So gettign a warrant demonstrates proable cause other wise it's just harassment.

--
As you can see I don't care about my karma.

Before we get carried away by caitsith01 · 2003-09-12 17:36 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.

Re:Before we get carried away by afidel · 2003-09-12 18:44 · Score: 1

Actually the police using your vehicles navigation system (such as Onstar) would possibly be more protected. They would have to obtain a warrant to get the information, and even then there are possible fifth amendmant grounds, can you sign up for a service which may tend to incriminate you without your knowledge?

--
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
Re:Before we get carried away by danila · 2003-09-12 21:34 · Score: 1

it lets emergency services find idiots who phone 911 and then fail to give their location

I don't like the idea very much too, but it's not only idiots. A week ago there was a Discovery program about a derailed train. When the conductor called 911, he couldn't give the exact location, because all he knew was that the train derailed, fell into some river and half of it is burning right now (another half is under water already). It didn't look like he was an idiot, just like a person, who didn't know his exact location. And there was more than one bridge where that could happen, so it took emergency services some considerable time to find them.

--
Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.

It's Probably Worth Noting by Farley+Mullet · 2003-09-12 17:42 · Score: 4, Insightful

The controlling law here is the Washington State Constitution, not the United States Constitution. Indeed, from the decision:

Jackson does not claim or suggest in his petition for review that the Fourth Amendment was violated. Accordingly, there is no issue before us under the Fourth Amendment.

So the force of this decision ends at the border of Washington State.

Re:It's Probably Worth Noting by dvdeug · 2003-09-12 17:57 · Score: 1

So the force of this decision ends at the border of Washington State.

That, strictly speaking, is true. But having this case on hand when arguing or deciding similar cases elsewhere could help convince judges who might have had a harder time without any precedent at all.
Re:It's Probably Worth Noting by kamapuaa · 2003-09-12 18:30 · Score: 2, Insightful

Under common law (like the US has, and 49 states), legal precedents are a basis for the law.
So technically, the influence of this decision ends in the courtroom - no law was changed, after all. However, this case should help establish a precedent. Other courts with similar cases are likely to go by the same reasoning. Police won't use GPS tracking devices, because they know judges will rule against it if it comes to court. Eventually, unless the law changes, the precedent becomes the rule.

--
Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
Re:It's Probably Worth Noting by afidel · 2003-09-12 19:50 · Score: 1

Which is of course an essential part of the balancing act between the judicial, legislative, and executive branches that makes our form of government so resistant to abuse.

--
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.

Re:Civil liberties? by Igmuth · 2003-09-12 17:43 · Score: 5, Insightful

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).

I guess she would rather waste tax payers money by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-12 17:45 · Score: 1, Informative

"The devices in this case were in place for approximately 2-1/2 weeks," Madsen wrote. "It is unlikely that the sheriff's department could have successfully maintained uninterrupted 24-hour surveillance throughout this time by following Jackson."

The only thing preventing the police from following someone 24 hours a day for 2 1/2 weeks is the cost. It would be quite expensive to allocate a group of officers for 2 1/2 weeks. Could it be done, sure why not. Its not like its hard to follow a large metal object.

So, instead the police decide to attach an inexpensive gps tracking device to his car which a single officer can review from time to time and have other officers follow up on. If anything this is LESS intrusive since the police are not watching the suspect's moves 24hours a day, they are simply watching where his car goes.

gg judge

Re:I guess she would rather waste tax payers money by caitsith01 · 2003-09-12 18:00 · Score: 1

Ah, the old 'money is more important than process or freedoms' argument.

Never get tired of that one. I wonder how much money the US is saving by keeping those pesky alleged unproven possibly unlawful combatants locked away at Camp X-Ray, free from the money squandering foolishness of the US Courts who might want to accord them pricey and unneccessary rights?

Of course, ultimately it would be cheaper for the police to just shoot every suspect. About 10 cents for the bullet, no pesky paperwork or trial, everybody wins, taxpayers rejoice! This policy has been implemented successfully in LA I believe. You could even make a few more bucks by selling the organs of the deceased to the privatised health system.

Business plan:

1. Remove all due process from law enforcement
2. ???
3. Profit!

+10 FLAMEBAIT!!!

