Slashdot Mirror
Warrantless GPS Tracking Is Legal, Says WI Court
PL/SQL Guy writes "A Wisconsin appeals court ruled Thursday that police can attach GPS trackers to cars to secretly track anybody's movements without obtaining search warrants. As the law currently stands, the court said police can mount GPS on cars to track people without violating their constitutional rights — even if the drivers aren't suspects. Officers do not need to get warrants beforehand because GPS tracking does not involve a search or a seizure, wrote Madison Judge Paul Lundsten."
How can warrantless GPS tracking be legal while warrantless car searching is illegal. I am sure that a higher court will reverse this ruling... but it is scary to speculate about what happens if it is not reversed.
Yay, free GPS gadgets! Where do I signup?
Laws and amendments need to keep up with game changing technological development.
That means I can attach GPS devices to police cars! Never again will I get a ticket while driving through the People's Republic of Wisconsin!
Women are like electronics: you don't know how damaged they are until you try to turn them on.
... it was dark, this guy was attaching a device to the underside of my truck that looked like a bomb. So I shot him.
Have gnu, will travel.
Louisiana will just have to top that. Everyone is after all, a potential terrorist, unemployment benefit seeker, or evolution believer.
its 1984 maaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaan
If it's only vehicle location track, how is this different than having the police tail the vehicle or follow it via helicopter, etc. This seems like a lower-cost mechanism for doing the same thing. Is there more to it than that?
Given that the US government now effectively owns GM (and therefore On-Star), does anyone really want to buy a car that already has GPS tracking built-in?
linquendum tondere
This is why we have the Bill of Rights. Because governments will trample on personal freedom at their whim unless controlled by the law or the people.
This ad space for rent.
State Courts sometimes have a different take on the constitution. IANAL, but here in Pennsylvania the State Appeals courts don't consider themselves bound by rulings of the Federal Courts only by the US Supreme Court. After all the State Courts here are older than the US Court...
This sounds like a crazy decision, but the WI judge isnt making any new law here (not that the law is correct.) In fact, police have always been able to do this, because citizens have "no reasonable expectation of privacy" when they are in public. 4th amendment law rarely protects anyone when they are outside in public, with the rare exceptions of when their bags or persons are protected from search and/or seizure (that is, if a search or seizure has occurred.) If you are interested more in this crackpot area of the law, see US v. Katz and its wide ranging progeny, especially US v. Knotts (electronic tracking devices, no reasonable expectation of privacy in your location).
On the one hand, you've got the theory that this is analogous to assigning an officer to watch and tail a suspect's car, which is perfectly legal without a warrant.
On the other hand, you have, for example, things like Kyllo v. United States, where using thermal imaging equipment was treated as a search even though ordinary visual observation from off the property is not.
I suspect a higher court would rule that GPS devices are more common in civilian use than thermal imaging, and that when driving your car in public you have no reasonable expectation that your movement will be unobserved, and so rule that this court got it right, there is no Fourth Amendment violation.
if Police can do it without it being a suspect OR having a warrant, then we, the citizens, should have that same right. That means that we can now track judges to find their homes, what schools their kids go to, where member of the opposing political parties are heading off to (what do you mean that is a no-tel hotel; and hookers were there, along with representatives from Exon??? Really). Want to know where the chief of police or head of your school lives? Real easy now that nobody has privacy.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
The guy is charged with stalking and is then stalked by the police with gps ... wow.
So, is there a way to detect GPS antennas (maybe with some kind of frequency resonator ?) so you can remote it and stick it on the first 18-wheeler you find ?
Non-Linux Penguins ?
As a lawyer in Wisconsin, I can tell you that this decision is pretty meaningless. I have had several cases go to the court of appeals (this court) and you almost always lose there on novel issues like this one. Til the WI supreme court rules takes this and rules or denies further appeal, this is not news. For some reason our CoA's don't like making big splashes, they will almost always just side with the state.
It's the cost of acquisition of information. With things like onstar, this cost can drop to zero, and can be utilized for simple information gathering, fishing expeditions, and post facto inquisition.
This will be utilized for intimidation, politics, blackmail, and even criminal prosecution just to keep the populous satisfied. But information is power, and information can be twisted, presented in strange ways, and even lied about and manufactured.
