Slashdot Mirror


Police Secretly Planting GPS Devices On Cars

bfwebster writes "The Washington Post has a long investigative article on how more and more police departments are secretly planting GPS tracking devices on the cars of people they are investigating — usually without a warrant. After-the-fact court challenges on this technique have largely upheld such use of a GPS device, though the Washington State Supreme Court has ruled that a warrant is required."

26 of 609 comments (clear)

  1. Do the police... by ForestGrump · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Do the police require a warrant if they want to follow me around for the day? If yes then I believe this should require a warrant. Else, what's the diff except it costs much less and is more discrete.

    Grump

    --
    Is it true that more people vote for the winner of American Idol, than vote for the president? -Ali G.
    1. Re:Do the police... by religious+freak · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Eh, I don't know if I'd go quite that far. Police can track you in public, but this thing could track you on private land (maybe your own - esp if you're a farmer or rancher).

      This is ok, but with a warrant, IMHO.

      --
      If you can read this... 01110101 01110010 00100000 01100001 00100000 01100111 01100101 01100101 01101011
    2. Re:Do the police... by Vellmont · · Score: 4, Insightful


      Else, what's the diff except it costs much less and is more discrete.

      Good argument. Then you'd also agree that I can put a GPS on anyones car without permission, including the police, elected officials, or you?

      --
      AccountKiller
    3. Re:Do the police... by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "Quantity has a quality all its own".

      It would take 5 officers to tail someone 24/7. That is enough to stop almost all frivolous or abusive tracking. Without that deterrent, the only thing that could block abuse would be judicial oversight.

    4. Re:Do the police... by stephanruby · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Eh, I don't know if I'd go quite that far. Police can track you in public, but this thing could track you on private land (maybe your own - esp if you're a farmer or rancher).

      And once those gps units are small enough, they'll be able to plant them on your person and track you everywhere.

    5. Re:Do the police... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Probably because in some cases that is exactly what is happening. Speed limits in some areas are set unrealistically low. Local traffic is basically ignored at any speed. Out of state plates will be pulled over and ticketed, even though to be safe they should be flowing with traffic.

      Traffic laws are also subject to politics. We don't get safety all the time. Sometimes it is just the perception of safety. Speed variance is a bigger killer than raw speed, but our speed limits are generally set lower than most drivers can handle. This results in one subset of the population doing the speed limit and the other subset of the population driving at a reasonable rate of speed for the road. So you'll get a spread of, say, 15 mph. A car going 75 is much more likely to hit a car doing 60 than it is to hit another car going 75. But we blame the speeders because they are speeding, rather than seeing that the system is stupid and dangerous.

    6. Re:Do the police... by stewbacca · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Because traffic laws don't exist to promote public safety. Otherwise they'd ticket people who fail to yield, make illegal lane changes and tailgate...all much more dangerous driving habits than breaking the artificially low speed limits that exist solely to generate revenue. IF they must be lazy and just ticket speeders, then why the hell don't they come to my residential street and pull people over for doing 45 in the 25. Instead, they sit on the expressway and give out tickets for 62 in a 55 on an wide-open, empty highway without another car in sight (let alone small children playing in the street).

    7. Re:Do the police... by djdavetrouble · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Seriously, though, if the police put a tracker on my car, and are unable to produce documentation demonstrating that they have done so, is the tracker mine if I discover it before they remove it?

      IANAL but I'd never want to piss of a cop, knowing that some are loose cannons.

      --
      music lover since 1969
    8. Re:Do the police... by daemonburrito · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Speed variance is a bigger killer than raw speed, but our speed limits are generally set lower than most drivers can handle.

      If you really think about this statement, I think you'll find it to be demonstrably false.

      It sucks that you get so many tickets for speeding. To avoid this, you should slow down. I suspect your argument comes from your perception of what the "flow of traffic" and "reasonable speed" is, which apparently can do with some recalibration.

      Slow down.

      (Please?)

    9. Re:Do the police... by stewbacca · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They're just quite a bit more difficult to spot.