--
Read Pynchon.
Re:I guess she would rather waste tax payers money by mod_parent_down · 2003-09-12 18:24 · Score: 1

Valid point.
But the argument is whether or not you need a warrant to attach the device, not whether or not it should ever be done.
GPS is a simple way to do 24/7 surveillance detail on a suspect if a judge says so. Otherwise, it's an invasion of privacy. Makes sense to me.
Re:I guess she would rather waste tax payers money by toast0 · 2003-09-12 20:03 · Score: 1

You know, that's a bad example. He probably has some ownership interest in the car. It would be perfectly legal to track his wife by putting a GPS device in it. Not to mention when he finds out his wife is sleeping with every other cop on the force, he's not going to press criminal charges; he's going to file for divorce.

A better example would be that he suspects his neighbor, a female (for ease of pronouns) 16-year old, of frequenting bars and strip clubs; so he sticks a gps device on her car, and then in a week or so wants to charge her with whatever you charge minors with for going to bars and strip clubs.

--
Need a Catering Connection

Good. by pr0ntab · 2003-09-12 17:47 · Score: 1

The prosecutors contended this was no more intrusive than having an officer tail a suspect, for which no warrant is needed.

But they assume that just because you pay taxes to drive a car, they can go up to it and modify it without your knowledge as part of a criminal investigation? That is irresponsible, and it breaks (some amendment, sleepy, can't remember). ^_^;;;

--
Fuck Beta. Fuck Dice

Re:Civil liberties? by caitsith01 · 2003-09-12 17:48 · Score: 4, Insightful

"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.

Blocking the GPS signals by narratorDan · 2003-09-12 17:49 · Score: 3, Funny

When ever I commit a crime, I would just search my car and set up a system that turns my car's frame into a big antenna broadcasting static on the same frequency as the GPS system.

NarratorDan

--
"If you're not confused by quantum mechanics, you really don't understand it." - Niels Bohr

Re:Blocking the GPS signals by drinkypoo · 2003-09-13 14:14 · Score: 1

Actually, they sell GPS simulators that kick out a specified position, for testing, so you could just use one of those, and disconnect your speedometer for the night. "But officer, I was home the whole time."

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:Blocking the GPS signals by Technician · 2003-09-13 16:50 · Score: 1

If you knew it was there, simply go downtown to to a tall paking structure or underground parking garage. While there and out of GPS signal range, find and remove the device. Put it inside an empty paint can and put on the lid. Make your trip. The device is still out of GPS signal range. Return to the parking lot and put the device back.

Honestly, I spent the night at the office!

--
The truth shall set you free!
Re:Blocking the GPS signals by Technician · 2003-09-13 16:52 · Score: 1

Have you priced one?

They do exist, but unles you are a fully staffed manufacture of the GPS receivers, you probably couldn't get one.

--
The truth shall set you free!
Re:Blocking the GPS signals by drinkypoo · 2003-09-14 02:52 · Score: 1

I'm sure I couldn't afford one, but stealing one might be a nice solution...

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:Blocking the GPS signals by Technician · 2003-09-14 14:30 · Score: 1

Finding one to steal could be a problem. To steal one, you need to find one first. Good luck.

--
The truth shall set you free!

Not about them using it by stratjakt · 2003-09-12 17:50 · Score: 4, Informative

It's really about the tracking data obtained being admissible in court.

So there's a murder, a body dumped in the woods. The cop finds out through a GPS device on your car that your vehicle drove from the victims apartment to the woods right after the murder.

Without a warrant to obtain that data, the judge throws this evidence out. Otherwise it would be a violation of your rights. There's very little a cop can do to you without a warrant, they can't step onto your property, peer through your windows to see whats going on.

A more extreme example you'd see on "Law and Order", I suppose.

Potheads who grow their own are paranoid about cops patrolling the neighbourhoods with heat-sensing cameras, looking for the "hot" houses - which would be a tip that there's some lamps running in there. Or watching power bills for extra usage. They can't - they've tried and judges have thrown it out. You need a warrant first. Public property is fair game, though, and they can go through your trash once it hits the public curve.

Anyhow, that's getting off topic. Point is, this is no shock. Without a warrant a cop is limited to what he sees in public property, he can't go onto your property or through your car without permission.

With exceptions (that they love to exploit) like they can search a trunk of a car if there's a safety concern. They like to pull over suspected dealers, play "hey now I think your exhaust might be leaking, we need to look in the trunk for your safety!"... Though a good lawyer chews such actions up in court.

By and large, Judges are very pro-citizen and very anti-cop. They were all attorneys or DAs and know the games they play, and aren't impressed.