Yellow Cake anyone?
that privacy must be considered as well as just rights against search and seizure. My state has ruled exactly the opposite: that a warrant is necessary in order to track someone with GPS.
The WI decision contradicts decisions in a number of other states. I doubt it will stand.
Does this mean I can do it? Stalking jokes aside, what's the difference between me attaching a GPS to someone's car and me following them around? Surely it's legal for me to tail a car. This just makes it simpler for me to track the whereabouts of multiple cars at once.
When the axe came to the forest, the trees said, "Look out - the handle was once one of us."
From August 14, 2008 - http://www.insidetech.com/news/articles/2833-police-planting-gps-trackers-on-cars-without-warrants
Privacy advocates are shocked. They say that by monitoring the movements of people, many of which are likely innocent, police departments across the country are committing a Big Brother-esque invasion of privacy. And one state Supreme Court is on their side. The Washington State Supreme Court ruled that a warrant must be obtained to justify such invasions of privacy.
However, other state supreme courts - including New York, Wisconsin and Maryland, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit in Chicago - have declared that warrants are not needed.
First - way to go, State of Washington.
Next, it's not cut and dried, legally. From TFA:
Sveum, 41, argued the tracking violated his Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure. He argued the device followed him into areas out of public view, such as his garage.
The court disagreed. The tracking did not violate constitutional protections because the device only gave police information that could have been obtained through visual surveillance, Lundsten wrote.
Even though the device followed Sveum's car to private places, an officer tracking Sveum could have seen when his car entered or exited a garage, Lundsten reasoned. Attaching the device was not a violation, he wrote, because Sveum's driveway is a public place.
"We discern no privacy interest protected by the Fourth Amendment that is invaded when police attach a device to the outside of a vehicle, as long as the information obtained is the same as could be gained by the use of other techniques that do not require a warrant," he wrote.
Although police obtained a warrant in this case, it wasn't needed, he added.
Larry Dupuis, legal director of the ACLU of Wisconsin, said using GPS to track someone's car goes beyond observing them in public and should require a warrant.
"The idea that you can go and attach anything you want to somebody else's property without any court supervision, that's wrong," he said. "Without a warrant, they can do this on anybody they want."
So, what the real issue? Surveillance? Like it or not, that's legal. A cop can follow you all day long, so far as I know, as long as it doesn't amount to what a judge would call harassment. (That said, a judge's threshold and mine are probably quite different.)
Or is the real issue as the ACLU says, the attachment of a (police) device to property without court supervision?
I'm going with the ACLU on this one. Bond used a homer(*) 45 years ago in Goldfinger, and that was cool - or so we thought, because the of the target. But when I think now that the pursuer had a license to kill - I wonder if the future shouldn't be protected very, very carefully.
(* - Yep, they called it a homer in the movie. Nonetheless, cue Simpsons' jokes in ...3...2...)
Pathological kinda promises Path + Logical - but instead, you get stuck with pathetic.
destroy it with a hammer or go to a crowded shopping mall and park then remove the device and attach it to someone else's car, track that! mofo.
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
But then they have to get cooperation from the phone company and that would leave a paper trail. I can see this being abused/ used for personal reasons by police etc.
Now if I were to find a GPS unit attached to my vehicle what would happen if I were to remove/destroy it?
And just what evidentiary value does the GPS tracking record have, anyway? Who's to say the suspect (or someone else with access to the vehicle in a "public place" like a driveway) didn't transfer the unit to another vehicle entirely? Or take it into a lab and falsify the records inside it? With no chain of custody, I would be inclined to distrust such evidence.
I can't stick a piece of gum on someone's car. Why can the police stick someone on someone's car? There's got to be some legal precedent about interfering with someone's property that has a fancy legal name? Can they just ignore *that*?
I know my car. And yes, I'm paranoid enough to search it from time to time.
Now let's assume I find that baby. I obviously don't know who it belongs to (I doubt the police would inform me). It's on my car, so my assumption would have to be that it's mine. I dismantle it, because I love poking at shiny tech stuff. Am I liable for the destruction?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Betcha some one can make a false gps pinger, and attach it to his own car so now the gps unit recieves and reports very innacurate info... he could even test it with his own reciever to make sure it is working. as long as it isn't affecting anyone elses stuff it wouldn't be illegal.
