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.
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.
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?
There are several differences. For one thing, the car is still private property. Do the police have the right to just start messing with and essentially modifying your car without permission (from you or a judge)? I mean, if someone ELSE crawled under your car and attached a GPS to it and started tracking your location, should that be legal? If not, why would we let the police do it without a warrant?
In addition, the tracking does not somehow automatically stop when the car EXITS public streets and enters private property. This is pretty much the equivalent of tagging someone's actual body with a nano-GPS device. Sure, the police could physically walk behind you when you're in public, but should they have the right to know what room you are in inside your house, at all times? And should they be able to know your location 24x7, from the comfort of their office chair, without even needing to convince a judge you're a likely suspect in a crime?
I also do think the fact that this makes it much cheaper and easier to do IS significant. It's kind of like privacy on the Internet: lots of things that have always been "public knowledge" have in actually tended to be fairly private due to obscurity. Now, they can suddenly be instantly accessible to anyone in the world, often showing up unbidden in unrelated searches. Such changes in ease of access do indeed call for changes in laws regarding accessibility and privacy of information.
> Crime Control
I always assert that the rest is pre-empted by choice of the definition of the word "crime". We don't have too many criminals. We have too many laws.
If we could refine our system of laws then, in instances such as this story, the appropriate use of power wouldn't be questionable because there'd be no excuse to abuse it in other more borderline situations.
the NPG electrode was replaced with carbon blac
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
I take offense with that characterization and would go so far as to say that you're trying to divine a lot from a simple statement. And the statement is pretty simple: the police, by and large, are decent people trying to do a job. They're not power-mad little dictators, they're trying to protect people. Now, that doesn't mean we don't need to check them, because we surely do. But when they request a power with new technology, I'm willing to listen to their reasons with the assumption that they're sincere. I'm not always willing to grant them that power, however. (In fact, I tend to lean the other way. You might want to recalibrate your magic people stereotyper there.)
All I said, and all that was meant, was that I can see the police's case here. Using a GPS tracker is not, in may respects, different from just following a person around. (Which they are allowed to do, as far as have ever heard.) But, as I noted, there are some differences that make me balk and not really feel that they're quite the same and that the tracker is going too far.
In short, next time, try reading more careful and *not* leaping to assumptions. You'll save yourself some embarassment.
'And the statement is pretty simple: the police, by and large, are decent people trying to do a job.'
I'm sorry but that is extremely naive. People in general are not by and large decent and no sub-group of them is. If people by and large were good and decent then Communism would be the most effective economic system. People are greedy, mean, and cruel people driven by sugar-coated base instincts for which they have come up with extremely elaborate justifications over several thousand years.
The position of police officer is an easily obtained position of ever increasing power with very little day to day oversight. For instance, a police officer could pull you over tonight for no reason at all and require you to walk 20 ft off the side of a low traffic road. If you refuse that officer can beat you with a baton and point a gun at you. Once he has you off the road he can sodomize you with the baton because he has a whim. Should you resist at any point the situation will basically degrade into a case of it being your word against his and believe me nobody takes the word of the offender over the word of the good police officer.
Now you claim that they wouldn't do this because they are by and large good and decent people. After all, the people who are drawn to a position with that sort of power would never be the same kind of people who would want that sort of power. They would be the people who wouldn't want that kind of power, right? I mean really, there are more people who wouldn't suffer from typical human weakness and abuse great power than typical people right?
The scenerio I listed would be an extreme but the kind of sadistic sexual pervert who would desire a scenerio like that isn't even uncommon let alone unheard of. It would stand to reason that those want to abuse power are more likely to seek out positions of power than those who do not want to abuse it. Even those with honest intentions will take on group behaviors and probably end up breaking rules to catch those they believe are bad guys.
I have a unique perspective. I am now a business owner in a good neighborhood. I am well connected and highly respected in the community. The police do not usually pull me over because they do not believe I am 'up to something'. Recently a police officer did pull me over to courteously let me know my tags had expired and that I should get it taken care of as soon as possible. He called me sir and addressed me with respect.
As a teen I was a rebellious youth to who smoked pot and listened to heavy metal. I dressed accordingly. The police questioned, searched, and harassed me and my friends regularly. The searches usually didn't have probable cause and if the police found something they would just lie about the circumstances. Now, usually an 'incident' would involve several police officers but any other officers would just back up whatever was in the report (no matter what really happened). In one case a friend was out past curfew on a bike, he also had a bench warrant for a pipe the police had previously found when stopping him for speeding some time before. The police checked his ID, saw he was of age, and sent him on his way. Just a few moments later the car started to come after him so he fled on the bike, figuring he could get away and carry on with his life since he lived in another state. The police officer chased him a couple blocks and then actually hit him with the car. They refused to let him be examined by the hospital and held him in a choke hold while strip searching him (he did not resist before they began choking him).
Several officers 'witnessed' him wreck the bike on his own. All his bruises, scraps, and other marks were from that incident. It was also made clear to him that should he speak with a lawyer they would hear of it and his life would not be pleasant after that.
I'm sure those police think of themselves as being by and large decent people trying to do a job. In their minds those kids are troublemakers and hoodlems and they are doing a good thing