What are we talking about again? Oh yeah. GPS. Dont worry about the local LEOs slipping one into your pocket and watching you. Thats federal black helicopter shit (and if you get the feds on your case all bets are off)

--
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!

Re:Not about them using it by stratjakt · 2003-09-12 18:09 · Score: 1

No they cant go on your property unless called or they have 'probable cause', like they hear screaming or something. They certainly cant come inside without permission or a warrant. I've had the cops show up to parties because the neighbours bitched about the music. I've had them ask if they can come in and look around. I've told them to pound sand. I've been pulled over and asked if they can look in the trunk. Same deal, they can look in "plain sight" - if you have a shotgun and a bong on your back seat you're fucked, but they cant go into the trunk without a warrant, or again "probable cause" like the safety copout I mentioned before.

He can walk down the sidewalk, and if he can see from there that you're cutting up a bunch of pot plants or whatever, then he can easily get a warrant.

Why do you think HomeSec wanted mailmen to do the snooping? They're allowed on your property to deliver the mail.

And DA's and Judges, while "chummy" keep them on a tight, tight leash, because they know a good defense attorney will rip them a new one if they forget to dot an i or cross a t. They hate nothing more than putting all the time and effort and money into building a case, then having it thrown out because Deputy Dawg forgot the warrant or stuttered reading miranda, or asked you questions without a lawyer, etc etc..

--
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
Re:Not about them using it by RevSmiley · 2003-09-12 19:12 · Score: 1

Tell that to the guy next door to my Moms house who got busted because they came in her yard and saw his pot plant in his house. They had to look over a 6 foot fence to see in his window. They had to be in my moms yard to do that.

The bust was legal. He want to jail. This was not a area accessable from the sidewalk it was behind two locked gates.

They were not called and had no independent cause to suspect this guy as he was a Prof at the local JC.

You are living in a dream world.

--
As you can see I don't care about my karma.
Re:Not about them using it by drinkypoo · 2003-09-13 14:17 · Score: 1

Just why is it legal for the cops to go trashing but not legal for a citizen? In most places the trash is the 'property' of the refuse company the moment you take the can full of trash out to the sidewalk.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"

Re:Civil liberties? by RevSmiley · 2003-09-12 17:51 · Score: 1

No what the court said was that the use of GPS over the length of time in this case would have been illegal without a warrant. The procsecution was making a smart ass comment. That fact is moot in as the police had a warrant. But the court said without one it was the same as tailing a suspect around for 2 weeks. A major investement of time if a real tail was used with real cops doing the tail. The court was saying if it's that important get a warrent and not just to be shopping for data you can base a crime prosceution on just on speculation.

As a side note when have you ever heard of a regular court not rubber stamping request for a search warrent? If you ask for one you will get one. Not getting a search warrant is not a problem for the cops. Being lazy and violating peoples civil rights are a problem for the cops.

The guy in this case was a sick bastard who killed his own 9 year old daughter. The GPS data was an element in his conviction. Good thing they got the warrant as they should have.

--
As you can see I don't care about my karma.

Ruling only applies to Washington State by Derling+Whirvish · 2003-09-12 17:51 · Score: 2, Informative

This ruling was by the Washington State Supreme Court and only applies to warrants issued in the State of Washington. "There is no controlling legal authority" (as Gore once said) in the other 49 states -- so be aware (that is if you are doing anything that might cause the police to want to track you).

Tampering with property - tresspass? by caitsith01 · 2003-09-12 17:51 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

Re:Tampering with property - tresspass? by anagama · 2003-09-12 18:03 · Score: 1

In this case, the police had impounded the cars and while impounded, obtained a warrant to place the devices. They had to do the same thing for the GPSs as they would to search his home. So this is a good decision.

--
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
Re:Tampering with property - tresspass? by caitsith01 · 2003-09-12 18:08 · Score: 1

Hmm, guess I should RTFA :)

Still, it's an interesting question. Is, for instance, it tresspass to use someone's own GPS system in their car or phone against them? Is it tresspass to attach something to their car without their knowledge or consent?

--
Read Pynchon.
Re:Tampering with property - tresspass? by anagama · 2003-09-12 18:21 · Score: 1

The second question is fairly easy for us regular citizens - even if you can't call it "tresspass", it sure would count as "car prowling". Lot's of kids get a few months in juvie for that! ;-)

Someday, that first question will come up. Rest assured, it will be in a case where the facts are horrid like they are here. The whole case will hinge on whether using that information was OK, and as a result, we'll get a bad decision which says that if you voluntarily purchase one these devices, you have put your GPS coordinates in the public sphere. At least that's where I'll wager my 2 cents.