If you are a crook that does illegal things in that state wouldn't most them carry a small gps scrambler in their car's to prevent such tactic's from happening to them? if so then what is the point of this ruling then?
What the defense lawyers should have argued is that by affixing the GPS device to the defendant's car without his knowledge or request, the GPS device was a gift to the defendant. When they did so, they gave up the right to claim the device as their own property, and in fact gave it to the defendant. There is precedent to back up this argument.
When the police took the tracker back, the defense should have claimed that was a seizure of the defendant's property, and should have required service of a warrant. Hey, it worked for music CDs. Might as well try it for GPS trackers.
Is Judge Paul Lundsten an elected or an appointed official?
If he is an elected official, what can we do about getting the citizens, who elected him, to not elect him again?
just go to Milwaukee, pick a street (or the freeway for that matter) and hit a pothole. That GPS unit you're so worried about will be scraped right off.
Put it up on ebay. If anybody asks you say you found it in your driveway.
What's the next step? All vehicles will be required to have a government controlled GPS device.
It's a shame that the 4th Amendment hadn't anticipated the rise of such technology. I can't believe that the Founding Fathers would smile on this. Technology is rendering the bill of rights obsolete with its ability to circumvent the basic protections the framers of our constitution saw as our rights.
When all else fails, run.
Will we see a series of GPS receiver detectors on the market now?
Colin Dean Go a year without DRM
I'll just run the "Find Foreign Object" program and toss the tracker into an out-of-state semi.
In Wisconsin (at least in Madison and the surrounding areas), a majority of police vehicles already transmit their locations to dispatch via both 470-something MHz analog and their Motorola 900MHz Trunking system. I haven't been able to do anything useful with the signal yet, and I'm wary to try any sort of decryption as I believe that's stepping into federal offense land.
If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits
Just stick The GPS in a mars bar and feed it to some rats, BEST MINDFUCK YET!
I am not a lawyer... but,
Modern tort law states.
Intrusion upon seclusion occurs when a perpetrator intentionally intrudes, physically, electronically, or otherwise, upon the private space, solitude, or seclusion of a person, or the private affairs or concerns of a person, by use of the perpetrator's physical senses or by electronic device or devices to oversee or overhear the person's private affairs, or by some other form of investigation, examination, or observation intrude upon a person's private matters if the intrusion would be highly offensive to a reasonable person.
Unless this does not apply to LEO...
In theory you could expand this ruling to include monitoring of a persons latptop as long as they where not at home, to view connections made but not the actual communication, perhaps extending to his communication. Or even extended to snooping any wireless communication that can be received in a public place, even using basic encryption that is known to be compromised ie wep etc. (read below)
The argument which is kinda valid, is that the information of placing a tracking device can be obtained by following the person, hence the argument that it tracked him into a non private place IE his garage, while in theory a violation of privacy is still info that could be obtained visually from public view.
To me this appears to be spirit vs letter of the law issue. The letter of the law does make this type of tracking legal, but is that really the Spirit of the Law... I can see lots of loopholes extending from this ruling.
---In a time of Chimpanzees I was a Monkey.
I need to get me a mess of them thar gps trackers. Gotta keep track of the little woman when she's out of my sight...
(this post exists solely to remove moderation from another post. Please ignore)
Ok folks, if anyone anywhere out there would know this, it would be here on /.
What is the best and cheapest GPS jammer out there?
Or just the best not necessarily the cheapest.
Something that can also get GLONASS.
I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. My life is my own.
If you would like to speak to Judge Paul Lundsten, he is presently on Drake Street approaching South Randall Avenue
This isn't a cut and dried situation. Police need a warrant to search your house. There is no question in this matter. The Constitution is pretty clear on the matter, and there's loads of case law. However they don't need a warrant to conduct surveillance on your house. They are free to park on the street and watch what goes on. For that matter, so are private citizens. I can park near you house and watch you if I like.
So that's where the argument that it is fine comes from. This isn't a search, they aren't looking through your car, this is surveillance, they are just watching where you car goes. They could legally do this by simply following your car, so one could argue this is just an extension of that.
