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.
The summary left out the most important tidbit of information in this case: The police did not have a warrant for their actions.
If the police have reasonable cause to suspect that someone is up to no good and they go through due process to get a warrant, I have no problem with them using GPS as a tool in their arsenal of crime-fighting weapons.
However, I have a major issue with the police, with no reason to think I might be doing something wrong and no warrant to back it up, putting a GPS receiver on my car just in case I do do something wrong.
The judge in this case was a complete and total idiot. He can warn all he wants to, but he just set a legal precedent that says they can if they want to. There is now absolutely nothing stopping the police from GPS-bugging anyone at any time for any reason, or even with a complete lack of a reason. Who here thinks that even though the police can GPS-bug people without a warrant that they simply will choose not to do so because the right thing to do, in the spirit of the Constitution, is to get a warrant first?
Yeah, I don't either. If you give the government that kind of power, it has shown throughout history—including many incidents in recent U.S. history—that it will not only use it, but push it even further.
If I recall correctly, the rationale behind the original decision was that police can follow people the old-fashioned way—a stakeout—without a warrant or probable cause, and that GPS-bugging them is legally no different, because people should have no reasonable expectation of privacy while driving on public roads.
Well, I'm sorry, I vehemently disagree. The resources required to conduct a stakeout demand that the police don't just do it all willy-nilly for no reason, and anyone who expects to be electronically tracked when there is no reason or cause to do so is an idiot. I know it, you know it, the police know it, this judge knows it, but with the swing of a gavel, he just legalized the excruciatingly stupid idea that you don't have any privacy on the roads. Some people think that talking about Big Brother watching us is an exaggeration, but when I read about stuff like this, it's really hard to see much of a difference.
If there's any justice to be had from this, this idiot judge's decision will be overturned at some point.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
That's all good IF they have a warrant to authorize the tracking. The judge's decision essentially opened the door for warrantless surveillance of "suspects" - lack of judicial oversight over police actions isn't a good thing.
-b.
It would appear that the police tagged the suspect's car, not the suspect's person. Leaving aside the issue that people equate themselves with their car, tracking a publicly registered vehicle on a public street seems less like a violation of privacy. After all, is it that much different (other than cost to the police) from tailing a person in an unmarked police vehicle? The tin-foil hatted criminal could always borrow a friend's car, walk, or take the bus to escape tagged-vehicle tracking.
Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
There are two separate issues here:
- Whether the suspect has to be alerted.
- Whether there should be a requirement for a search warrant (judicial oversight).
When police obtain a search warrant to bug a phone line they are not required to alert the suspect.-b.
Anyone got a link to a GPS jammer? that would help the criminals, simply JAM the gps signal for only 20 feet around you and their tracking is rendered 100% useless.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
But can't an officer follow a suspect without a warrant as it is. The difference in this case is that the officer wouldn't need to be there. (I'm basing this on the assumption that an officer can follow a suspect by traditional methods without a warrant)
All the GPS unit does is report where the vehicle is. Besides, it can be easily circumvented by changing vehicles. Get on a bike, bus, train, boat, or horse.
If the police abandon their equipment by attaching it to my property does it become part of my property? Any good geek would want a nice new GPS reciever with a magnet on it to play with, wouldn't they? I've had run ins with the cops in the past, I inspect my vehicles from time to time. So far I haven't found anything new, but who knows?
Does the judge, or any members of his family, own stock in the company which produces the shoot-and-tag GPS tracking guns?
Big brother issues are definitely a concern in this case. More and more of the population seems to be willing to allow themselves to be profiled to death, though, so there really aren't any arguments left which would make any sort of difference.
Other than "ulterior motive" and "big brother", there really isn't much else to talk about except the weather.
the NPG electrode was replaced with carbon blac
Let's say I already have a GPS navigation system in my car which records my progress. Does this mean that the police no longer need a warrant to seize the tracking information? Since I supposedly have no right to privacy regarding the path which I took, how can I have any right to privacy for an instrument that records it, regardless of whether the instrument belongs to me, the police, or some third party? Ergo, the police no longer need a warrant to obtain the tracking information from rental car agencies. No slippery slope here, folks. Just a small step down a well-lit path.
