Slashdot Mirror
Court Rules GPS Tracking Legal For Law Officers
Via Engadget (which does a good job of explaining the case), an anonymous reader passed us a link to a GPS Tracking Systems Blog post. The site, which reports regularly on GPS-related news, has word that on-the-sly GPS tracking is legal for officers of the law. A 7th circuit court of appeals ok'd the use of a GPS device in apprehending a criminal. Though the defendant's lawyers argued on fourth amendment grounds, the judge found GPS tracking did not warrant an 'unlawful search and seizure'. The judge did warn against 'wholesale surveillance' of the population, though, so ... that's some comfort.
What's even worse than that, is that a lot of cars come with a black box or other GPS device. If you already have OnStar or other GPS systems installed, then it's pretty clear that you can be tracked. However, many cars are coming with pre-installed GPS tracking in the form of theft protection. I can't find a good link at the moment, but I remember seeing a video (for some reason I think it was on a Penn and Teller: Bullshit! episode) where a guy with a laptop tracked an employee's car as he went to do some errands. I can see how you would want to track your car if it gets stolen, but that really isn't what we are talking about here. The problem is that you can be tracked without your knowledge or consent if your car has such a black box. I'm not sure how that should play out in the legal world if tracking is done without a warrant, and this case didn't seem to take that into consideration.
Now you're the one leaving out information. In this case the police did have reasonable suspicion that the person in question was doing something wrong. In fact, the judge feels that the police had probable cause.
That said, I don't see why the police shouldn't have been required to get a warrant first.
This was not "some judge" who "was an idiot" in some Traffic Court meeting in a double-wide out behind the courthouse of Whoville, TN. This is the Federal Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. (I mean, this makes it worse!) The only appeal from these guys is the Supreme Court. Further, it is precedent setting and can be used in further cases. The best way to get it to the Supreme Court would be to get another circuit court (like the ninth) to rule the opposite way. That way the Supreme Court would be more compelled to get into it.
How about a moderation of -1 pedantic.
There are two parts to 4th amendment law applicable here. The first is "search or seizure". The second is the warrant requirement. This case said that planting a gps tracking device on your car is not a "search" and therefore there is a lesser police suspicion required. Because it is not a "search" within the constitutional perspective, a warrant is not required. This is similar to a previous case where a beeper was placed inside a barrel that was used to track drugs. In both cases, as long as it was possible to track the items WITH THE NAKED EYE, it was constitutional to track them with technological methods. The general rule is that if you can do it without technology or technology that is widely available, the police can do it with technology that is NOT widely available. Unfortunately this lowers the cost of police surveillance, which allows more surveillance and some fear the eventual creation of widespread "dragnet" surveillance which the court has warned it would not allow. The supreme court has not ruled on this specific issue, but it will eventually because there is a conflict between the various circuits of the federal system
From the article: But if police follow a car around, or observe its route by means of cameras mounted on lampposts or of satellite imaging as in Google Earth, there is no search.
Someone watches too much 24.
Libertarian Leaning Political Discussion Forum.
Obviously I agree that they should be required to get a warrant, so that they can be held accountable for watching people for the hell of it.
You forgot the most important part:
So that they can be held accountable for watching people for the hell of it WITH MY MONEY.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
If the need is that immediate, police don't need to get a warrant ahead of time. If they can't prove the urgency in court, though, the judge will most likely throw out any of the evidence. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exigent_circumstance
At the risk of going somewhat off topic, this is one of the biggest problems a lot of people had with the federal government's wiretap program. The government could get a warrant the next day if they needed to do an immediate wiretap, and the court almost never (something like 1 in 1000, I think) refused warrants.
Go back to the books, bub. Just because the Constitution doesn't spell it out, doesn't mean it isn't there.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
It's the Ninth Amendment. Read it and remember it.
!#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.