Now please don't think I'm advocating this, just saying that it isn't a clear situation.
I've read over this entire page looking for a solution to detect GPS trackers. What can I do to easily find a GPS tracker on my car? I don't want Jack Bauer and company knowing what I am doing 24/7!
Since the police are using his own property (the vehicle) for a public purpose (the tracking/investigation), they need at least probable cause and more likely a warrant to satisfy both procedural and substantive due process. If you read the article, you should take notice that this was essentially the argument that the ACLU spokesperson made without explicitly mentioning the 5th Amendment.
There's also an "unreasonable interference" due process argument.
Unfortunately, failing to raise the appropriate argument in the lower court may be construed as a waiver unless the defendant can demonstrate incompetent council.
'Poor (evil stalker) guy is probably screwed.
But then if this ever becomes widespread, they would be useless for anyone doing anything illegal. Because it is technically a gift, you can do all sorts of fun with it, false coordinateness, etc.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
So I guess that means it's OK if we were to put trackers on some cop cars and improve our odds of avoiding speed traps?
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
If I find a GPS traking device on my car, do I get to keep it?
If asked by a police officer (in the US) to account for my movements, my right to decline to answer is protected by the 5th amendment.
Requiring me to carry a tracking device that would automatically answer this question is tatamount to forcing me to verbally answer, and thus seems to also be a violation of my 5th amendment rights.
How could this possibly be legitimized by tricking me into carrying a tracking device by slipping it into my pocket/bag/car?
This doesn't impact the police's ability/right to physically follow me; I just shouldn't have to help them.
this wouldn't be necessary because on average you are filmed by CCTV around 300 times a day.
Smivs on the intertubes!
Let me guess, next using public transport will qualify one for special circumstances at sentencing, resulting in a larger sentence?
In WI, only criminals use public transport!
Everyone, quick! Use public transport in protest.
I can't wait until someone decides to challenge all this crap and puts some of these devices on patrol cars, or even the car of Madison Judge Paul Lundsten, and lets the cops decide how to respond (no, I'm not going to do it. The cops in my neck of the woods are pretty decent folk).
If a warrant is not needed, what is to stop ANYONE from doing this, and doing so LEGALLY?
What law might I be charged with if I were to put one on a patrol car? Why wouldn't that law apply to a cop doing the same thing?
Just because you have the word "Judge" before your name doesn't mean your not an idiot. This entire decision on the judges part completely muddies the water in terms of existing laws that were designed to prevent STALKERS from doing this.
A warrant is a surety that the tracking is being done for legitimate purposes. As it stands, what the cops are doing is NO different then what a stalker might do because there is no assurance of legitimacy.
Since putting a GPS unit violates nobody's rights, is not a privacy violation or requires a judge's consent - I'm going to dash out and slap a GPS transmitter on every cop car I see.
Should be no problem, right?
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
is that a higher court will rule that it is illegal for citizens AND police to do just this. Whoever this bozo judge was will likely go no higher.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
All of these devices are going to use CELL signaling for the most part so they shouldn't be hard to detect or disrupt. Blocking the device while in your position is no problem at all.
My friend bought a cell phone blocking device for about $100 US. It worked well enough to keep my cell from working in his house and he though it was pretty funny to go out to dinner and bring it along and watch everyone try and use their cell phones.. It's really good for dating too..
Anyhow, I can think of lots of fun stuff a person could do if they find such a device on their car...
Take said device and -
Attach it to an undercover cop car (go ahead and attach a "I love WEED!" magnet bumper sticker too)
Attach device to a judge/lawyers car. Leave note saying. "I parked next to you and noticed GPS tracking device under your car"
Use Nikola Tesla's secret amplifier technology and burn down every cell tower you drive past.
Attach said device to 100 red balloons and let them go. Then wonder what the police are thinking.
Mail the device to iraq (Hey I didn't do it, someone must have found it and took it)
Mail the device to the white house with white powder. (see above)
Attach said device to the space station using your alien friends ship that runs off Nikola Tesla's antigravity technology.
Drop said device down a old well.
