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."
Look here.
Karma whorin' since 1999
Honestly people, why keep linking to the "reg required" links?
NYTimes Story
Alternate story
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
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.
It's not the job of the police to determine whether someone is guilty of a crime; that's what juries are for.
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.
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).
"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.
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
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!!!!
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).
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 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.
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.
GPS device thief caught by GPS
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.
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.
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