The GPS method takes less manpower since movements can be recorded and checked up on periodically and someone doesn't need to be "on the case" to follow the car. Thus it's more likely to be used capriciously since it's inexpensive and easy to use. I'm not opposed to it in cases where someone is fleeing after a felony for example, or had just stolen a car and the cops can't safely give chase but can fire a sticky GPS device from a dart gun. However, any long-term surveillance where there's time to see a judge should require a warrant or the fruits of it should be inadmissible in court.
-b.
I seem to remember a rule that no, they can't follow a suspect for an extended period of time without getting a warrant. If I'm mistaken, there certainly should be such a rule. The word "search" means "To make a thorough examination of; look over carefully in order to find something; explore." When the police follow someone around they're searching for evidence of wrongdoing. The only question is whether or not the search is reasonable.
IMO following someone around town, whether by foot, by car, or by tracking device, is not reasonable.
No matter how hard they try, such a device will add weight to the car. This in turn lowers your vehicle's miles per gallon rating. Thus they are stealing gas from you, no matter how insignificant the amount is.
If you can't get them for a breach of privacy, get them for theft. I remember hearing about a case where a landlord who put hidden cameras in an apartment. The landlord couldn't be charged with a privacy violation so the police got him for stealing electricity he used to power his recording equipment with.
Judges have shot down the use of red-light cameras in Minneapolis because of the inability of the cameras to *prove* that it was the owner of the car (who gets the ticket) that drove through the light. This seems to me a very similar situation, with the same problems.
A post a day keeps productivity at bay.
There's two ways to think of things:
Crime Control
Due Process
The quick version is that crime control means giving police wide latitude to do their job. If they 'know' someone is guilty, they shouldn't have to jump through hoops to arrest & jail them. Due process says what it means: all the i's have to be dotted & the t's have to be crossed.
Someone who says"I can very much see the police's side of this" is leaning towards the Crime Control school of thought, which is directly contrary to the system of law setup in These United States.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
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.
This is yet another case that begs the question, why does law enforcement feel warrants are such an impediment? Is this an issue of courts not being open 24x7 like drive through chapels in Las Vegas or is it that judges are foolishly trying to connect the dots and not let cops play out hunches? While I agree this one isn't that big of a deal if you get enough not a big deal warrantless things going on it becomes a big deal and suddenly the big deal things aren't such a big deal anymore.
>The judge did warn against 'wholesale surveillance' of the population, though, so ... that's some comfort.
No. It's not!Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
Don't date any daughters of police officers!
In addition to the windshield squeegee, gas stations could offer free and automatic bug detection embedded in the ground. Those who value their privacy would pump gas there "just in case" which would increase patronage. Capitalism has its ways.
That's all good IF they have a warrant to authorize the tracking.
"Tracking" was always allowed, if you were walking/driving in public they could always follow you, no warrant was necessary.
This sort of conviction has already started with DNA, except now we see things being opened up to include non-physical evidence too.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
If everybody had a right to privacy everywhere, things like traffic cameras would become illegal. Should nobody be able to check whether it's best to go through First or Second Avenue, because Mr. John Smith is afraid his wife will see his car entering the "adult store" parking lot? And what if her cousin saw you, should she need a warrant to tell your wife? (hey, that wouldn't be a bad idea...)
There is *one* and only one well defined place to draw the line where your privacy becomes more important than my right to watch. The line should be drawn at the borders of your property. The police and everybody else should absolutely need a warrant to look into your home, but once you step into the street my right to see trumps your right to stay unseen.
I'm from Florida.
You are lucky the cops only installed it in your car.
In Florida they bug YOU.
I am the unwilling control for my Origin.
It allows the GPS historical record to be admitted, and yes, that will be more accurate with regards to time and position than average testimony usually is. There's even some parellels with other technologies, for example many jurisdictions require surveilance cameras to have time stamp systems and support testing those for accuracy before their tapes can be submitted as evidence.
But, it allows certain things, it doesn't require them. If the officers don't use this in a certain case, and an officer gets hurt in persuit, or a civilian does, will that make the injury any less the fault of the suspect, since, by your point, the police could have mitigated it?