Form a action group on facebook and equip everyone with cheap detectors, gather all devices, have a old fashion nazi book burning but without the books. Or better yet sell them to pay for the detection equipment and make a profit.
Disclaimer for the stupid /.'er -
A. This message is mostly one huge joke so don't bother responding with the standard "but.. but.. but".
B. Just because something is illegal doesn't mean you can't do it and get away with it.
C. If you get caught it doesn't mean you will make the police look really bad and you can always ask for a jury trail.
D. Teenagers don't think or care as much about crime since everything they do on the internet is illegal.
Q. I am 31 years old and ran a warez BBS when a teen using a 14.4bps modem on telegard and Desqview (proving D. hopefully)
Z. I don't care about the other letters...
ae
No warrant needed...as long as the cops don't go sticking trackers on you themselves.
That would be a search IMHO.
But...everyone knows we're already doomed so why do I bother?
Find the tracker and strap it on a cow.
"Good police work there, Lou"
Parolees - they are forced to wear GPS devices for tracking. But that's a term of a punishment, right ...
Sex offenders. They complete all of their prescribed punishment, yet we demand to know where they live, what they drive, where they work, where they go to school, and tell them they can't live here, can't live there. All to prevent what *might* happen. New conditions are being applied all the time - ex post facto anyone?
Search: Locating you, no matter where you are.
Seizure: Acquiring the data of where you are, no matter where you are.
Privacy Violation: Always knowing where you are, even if you are not a suspect.
(1) Make the case that the box was a "gift" or "abandoned" on your car. Then, when they retrieved it, that constituted theft.
(2) If they say it was never meant to be a gift, but just to be retrieved, then bring "theft of service" charges against the police. The fact that hauling the little box around cost you gas and wear and tear on your car constitutes theft of service. They had you do it without your knowledge or consent. Offering to reimburse you after the arrest (or discovery of the box) is no less still theft.
(3) Charge the police with violating your 5th amendment rights against self-incrimination.
Of course without the supervision of a court the reason could be to find out who the cop's ex wife is fooling around with.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
Thank you for point out the text of the Fourth Amendment and not just following along with the common focused interpretation. The Bill of Rights recognizes existing rights and should serve as a brake on the United States government. As time goes by, the people have allowed these freedoms to be watered down.
If the police are following you than you are probably suspected for a crime. Aside from your truism, I agree with your sentiment.
Well it may not be search and/or seizure, but they are still jacking with private property. If I do see an officer jacking with my car he better be prepared for personal lawsuit. I won't go after the department, but rather the individual involved. From personal experience it seems to work better and seems more rewarding when you just go after the individual. Scares the others in line when they know they can't hide behind some Juristic definition.
I agree, this is no different than a bunch of police "tailing" a vehicle. As long as they do not interfere with the travel of the vehicle, or, make an illegal car stop or search, I don't like it, but I don't as much have a problem with it. It would be easier & somewhat safer to track a vehicle with GPS than to use a caravan of vehicles to trail one.
Where does the law stand on civilian use? If there's no warrant needed, a cop can use this method for personal reasons? Track the wife, kids, friend suspected of sleeping with the wife, other cops? There needs to be oversight and/or rules for potentially abusive tools/methods.
and "The Transparent Society," a book about the inevitability of surveillance and watching the watchers.
+++ATH0
Hey, if they don't need warrants to attach gps trackers, then neither do we. Perfect! Everybody jump in and get your TrackStick while you can!
Now let's make sure we find all of the police officers that are sleeping in the back of the diner parking lot, getting late-night blowjobs in the alley from prostitutes they're supposed to be arresting and so on.
I'm all for it. If they don't need a warrant, then it becomes legal, and we can do it too.
Adding weight to the car reduced gas mileage, thus it is a fuel seisure. The amount may be negligible, but the question is, is it reasonable?
I just thought of something...
If I go out and have some work done on my vehicle, and the mechanics or I find some unnamed, "black box" device attached to the undercarriage, what happens if I rip it off and destroy it? What then? Am I liable for destruction of police property? Does it clearly state that it can't be removed, and that it belongs to the local PD?
Lots of people track lots of other people with portable GPS devices attached to vehicles, clothing and other things. Read up on any PI forum or Adultery forum and you'll see thousands of people doing this every day.