--
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
Re:Tampering with property - tresspass? by caitsith01 · 2003-09-12 18:29 · Score: 1

So perhaps what we need is for someone to argue it in a less important case, even where it's not necessarily crucial. I attended a talk for lawyers and legal academics by a 5th Circuit SC judge and he basically urged people to bring cases before the courts when important principles were at play. He said something like, "I'd love to give an opinion on that, but I can't until you bring it before me!"

In other words, he wants to protect liberties and the citizen against the state (this was in the context of other comments in this vein), but he can't if noone brings the cases and makes the arguments.

People criticise the courts, but I am thankful for them all the time. Even 'conservative' judges like Thomas tend to put fairness, legal progress and true justice ahead of politicking and ideology most of the time.

--
Read Pynchon.

I didn't RTFA, but they got a warrant first. by crapolene · 2003-09-12 17:53 · Score: 2, Insightful

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!

Re:I didn't RTFA, but they got a warrant first. by crapolene · 2003-09-12 18:03 · Score: 1

I didn't read the whole slashdot synopsis either. It clearly states the cops got a warrant. I suck. I guess I was all excited because I live in the same town where Brad Jackson killed his daughter.
Re:I didn't RTFA, but they got a warrant first. by Urox · 2003-09-12 18:42 · Score: 1

This guy was way more than a creep. He should have gotten the death penalty IMO. He makes up a fraudulent story about his child missing, he kills her and then makes up a story that she overdosed and that he thought he'd be suspect because of his wife's "dissappearance," and he kills her on the grounds that the girl and his girlfriend don't get along and so he removes the visible "obstruction." People like this should be taken out, not given 672 months in prison with possibility of parole. I don't want someone stupid enough to lie about his child's death (when the coroner can figure it out) out on the street ever again. I wouldn't be surprised if he *did* kill his wife with the crap he tried to pull.

--
"Would you rather have a playstation addicted dork wearing a star wars t-shirt?"

Judge OK..RTFA! by mabhatter654 · 2003-09-12 17:54 · Score: 5, Insightful

The cops PLANTED a GPS tracker on the guys car to keep tabs on him at all times. Fortunately this time, and properly, they got a court's permission first. All the judge did was verify that it did indeed require a warrant for that activity.

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!

Transmitters for everybody! WhooHoo! by Mulletproof · 2003-09-12 17:56 · Score: 1

I have to draw the line when the police move from using passive survellience and tracking to active transmitting devices on a person who has yet to be proven guilty. They want to prove something, fine. Do the footwork. Gather the evidence. Maybe even tail them if in some cases, but you do not touch the them or their property until you can prove them guilty. In theis case, I have absolutely no problem with the warrent requirement. That is unless you don't mind the police breaking into your apartment to isntall bugs because they suspect you guilty of something...

--
You need a FREE iPod Nano

Whoa. by SatanicPuppy · 2003-09-12 17:57 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.

Re:Whoa. by MadAnthony02 · 2003-09-12 18:23 · Score: 1

It freaks my brain that they WEREN'T required before

From the sounds of the article, there was no prior rulings on the issue either way. This is just the first time the issue has ever come before the courts, and possibly one of the first times the technology has been used in a case like this.

And it's state, not federal, so you can't blame Ashcroft.

--
I have blog like everyone else

Re:Oops! by anagama · 2003-09-12 17:58 · Score: 2, Insightful

Bzzzt. Read the case.

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. ... '{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.

citations omitted for readability purposes

--
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good

Sense and sensibility by mao+che+minh · 2003-09-12 17:58 · Score: 2, Insightful

More like "score one for sensibility". GPS is merely another means of tracking one's proverbial pray - as is celluar phone transmissions and web server logs. It is only fitting that a judge realized this plain and obvious fact.

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.

Re:Sense and sensibility by anagama · 2003-09-12 18:13 · Score: 1

Actually, I think the cops actedd appropriatly in this case because before they attached the devices, they went to a judge and got permission (a warrant) to do so. That is in fact the reason this evidence was not tossed out.

--
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good

Trespass by maroberts · 2003-09-12 18:01 · Score: 3, Insightful

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

Re:Civil liberties? by dorko · 2003-09-12 18:03 · Score: 3, Interesting

That fact is moot in as the police had a warrant.

BZZT! Wrong answer.