If the police use this method a lot, and don't get any more accurate results than old fasioned surveilance, is there any requirement they disclose they used this method on dozens of other people before they got evidence of a single crime?
If it turns out GPS surveilance doesn't actually produce better testimony, or more reliable convictions, do the police have to disclose the record to a jury, or can they claim it's infalliable, as they often have with DNA and other 'high tech' evidence?
You've described a pretty damned sloppy, poorly trained cop rather than the average detective on most forces. If GPS evidence is being interpreted by Warren and Goober, as supervised by Barney, it won't be any better than non-GPS, and if it's being interpreted by somebody well trained and competent, why does the police force not have some people who fit that discription on the front lines? If you really think surveilance is commonly conducted by people who never heard of syncronizing their watches, why aren't you trying to get the guns out of those people's hands? - they sound like a terrible menace! Thanks to you, I'm now not even worried about how they can misuse GPS, when many of them commonly have full auto assault rifles and semi-auto shotguns!
Who is John Cabal?
This is one of the few gray areas of the law where I am actually not sure that law enforcement has done anything wrong. The 'slippery slope' that leads to constant monitoring of all vehicles, their position, etc (including speeding violations, traffic patterns, etc) is definitely something to be worried about ... however, in small scales, I can understand this a bit.
What I do not agree with is the placement of unsolicited materials upon private property by a third party. This sounds to me, on a basic level, like vandalism. Perhaps he can sue, as the police did deface his personal property. Am I allowed to attach papers or spray paint or Mooninites to my neighbor's car? Do we judge vandalism based upon how hard it is to remove the materials from the vandalized object? If so, would it not be vandalism if I simple stuck magnetized sex toys to the hood of my neighbor's car? I mean, just as easy to remove.
On the note about attaching electronic devices (mooninite or otherwise) - we should all be able to 'get back at the man' by suing the government for placing suspicious devices on our property, thereby inspiring terror. What if it was a bomb?! If a bright cartoon character in a public place is a hoax device, I fail to see how a hidden, inconspicuous device mounted to the underside of my car is not of a similar, if not more serious, threat to my well being.
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
Police can follow me around or stake out my house without a warrant.
Now, instead of assigning an on-duty officer to tail a suspect 24/7, they are using a GPS device.
How is this sort of warrantless surveillance a 4th Amendment violation? I'm not saying it is not, I just don't see it.
I read
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.
the reality is that it takes a lot of effort to stick a gps on a car and then to retrieve it. Instead, it is the cameras and rfid that the feds have free access to, that should terrify ppl. This allows unlimited tracking in a pretty easy fashion.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
After all, is it that much different (other than cost to the police) from tailing a person in an unmarked police vehicle?
Yeah, actually it's a lot different. A car and a policeman or two is a whole lot more expensive than a gps tracking unit and a thumb drive. You also have the benefit of being able to see that someone is following you whether you know it is a policeman or not.
We have a reason to suspect that you violate the speed limit on public roads.
Slap!
This GPS receiver will let us know exactly when you do. Your ticket will come in the mail. Thank you for supporting our county!
Please do not remove the device, as you will be charged with destruction of government property.
If moderation could change anything, it would be illegal.
If the police could teach a satellite the 'fingerprint' of your car. And then track you any time you were within view. Dozens at a time. Hundreds. Thousands. Would this be just egregious as snapping a GPS box to your ride?
Me? I'm not really too worried. I suspect (clever choice of words eh?) that the police are just busy enough with 'real' criminals that they really don't have time to watch me unless they think I'm up to something. And I'm not.
Of course the police make mistakes all the time. They don't need technology to screw up your day.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
Lesson: If you can remove the boot, leave it there. Regarding the bug, how about mailing it back to the police? They'll have a fun time watching it go back, and forth, and back, and forth among post office routing stations. :)
the cops are on the public dole, how do we know they aren't wasting our dollars messing around on duty?
track all the cops all the time, record everyting they say or do.
then track politicians next. then everyone on the public payroll.
they work for us, it's about time we put the hammer down on their screwing around on duty
well, at least i don't have to worry about someone stealing my GPS anymore!