      Bull Shit, with a capital BS. How hard is it to watch the average prick driver in your town change 4 lines at a time, with no blinker, cutting off one car in each lane? How hard is it to spot some 90 year-old fart in a Buick pull out in front of me from a side street, when there isn't a car within 2 minutes BEHIND me? How hard is it for a cop to sit at an intersection and spot people making illegal left turns against the red, because they don't want to have to wait another light cycle? I could write more tickets for tail-gating in ONE day on the beat than I could write speeding tickets in an entire month, which brings me back to the main point. Why do the freakin' cops sit at a "speed-trap" for 20 minutes, one or two times a month (mind you, not at an intersection, where the majority of collision accidents happen) if they are out there to protect us from evil speeders? If speeding at the particular (cough, convenient, cough) spot is such a public danger, then why the hell aren't they out there EVERY day? Why do the sit in conveniently unoccupied construction zones? To protect the absent workers and their precious gear? No, because fines are "doubled", meaning twice the profit.

    10. Re:Do the police... by Duhavid · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "There is no such thing as a "right" to privacy"

      Is there a place in the constitution where a right to privacy is specifically mentioned as something the people do not have?

      --
      emt 377 emt 4
    11. Re:Do the police... by MmmmAqua · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Because mom's diary is not the foundation of this country, which includes these very important sentences:

      The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

      The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

      --
      Arr! The laws of physics be a harsh mistress!
    12. Re:Do the police... by A+nonymous+Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think you know that you're cherry-picking one obscure study, from 1992 ... Inappropriate speed is anti-social. You want to make yourself the sole arbiter of what the safe speed of a road is. I think you're wrong, and I've got the law and that big fucking metal sign on my side.

      Heh, you start out implying you have the study on your side, then degenerate into the typical nanny state "You are anti-social and I know better than you what's good for everybody" when the proper response is to let people think for themselves, which, in that study, they do remarkably consistently and safely.

      You can have that attitude and that big fucking metal sign. I'd rather not be a nanny stater and try to run other people's lives. That's the true anti-social attitude.

    13. Re:Do the police... by sleigher · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well I am certainly not going to cite anything but I will say this in response. When I am going down 280 on the peninsula at 65 and everyone is whizzing past me at 75 I am a hazard. I might be the one following the rules but it is easy to see that I am the one causing the problem. Although I am following the 'law', it easier for an accident to happen simply because the other drivers have to actively avoid me.

      This is only my observation and not a scientific study!

      --
      All points of time and space are connected.
  2. Re:Yes, but... by jgarra23 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Toss it on the roof of a Penske truck or something! They'll be following it all over the country!

    I fucking hate cops. They all believe that if you're in jail that you're guilty, they're only interested in processing cases not justice, and a good majority of cops are just psycho-bullies from grade school who want to shoot a gun.

    Mod me down if you want, you'll think differently when you're at the shit end of their crooked stick.

  3. Re:Scarier still... by vistahator · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Remember that 55% were dumb enough to reelect bush in 2004 too.

  4. free directions? by markybob · · Score: 3, Insightful

    i bet most people wouldnt care if the gps gave them free directions. free gps for everyone!

  5. Re:Nothing to see here... by PPH · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Innocent until proven guilty.

    The cops don't get to assume guilt and violate anyones 4th amendment rights based on a hunch. That's what warrants are for. They have to present probable cause, based upon sound information and reasoning, satisfactory to a court, prior to violating someone's rights.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  6. This is illegal search, requires warrant by Eravnrekaree · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It is quite clear that this tracking indeed is search for which a warrant is required under the constitution. This is a type search which was not envisioned at the time the founders wrote the constitution and far more more dangerous and frightening than they likely imagined. They are spinning in their graves for certain. We are seeing grave risks to the very threat to our freedom by tyranny, worse than what the founders of the US had feared. The way everything people can do can be monitored tracked and then data mined would have shocked and deeply disturbed them if they were alive to see this. We should be very concerned about these dangerous trends.