The officers installed the GPS transponder under a "warrant authorizing a search of the vehicles for blood, hair, body fluids, fibers." Maybe I missed that lecture in my E/M fields class, but what part of the GPS signals are made up of blood, hair, body fluids or fibers?

Other than that, I agree he is a sick bastard and I'm glad the court upheld the conviction.

spot the embedded FUD by FearUncertaintyDoubt · 2003-09-12 18:04 · Score: 3, Insightful

But he said the court had expanded privacy rights for criminal suspects.

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.

When a criminal carries GPS on his own.. by EqualSlash · 2003-09-12 18:18 · Score: 3, Funny

GPS device thief caught by GPS

posting without reading? by frovingslosh · 2003-09-12 18:36 · Score: 4, Interesting

Read the ruling, the court makes it pretty clear.

They even "get it" , that if a warrant isn't required here it isn't required at all, meaning that the government is completely free to put a GPS device on you and everyone else for the purpose of tracking everything you and they do. That is hardly freedom (the ruling even goes into why it would infringe freedom) and so the warrant is required.

--
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.

Re:Civil liberties? by shepd · 2003-09-12 18:44 · Score: 1

The difference between a free society and a dictatorship is that in a free society you have the freedom to break a law and pay for it. In a dictatorship, you're never given the chance to get that far.

--
If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC

Patriot Act by gripdamage · 2003-09-12 18:44 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.

Re:Civil liberties? by Jeremy+Erwin · 2003-09-12 18:53 · Score: 1

The police already had access to the vehicle--it had been impounded on the basis of the first warrant. During the course of this first search, the GPS tracking device was installed.

As the installation was subsequent to the execution of the first warrant, it could not have been a necessary prerequisite.

Re:Civil liberties? by wrathcretin · 2003-09-12 19:03 · Score: 1

gps on cars? this should be great for avis rent a car. "In town on business? Need to dump a few bodies in the woods? Go Avis!"

Tracking Stolen Merchandise by yintercept · 2003-09-12 19:07 · Score: 1

I suspect that the biggest use for GPS, and similar tracking technology, is for people to track stolen goods. In such cases the tracking device is in the goods. I understand that the courts look favorably on this use of technology.

Seems to me that this story only applies to cases of police intruding to install devices. This sounds quite reasonable to me, although I admit I can see reasons why the police would want to be able to install a tracking device when they do not have time to get a warrant.

For example, imagine if the police were in a high speed chase. Rather than risking bystanders, if the police had a good picture of the driver, then tagged the car with a tracking device and let the car go. In such cases, the tracking device is not really gathering evidence but simplifying the act of catching a person who committed a crime.

IANAL, but I could see a court deciding that the use of such technologies to track suspects is okay, but the actual evidence gathered by the devices are not permitted in court as evidence.

Re:Tracking Stolen Merchandise by toast0 · 2003-09-12 19:54 · Score: 1

The main thing that happens when you should have obtained a warrant before doing something, and you didn't is that the evidence collected with that warrant is not usable in court.

If you have evidence (officer testimony, news footage, etc) that a suspect resisted arrest, endangered the public, was driving recklessly, and exhibiting speed, and then use a tracking device without a warrant to determine the location of the vehicle used by the suspect, the inadmissable evidence would be where the car was found.

Where the car is found is not terribly important to the case, so who cares if it's inadmissable? I don't think there are many charges you can make based on where the car ends up. Maybe tresspassing.

--
Need a Catering Connection

Re:Civil liberties? by RevSmiley · 2003-09-12 19:29 · Score: 1

In short they had a warrant. Without the warrant it would have been illegal. This is what the court stated at least from what the NYT article I read almost 24 hours agos said. The DA said one was not required. The Court said yes it was but since they had one it was a moot point.

--
As you can see I don't care about my karma.

From the ruling by http · 2003-09-12 19:30 · Score: 1

BIG difference. from the text of the ruling:

The court noted that allowing use of such radio transmitters would mean that 'individuals must more readily assume that they are the objects of government scrutiny' noting that commentators 'have observed that freedom may be impaired as much, if not more so, by the threat of scrutiny as by the fact of scrutiny.'