Overgeneralizing ... there's no security in obscurity ... blah blah. They're lazy as heck -- that's why today's big buzzword when selling to PD is "force multiplication".
You're confusing rights with duties and responsibilities. A police officer has certain rights from being a human; but it's their job and duty to go after lawbreakers.
A policeman on duty is an agent of the state and has more restrictions than a private citizen. We train them, pay them, and give them guns; so we hold them to a higher standard than Joe Blow.
Unlimited growth == Cancer.
Yeah, that's not what the word "search" means in a legal context. It is a well-defined term of art, and you cannot pretend that it is identical to the term in common parlance.
Per Amjur Searches (S) 16, "In General", the term "Search" under the 4th Amendment occurs only when there is some expectation of privacy that is deemed reasonable society, and it is infringed. (see e.g. Maryland v. Macon, 472 U.S. 463 (1985)). In the absence of such a reasonable expectation of privacy, there is no search (see e.g. Illinois v. Andreas, 463 U.S. 765 (1983)).
The whole point is that (a) there is no reasonable expectation of privacy covering your movements in public space, (b) because of this it isn't a search for the police to follow you in public space, and (c) this GPS tracker simply replaces that police officer who is physically tracking you.
"Stumble before you crawl"
Sure, go for it. It will undoubtedly come as a relief that -should you succeed- they will come for you last.
Isn't it better to not feed the crocodile in the first place?
Obama likes poor people so much, he wants to make more of them.
Of course, that just lends itself to more entertaining possibilities.
Suppose I find a GPS attached to my car. It obviously isn't mine. Therefore, I need to take it to the police and report it as "missing"--just like if I find a wallet or something. If nobody claims it after so many days, I get to keep it.
So the police can watch me return their GPS.
Maybe the way to look at it, is imagine if this were a McBain movie.
McBain's partner, just a week before retirement, has just been shot by Columbian cocaine dealers. McBain runs out into the parking lot, sees his police car is on fire, and a car speeding away. He reaches into his pocket and pulls out a magnetized tracker (presumably there's some backstory about how it ended up in his pocket), and throws it at the fleeing car. It hits the roof of the car, but at a bad angle, and rolls down the side, dramatically slides, and miraculously takes hold.
Maybe that car has the crooks in it, and maybe it doesn't. But he's just taken his best guess. As the fleeing car speeds off over the horizon, McBain goes back to his bleeding partner.
"Get Mendoza, and .. *cough* .. and tell .. my wife .. I .. *cough* love he--*gurgle*. [dies]" McBain gets a determined look in his eye, walks back outside, where a guy has just dismounted a motorcycle.
"Police business, I am commandeering this vehicle," he says in a heavy Austrian accent, and he mounts up and peels off with a powerful screech. It is a very "cool" motorcycle, despite the prominant Kawasaki logo.
He pulls another electronic gizmo out of his pocket. We get to see the brand name very clearly: it's an HP Pocket PC with a MS Windows CE logo. He pushes a button, and there's an amazingly beautiful 3D movie (took 2 weeks to render on the Opteron cluster) on the little screen, showing just where the car of interest is.
At this point in the movie, I have to ask you something. Are you thinking, "Whoa, that's not cool! Total abuse of power and violation of the 4th!" Or are you thinking, "Go McBain!" Well, what are you thinking, punk?
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
The 7th Circuit's Opinion does not "essentially" open the door for such warrantless searches...read the opinion it discusses and answers your concerns...whether it is satisfactory to you, that is another question.
Is there anything they *can't* do?
-Rich
Trust me on this: the cops have absolutely no interest in where you're going. All you paranoid maniacs need to stop thinking that you're the centre of the universe, and assuming that everyone wants to know everything about you. We don't. You're irrelevant and useless, and we have no interest in you whatsoever. If you're crazy enough, we might be marginally interested in you as a source of amusement, but that's about it.
Police are only interested in where you've been or where you're going if they have a reason to suspect you of a crime. And if they suspect you of a crime, they can already track your movements - it's called surveillance (you know, like the "steakout" in your favourite holywood trash-flick). Police have never needed a warrant to track your movements for the simple fact that there is no such thing as a right to "privacy of movement"! Nor should there be. If you're moving around in public, people will see you. Period. The only restraint placed on police use of GPS surveillance should be the need to have probable cause.