  7. Re:If you have nothing to hide by nickhart · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The police and FBI have a long, sordid history of intimidation, harassment and disruption of dissident groups and activists (up to and including murder). Any state surveillance of people should require a warrant—both to provide some oversight (which isn't much, considering the way some courts like to rubber-stamp these requests) and make a record of the state's activities against its own citizens.

  8. Turnabout is Fair Play? by Bob9113 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    hehehe - here's a thought; I'm guessing I'm not the only circuit hacker here. I figure with $50 worth of parts from Mouser I can make one of these that will store to an SD card. If you have a cop that stops at the local coffee shop regularly, and drives the same car, stick on on his car and pick it up a couple days later. It's no different than trailing the officer around all day, after all.

    Who's with me?

    OK, now here's the real question; if we are afraid to track the government - even just the local public enforcement officials - at the same level as they are tracking us, do we not have a very serious problem?

    "Does the government fear us? Or do we fear the government? When the people fear the government, tyranny has found victory. The federal government is our servant, not our master!" -Thomas Jefferson

    Jefferson spent years contemplating these issues, and debating them with many of the period's other great minds. Have you spent enough time researching it to disagree? If not, you should not blindly accept his statement - but you should spend the time studying. This great experiment is worth it. See Common Sense and The Federalist Papers if you need a starting point.

  9. Re:Yes, but... by 77Punker · · Score: 4, Insightful

    How do you post at +2 with trolls like that?
    They may not dispense justice, but they can arrest and imprison you for days without filing charges. You get to be packed into a room full of real criminals for 72 hours while they figure out if you should even be charged or not.

    But I guess since there are no crooked cops this is not a problem.

  10. Re:Yes, but... by mlwmohawk · · Score: 3, Insightful

    One phrase: Plausible Deniability

    Police: "Did you put the GPS tracker we put on your car on the cross country bus?"

    You: "GPS tracker? What's that? I saw something stuck to my car, but I thought it was someone's "hide a key," so I took it off and put it on the curb so the person who owns it could come find it." Like I said, I didn't know what it was and I didn't put it there, so I took it off. It wasn't mine. I don't know what happened to it.

    In short, they may put it on my car, but I am under moral or legal obligation to practice "ordinary care." I can't take it and sell it as if it belongs to me, but I certainly don't have to protect it in any way.

  11. Re:Tracking Devices and the Fourth Amendment by Willbur · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There are a few interesting points in your post: It all hinges on the "reasonable expectation of privacy".

    If I'm walking down a public road, and I look around and don't see anyone nearby, do I have a "reasonable expectation of privacy"?

    Is there legal distinction between short term privacy and long term privacy? e.g. Is my expectation that people will not follow me around for any significant period of time "reasonable" under the US constitution?

    If a police officer is patrolling in a marked police car, do they have a "reasonable expectation of privacy" or would it be ok to tag that police car with a GPS tracker and display the location real time in a Google Maps mashup? Is there some other law that would prevent this apart from the constitution?

    If the above is ok, what about if the police office is parked behind some bushes/a billboard in a "Dukes of Hazard" style speed trap. Does that officer have a "reasonable expectation of privacy"?

    What about if said officer is patrolling in an unmarked car (but one which was ID'd as a police car earlier), do they now have a "reasonable expectation of privacy"?

    I'm guessing that most of these questions haven't been answered by US courts. I'd be particularly interested if there is a distinction between the expectation of privacy for police officers and the expectation of privacy for the general public.

  12. Re:The difference between "following" and "trackin by solitas · · Score: 5, Insightful

    For you, a private citizen, following a police officer or other official while in performance of their duties is illegal.

    It begs to be asked: why?

    --
    "It's time to take life by the cans." ~ Bender ("Bendin' in the Wind", ep. 3-13)
  13. Re:Tracking Devices and the Fourth Amendment by Burz · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ChrisMP1 is correct. Being seen in public is not the same as being tracked, electronically or otherwise.

    From what I gather, your legal brief justifies stalking in public.