--
If opportunity came disguised as temptation, one knock would be enough.
3^2 * 67^1 * 977^1

Re:Civil liberties? by toast0 · 2003-09-12 19:37 · Score: 1

BZZZT, you didn't even read the link you suggested... and it was one of the links in the text anyhow... come on

On October 23, 1999, police obtained a warrant to search the residence
and impound and search Jackson's two vehicles, a 1995 Ford pickup and a
1985 Honda Accord (warrant # 1). On October 26, Detective Knechtel
obtained a 10-day warrant (warrant # 2) to attach GPS devices to the two
vehicles while they were still impounded.

While your E/M fields class was probably not too shabby, your reading comprehension was horrible. There were two warrants, one for looking in the vehicles, and one for putting the GPS devices on the vehicles.

--
Need a Catering Connection

Which is the entirely wrong reason! by pr0ntab · 2003-09-12 20:10 · Score: 1

If you don't have a warrant, you can't search or seize. I think that attaching a GPS device is equivalent to an undeclared search. Specifically, they are searching for your whereabouts at any time they desire (again, unannounced). At least in a physical tail situation you can confront the investigators.

Also, it encourages entering it into evidence, which is only circumstantial.

--
Fuck Beta. Fuck Dice

Re:Hmmm... by toast0 · 2003-09-12 20:13 · Score: 1

you know, this guy was probably dumb enough not to notice a can of regular paint...

if you read the opinion of the court, it would pretty clear that they're objecting to warrantless survaillance in any form.

--
Need a Catering Connection

Re:Civil liberties? by dosius · 2003-09-12 20:14 · Score: 1

I thought some rent-a-car companies used GPS already. Then, Snopes might have the definitive answer on that. ;)

-uso.

--
What you hear in the ear, preach from the rooftop Matthew 10.27b

And I've been bullied by the cops too by dosius · 2003-09-12 20:32 · Score: 1

Okay, I get to work a few minutes before the place opens (welfare job at the time), I carried a purse at the time (yeah, yeah), well, some cop goes by, sees me standing around, passes once, comes back around and starts to question me.

Meanwhile my immediate supervisor shows up and sees what's going on and explains things to the cop, and he goes away.

Meh. There's worse police stories around here. The police force in Niagara Falls, NY is teh fux0r.

-uso.

--
What you hear in the ear, preach from the rooftop Matthew 10.27b

UK doesn't get it, alas by IIH · 2003-09-12 20:54 · Score: 2, Informative

They even "get it" , that if a warrant isn't required here it isn't required at all, meaning that the government is completely free to put a GPS device on you and everyone else for the purpose of tracking everything you and they do.

It's a pity that the UK doesn't get it. Here the government have reintroduced the Snoopers charter so your mobile phone location (as well as your email, telephone, website logs) can all be accessed automatically (i.e. without a warrent) not only by the police, but also by departments like the fire service, local council, etc.

In true 1984 double speak, allowing more departments access to this information has been described as "imposing further restrictions" on the use of existing powers.

--
Exigo spamos et dona ferentes

Agreed! by anthonyrcalgary · 2003-09-12 21:28 · Score: 1

Implicit in the "No one is free to break the law." argument is the "If you're not doing anything illegal, then you have nothing to hide." argument.

--
When someone might yell at me, it has to be OpenBSD.

Re:Civil liberties? by hughperkins · 2003-09-12 22:05 · Score: 1

> If you have no choice about the matter, you're not really being good, just controlled.

To what extent does it matter why someone is being "good"?

Liberty is not about having the right to do things that impose on the liberty of others, but about being able to do anything you like, as long as it does not impose on the liberty of others.

Law enforcement upholds the perimeters between each person's personal liberty. Of course, the perimeters need to be clearly defined whilst not being destructive

Would it be so bad if it became physically impossible to attack someone? (Example: network administration tools. Better to give full admin access to the whole user population and fire anyone who abuses it, or just lockdown the system so no-one can even try to cross that "liberty perimeter"?)

3g phones, by AchmedHabib · 2003-09-12 22:47 · Score: 1

Now I am looking forward to the new 3G phones, I just played with one yesterday. Video streaming that worked and other fun stuff. It also had GPS so you could see where you are but someone else could request to get your coordinates and it would show up on their map. Of course on my phone it asked if it was ok to send that information to the requesting phone. But one could fear that it would be possible to request it without your knowledge.
But then again, if you were proffesionel criminal, you would not carry it around if it was a issue. Only the stupid would.

the Kyllo case required a warrant by The+Tyro · 2003-09-13 01:08 · Score: 1

for the use of thermal imaging cameras, previously used to detect indoor cultivation of Marijuana.