...they *arrested* him for stealing the parking boot. I would have sent the city a bill for the cost of my time to remove the boot from my car.This is a no-brainer under 4th Amendment law if you understand the test: Reasonable Expectation of Privacy (REP). Police only need Fourth Amendment justification when the suspect has an expectation of privacy. You have no expectation that where you driving your car - in public - is a private matter any more than you have a right not to have a license plate. People can see you driving! Of course, if you were driving on some private land, outside of the eyes of your neighbors, that may be a different matter. But who has that large of property, Bill Gates?
Whether you like it or not, this is a slam dunk case, not some "idiot judge." Read the opinion and you'll see it is based on well-settled law. You simply do not have a REP as to where you are driving on public roads. As far as what is going on within the car, that is of course an entirely different matter, which Kyllo v. US, inter alia, would likely control.
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
Judge Posner is widely recognized as one of the most brilliant jurists in America. Just because he isn't a privacy zealot or disagrees with you doesn't make him an idiot.
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
But a judge's ruling that such individual searches are different, that they require a different standard of "cause", would be a major landmark. Especially if the "wholesale" surveillance required a higher standard, especially a higher standard that just probable cause, but rather something like an actual court ruling on a trial finding actual guilt or liability on evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. Because the courts do have to be consistent in a way that lawyers do not. Such a ruling would give rights defenders the tool to prohibit governments from invading our privacy with cross-referenced database queries without evidence justifying that tracking. And it would draw a line within which even this creepy ruling can be fought, without having to rise to bigger questions about mass surveillence that Bush and the outgoing Republican Congress held were justified by the national security excuse, even when no evidence for cause was up against evidence for exoneration.
We need these precedents, as surely as we need precedents defining our property rights on copyable info property, and privacy rights on private info. Without them we'll be as lost as would the emerging middle and merchant classes among the real pirates and privateers of the Colonization Age. While those throes did lead to revolutions establishing governments to protect our rights, it cost a lot of time and bloodshed that we don't have to waste in this generation.
--
make install -not war
Here's my 2 cents as a law student currently studying criminal procedure.
The terms "search" and "seizure" are terms of art. First, there are levels of cause / suspicion: probable cause and reasonable suspicion. When the police is conducting a search or seizure, the police must have probable cause, and in general a warrant as well. The second and lower level is reasonable suspicion, which is required when the police stops someone to ask them questions and pats them down for weapons. This stop and frisk is not called a "search" or "seizure".
The opinion, itself is unclear about whether attaching a GPS requires probable cause or reasonable suspicion, but the opinion supports the District Court's decision, which held that attaching a GPS device, requires reasonable suspicion, not probable cause. This means that the police still had suspicion. Reasonable suspicion is a decision by the police, but judges can review it. Reasonable suspicion can be satisfied by facts like, the person was really nervous, wearing a thick jacket in the middle of summer, walking through an area known for drug dealing. Probable cause requires more, for example seeing the actual drugs.
Several of posters so far are concerned about the potential for abuse where the police place attach these devices to the cars of people that they want to target, or even blanket everyone, rather than choosing the people that are suspicious. This opinion certainly does not support this proposition, noting the problems of reduction in privacy with all the new technologies, and the potential for a law requiring the installation of these devices. The judge's response is that the limited use of a GPS device in this case, is not a great leap over having a police cruiser tail the car, and the question of mass tracking is left to a future case.
In addition, he makes the argument (or perhaps just cites precedent), that the police should not be bound to the efficiency they were despite new technologies. This argument has merit in so much as we do want the police to be efficient, and it seems odd that what the police can do inefficiently, we won't let them do efficiently. If the police started doing large scale operations because it became so much cheaper, then that is another issue, but in the present case there is no such abuse.
Lastly, a lot of people take offense to the lose of privacy. It is important to remember, that that the Constitution does not mention privacy anywhere, and in this case, the privacy stems only from freedom from illegal search and seizure in the 4th Amendment. There was no seizure: the car wasn't seized, the device was self-powered, et cetera. There was no search: there was no searching of the car itself, the police tracked a car presumably going on public roads.
Some of the posters have grave concerns about their privacy, that I also share, but it needs to be addressed through other means like a statue or Constitutional Amendment. It's wrong for us to scream at a judge because we are too lazy to get the law changed, or too unconvincing to sway the rest of the country. Having a judge create some broad right of privacy will only make it susceptible to erosion as the judges change -- like Roe v. Wade. This is a democracy, learn to use it.
I think a lot of people don't understand just how important the term reasonable suspicion is in the US justice system.
I am a law enforcement officer in Florida. If I have reasonable suspicion that you are actively engaged in a crime, I have the right to detain you, without arresting you or charging you, for up to 24 hours.
While detained, I cannot search your person or your vehicle. You cannot give consent to be searched either, as you would be under duress and not free to go.
What I can do is a cursory pat-down of your person for safety reason (see Terry Stop case law). I can also observe your vehicle from the outside, and if I see any weapons or contraband in plain view I can immediately arrest you and do a full search of both your person and your vehicle.
Reasonable suspicion gives a police officer an enormous number of tools to work with. People need to learn what it means, and once they understand what it means, lobby for change if they do not like it. Most police officers stick to the letter of the law, and to the letter of the case law to the best of their abilities. If you change the law to restrict cops, all *good* cops will abide by it whether they like it or not.
The key limit of what we can do under reasonable suspicion is "an unreasonable violation of a reasonable expectation of privacy." The judge probably believed that a GPS tracker placed on the exterior of a vehicle was no more invasive than an officer following the vehicle around to see where it went. We already do that when we do undercover surveillance ops.
Let's not forget that should you find it and keep it, you will be charged with theft. The law will not see this as your property. If you find it and destroy it you will be charged with destruction of property and made to compensate the state for its (inflated) value. If you find it and simply passively disable it without removing or damaging it, you will be charged with obstruction of justice or interfering in an investigation.
Aside from the ethical, legal aspects, the technology of GPS loggers is actually quite interesting these days. I recently purchased a USB-memory-key sized device that is a GPS->Bluetooth receiver. Gets the fixes, and sends them wirelessly to the laptop (or Treo, or whatever). The quality of these units is truly amazing these days; the modern chipsets (StarSirf, I think it is?) will even work inside the glove compartment (and obviously indoors is no problem either). The prices are great, too; I got mine for $100. Combined with Streets N' Trips, it makes my subnotebook into a great little GPS mapping device.
While I was shopping around, I came across a couple of different units that would log away to their internal RAM, when not connected via Bluetooth. So you could stick one in your cheatin' wife's car quite easily, and see where she went with a simple Bluetooth/USB download later. It certainly is bringing GPS tracking into the hands of everyone who wants it. (This feature wasn't particularly important to me, and the devices that had it didn't *quite* have as good reviews for the reception ability, so I went with my Holux GPSlim unit instead.)
Love many, trust a few, do harm to none.
What's wrong with Kawasaki? The ZX-9R is a thing of beauty!
Using a GPS tracker is nothing different than "putting a tail on somebody", which requires no warrant. The cops could also follow dude around in a helicopter, also without a warrant. A GPS bug is nothing more than an easier way for the cops to tail you. A sophisticated criminal would have a RF scanner that would alert him/her to the device, and then re-plant on grandma's old caprice in the parking lot of a food mart.
Everyone in the comments here seems to be referring to the tracking device as a "GPS receiver" as if every TomTom or Garmin secretly reports its locations over a cellular network like OnStar. What kind of radios do the ones placed in suspects' cars report their location with: is it via a digital cellular network, is it sidebanded via police radio frequencies, or what?
Your mind is clear / The things that you fear / Will fade with how much you / Believe what you hear
Well I don't know about you, but I have an expectation that someone isn't going to track me everywhere I go in my car, and I think that expectation is reasonable.
Your whole argument rests on the assumption that it's reasonable for someone to stalk you. It isn't.
You say that requiring a warrant for GPS is like requiring a warrant to shoot someone.