IIRC, the decision came down from the SCOTUS a year or so ago, split 5/4; Scalia wrote the majority decision. It involved a case where police used a thermal imaging (FLIR) camera.

Many cultivators of marijuana use enormous grow lights inside their homes. Despite the fact that they cover the inside of the home with aluminum foil (ostensibly to maximize their grow lights), such operations are easily detectable from the street with a simple thermal imaging device. The SCOTUS ruled this was an invasion of privacy.

At technology increases the ability to spy, the court seems to have kept pace... Bravo.

--
Even if a man chops off your hand with a sword, you still have two nice, sharp bones to stick in his eyes.

Re:Civil liberties? by Jeremy+Erwin · 2003-09-13 02:47 · Score: 1

Three warrants were involved. From the opinion:

On October 23, 1999, police obtained a warrant to search the residence
and impound and search Jackson's two vehicles, a 1995 Ford pickup and a
1985 Honda Accord (warrant # 1). On October 26, Detective Knechtel
obtained a 10-day warrant (warrant # 2) to attach GPS devices to the two
vehicles while they were still impounded. The devices were connected to
the vehicles' 12-volt electrical systems. Use of the GPS devices allowed
the vehicles' positions to be precisely tracked when data from the devices
was downloaded. The vehicles were returned to Jackson but he was not
informed about installment of the devices. Detective Madsen did inform
Jackson that the police believed he had hastily buried Valiree's body, that
animals would likely dig her up, and that the body would be found and used
as evidence against him. Knechtel obtained a second 10-day warrant to
maintain the GPS devices on the vehicles (warrant # 3).

Warrants aren't generic, The warrant authorizing search did not implicitly (or explicitly) authorize the GPS. The subsequent warrants did.

What's the difference? by rezrov · 2003-09-13 02:48 · Score: 1

From the article:

Moreover, the intrusion into private affairs made possible with a GPS device is quite extensive as the information obtained can disclose a great deal about an individual's life. For example, the device can provide a detailed record of travel to doctors' offices, banks, gambling casinos, tanning salons, places of worship, political party meetings, bars, grocery stores, exercise gyms, places where children are dropped off for school, play, or day care, the upper scale restaurant and the fast food restaurant, the strip club, the opera, the baseball game, the 'wrong' side of town, the family planning clinic, the labor rally. In this age, vehicles are used to take people to a vast number of places that can reveal preferences, alignments, associations, personal ails and foibles. The GPS tracking devices record all of these travels, and thus can provide a detailed picture of one's life.

By this philosophy, any similar tracking of one's on-line "travels" without a warrant would be just as revealing. In this day and age, a person can visit internet locations that easily reveal his/her "preferences, alignments, associations, personal ails and foibles." I don't know if the court had this association in mind when this concept was drafted, but it does seem to apply...

animal-rights activists secretly tracked with GPS by soren100 · 2003-09-13 05:49 · Score: 1

Three people have already found GPS devices secretly planted on their cars. Two of them were animal rights activists, the third was a girlfriend. One of the activists was installing a trailer hitch and found the device, then two more were quickly found on the other vehicles.

This will probably be getting alot more common as these things get smaller and cheaper.

More info here:
boulderweekly.com/archive/071703/coverstory .html

Only in Washington by wealthychef · 2003-09-13 05:58 · Score: 1

From reading the ruling, I believe this case only has applicability in Washington state, since the court cited the Washington constitution as the reason for its ruling. Washington state is more liberal and its constitution is thus more respectful of certain individual liberties, but this doesn't mean Texas can't do things differently... or can it?

--
Currently hooked on AMP

The Law's The Thing by Farley+Mullet · 2003-09-13 09:48 · Score: 1

Were it only a jurisdictional issue, you'd be dead on, and having the Washington State precedent could be of some bearing in other states. The problem with appealing to this decision elsewhere is that the actions were found to be in contravention of a privacy guarantee in the Washington State Constitution, not the search and seizure provisions of the fourth amendment to the U.S. Constitution. So unless other states have similar language in their constitutions (and a similar case-law interpretation of that provision), this still isn't very useful outside the Pacific Northwest.

The Appeal Was To Washington State's Consitution by Farley+Mullet · 2003-09-13 09:57 · Score: 1

So technically, the influence of this decision ends in the courtroom - no law was changed, after all. However, this case should help establish a precedent. Other courts with similar cases are likely to go by the same reasoning.