Proposition: would those on this board think using GPS to track vehicles without a warrant would be more acceptable if, after each instance, the officers who did this had to take administrative leave until it is determined whether the tracking was justified?
I live in the broadcasting range of an area where, when cops shoot, they shoot to kill. (Theory being that it's much safer for the cop that way.) I wish shooting criminals required warrants in such cases, though it's not going to happen. Even if it did, if there's a standoff going on, then the cops might actually get such a warrant.
There is a fine line between recklessness and courage... -- Paul McCartney
but that's okay, he's in good company.
There is a big difference between observing a vehicle on a highway, and planting an electronic device on your property to track your exact location from second to second. Which is not to say that I don't expect the SCOTUS to approve this, because they've been rubberstamping horrible police tactics for decades.
There is a big difference between observing a vehicle on a highway, and planting an electronic device on your property to track your exact location from second to second.
/. privacy zealots, or he's an idiot. Nice logic. Do you even understand or care about the US case law system or stare decisis ? One of the most brilliant, respected jurists in the country is an idiot because he disagrees with you, some anonymous Internet poster. Now that's nonsense.
And as Judge Posner pointed out (based on well-settled law), the police are not required to remain locked in the technology of the 18th Century.
I guess Judge Posner should ignore well-settled constitutional law and base his legal reasoning on the opinions of
Your comments about SCOTUS are even more ludicrous. There have been numerous pro-defendant/suspect decisions made by this court, including the one I linked, Kyllo v US . Read Kyllo and then come back and pop-off about a "rubber stamp." Riley is but one case, and it seems very reasonable to me. The police in helicopters should shield their eyes from pot growing outside a person's home? Where does it say anything about outdoor, uncovered greenhouses in the Constitution?
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
I guess Judge Posner should ignore well-settled constitutional law and base his legal reasoning on the opinions of /. privacy zealots, or he's an idiot. Nice logic. Do you even understand or care about the US case law system or stare decisis ? One of the most brilliant, respected jurists in the country is an idiot because he disagrees with you, some anonymous Internet poster. Now that's nonsense.
I'm not sure I understand your point here. Could you restate it again, only be really snobby and pompous this time? A bad decision is a bad decision, no matter how long it has been on the books. Plessy v. Ferguson was on those books for almost 60 years. And making bad decisions on easy to rule case pretty much disqualifies you from being "brilliant": that bugging a car with a GPS device is crossing the line between freely observing movements in public and tampering with private property for the purposes of surveillance. If your local P.D. wants to do that, fine, but they should get. a. warrant.
And as Judge Posner pointed out (based on well-settled law), the police are not required to remain locked in the technology of the 18th Century.
But neither are they allowed to use technology without warrants just because the founders couldn't concieve of it and explicitly forbade its use. Does that link look a little familiar?
Riley is but one case, and it seems very reasonable to me. The police in helicopters should shield their eyes from pot growing outside a person's home? Where does it say anything about outdoor, uncovered greenhouses in the Constitution?
Case in point, if you had bothered to read the dissent in the link or possessed some common sense. The reasoning of the majority was that Mr. Riley did not have a reasonable expectation to privacy because air traffic was not restricted above his property, so he had no common expectation of privacy. However, how "common" is it for a helicopter to stop and hover 400 feet above your property, so somebody can peer through your window?
Your comments about SCOTUS are even more ludicrous. There have been numerous pro-defendant/suspect decisions made by this court, including the one I linked, Kyllo v US
Numerous? Try needle in a haystack. Kyollo was a rare moment of sanity and I'm surprised they didn't rule the other way. After the landmark Miranda case the SCOTUS has been on a long downward spiral as far as constitutional rights go. For example, there's Illinois v. Caballes, which allows cops to use an alert from a drug dog to do a search without a warrant, or Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, which allows cops to demand ID from people who are not in operation of a vehicle without probable cause.. And then there's United States v. Ross, in which the majority opinion gave a police officer's determination of probable cause to be equal to a judge's, and as Marshall notes in the dissent, ignores much of the "automobile exception" exception set out in Carroll v. United States. So much for your stare decisis, beyach.