You're missing the point. The point isn't that Washington State's supreme court can only bind lower courts in Washington by precedent; the point is that the appeal was to a privacy provision in Washington State's Constitution, which (obviously) only has force in Washington State. If other states' constitutions contain parallel provisions (and the case law surrounding those provisions is sufficeintly similar) then, of course, this decision will be a factor (though not a controlling factor) in the judicial reasoning in those states. But the force of the Washington State Constitution ends at the border of Washington state, and thus so does the force of this decision, which depends on that law.

Cheques and Balances by Farley+Mullet · 2003-09-13 10:04 · Score: 1

Which is of course an essential part of the balancing act between the judicial, legislative, and executive branches that makes our form of government so resistant to abuse.

Like in Florida, in 2000. Oh, wait. . .

Interestingly enough by zakezuke · 2003-09-13 10:19 · Score: 1

I'm too lazy to google the subject at the moment, but I do vagly also remember a case in washington regarding the leaving of surveillance equipment. Someone was nice enough to leave a camcorder in the girls locker room at the Kingdome for the benifit of recording images of the cheerleaders changing. While this was considered to be in bad form, and generally accepted as being illegal, the only means they had the procucte the guy was under the wiretapping laws, as in the video wasn't the problem it was the onboard mic on the camera that was the *criminal* act.

While police would need a warrent to plant a camera / recording device, it seems most interesting the fact that this prior precident might make it perfectly legal for any old joe who has legit access somewhere to plant a recording device, so long as it's not audio.

Also, i'm somewhat shocked the fact that this issue has not popped up before. It's not like we didn't have radio tracking devices before.

--
There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.

cellphones by Positive+Charge · 2003-09-13 10:42 · Score: 1

Now if we can get cell phones classified as GPS tracking devices, we'd be making progress.

I think he was joking... by DrMorpheus · 2003-09-13 12:46 · Score: 1

I think the grandparent post was joking...maybe...

--
Debunking the "59 Deceits"

No warrent needed for this by DrMorpheus · 2003-09-13 12:58 · Score: 1

For example, imagine if the police were in a high speed chase. Rather than risking bystanders, if the police had a good picture of the driver, then tagged the car with a tracking device and let the car go. In such cases, the tracking device is not really gathering evidence but simplifying the act of catching a person who committed a crime.

No warrent would be needed for this because the officer(s) are present while the crime is being conducted, high speed chase, et al.

--
Debunking the "59 Deceits"

So what would be the best way to find one on your by DrMorpheus · 2003-09-13 13:11 · Score: 1

car? (Damn slashdot limited titles)

Anyway, not that I really think that I'll ever have one attached to my car... But given that I'm a radical, i.e., I believe in a constitutionally limited government and that people have inalienable rights that can be inconvienient to fascists like Asscroft, I might be targeted for such a device in the future. Any tips on searching one's car for such devices?

--
Debunking the "59 Deceits"

Re:Hmmm... by drinkypoo · 2003-09-13 14:19 · Score: 1

If it's UV dye it could look like water. Put enough of it in the cooling system and give him a cooling system leak and he'll leave a nice trail of drips.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"

Re:animal-rights activists secretly tracked with G by drinkypoo · 2003-09-13 14:27 · Score: 1

The article was pretty funny to read.

"I believe it was the federal authorities," says Coronado. "I think that the technology is beyond that of the private sector. The days of an FBI parked in a dark sedan in front of our house are over."

I'd just like to think that someone in the private sector would do it better. I'd personally use an advantech biscuit PC 486 or 586 or something, and use PC/104-bus modules to get a PC card slot and a GPS device, then slip the cellular modem into the PC card slot. Ta-da! Now just install dos, card services, and a neat little program I could probably whip up in assembler within a week, and bango, the little computer will be calling a number, talking to a modem, and giving me updates on your position as often as I like.

Total cost? Probably about a grand for a good antenna, good batteries, the biscuit PC, a nice enclosure, some small rare earth magnets. And you know what else? Mine will be about half the size of that crap, using all off-the-shelf components. In fact if I applied myself, I bet I could install it in such a way that you would never know it was there, even if you looked under your vehicle, unless you knew something about cars.

I mean, think about lojack. That's been around for a long time now, and it fits in a box the size of a small car stereo amplifier. You really think someone willing to spend a grand or two can't toss one of these together? And the more money you're willing to spend, the cheaper it gets. I bet you could just contract some korean company to make you a finished product the size of a palmtop computer.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"

Slashdot Mirror

Ruling on GPS Tracking Devices

124 of 180 comments (clear)