But if I noticed anything like that on my vehicle, you can bet I would immediately rip it off of there and either shut it down, or destroy it. Period.
At least they're not trying to put a GPS tracker in your home.
I've read about EMI detecting devices that essentially look for any RF output in a wide band of frequencies. A device tuned to cell phone frequencies would probably be the most accurate, since presumably that's how this gadget reports the GPS coordinates back to whoever is watching. So you'd close your garage door and wand over the vehicle until you found the bug, I guess.
Of course, in order for you to know to do this, you'd have to have something to hide...
I was just thinking about this and it actually does make sense. The law considers the inside of your car to be an extension of your home, and thus private property. But where you car is parked, and the outside of your car, are not. So unless they jimmy the door and stash the gps inside the car, they haven't trespassed. Though it definitely gets murky if they are under your hood from below planting it up under the hood, where they likely would.
It'd be the same thing as someone placing a directional mic outside your house out on the parking between the sidewalk and the street, aimed at your house. They're observing your public behavior, from a public place, which does not and should not require a warrant.
That's the logic behind it. But as I said, I consider stashing something up in the undercarriage of your car to be something that can be challenged. If that's ok, can they tap into your car (battery) power to power it? Are they allowed to open your hood? transmit from your FM antenna? Lots of questions. If challenged, I bet it will come down to you are not allowed to do anything with the car beyond attaching a bug with zipties by crawling under the vehicle.
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
The new generation of cell phones all have GPS built in; guess what, we're now all able to be tracked sans warrant.
Here in NL police can also put a tracking device on your car or moped without you knowing it. If you find it and destroy it you can be tried for destroying police property.
-- Cheers!
I wonder what their opinion would be on the legality of GPS tracker detectors in citizen hands.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
How can warrantless GPS tracking be legal while warrantless car searching is illegal. I am sure that a higher court will reverse this ruling... but it is scary to speculate about what happens if it is not reversed.
All the Wisconsin court is doing is applying U.S. v. Knotts, 460 U.S. 276 (1983). Knotts (or its successor Karo) is a case that every single law student studying Criminal Procedure probably reads. In this case, the court ruled that it was okay for police to attach a "beeper" to a drum of chloroform and track the movements of a car carrying the drum around since a person traveling in a car on public thoroughfares has no reasonable expectation of privacy. All Fourth Amendment law today is based on that "reasonable expectation of privacy." In short, if anybody could see what you are doing, then you don't have one.
Possibly the two most offensive examples of that logic to me are Dow Chemical Co. v. United States, 476 U.S. 227 (1986), where the Court ruled that it was okay to use aerial photography from a height of 12,000 feet to view a matter that people on the ground could not, and California v. Greenwood, 486 U.S. 35 (1988), where the Court that it was okay for police to search your sealed trashbags because in both situations you have no reasonable expectation of privacy (from other people flying planes over your property or from "animals, children, scavengers, snoops, and other members of the public," respectively).
Incidentally, while Wisconsin applied Knotts and its progeny in what I consider unfortunately to be the most straightforward manner, the Washington Supreme Court went the other direction on GPS trackers in State v. Jackson, 76 P.3d 217 (Wash. 2003):
It is true that an officer standing at a distance in a lawful place may use binoculars to bring into closer view what he sees, or an officer may use a flashlight at night to see what is plainly there to be seen by day. However, when a GPS device is attached to a vehicle, law enforcement officers do not in fact follow the vehicle. Thus, unlike binoculars or a flashlight, the GPS device does not merely augment the officers' senses, but rather provides a technological substitute for traditional visual tracking. Further, the devices in this case were in place for approximately two and one-half weeks. It is unlikely that the sheriff's department could have successfully maintained uninterrupted 24-hour surveillance throughout this time by following Jackson. ... We perceive a difference between the kind of uninterrupted, 24-hour a day surveillance possible through use of a GPS device, which does not depend upon whether an officer could in fact have maintained visual contact over the tracking period, and an officer's use of binoculars or a flashlight to augment his or her senses.
The court also noted in a footnote that the GPS lets you track wholly past movements, which tailing someone does not. Personally, I think the Washington court got the law wrong even if they philosophically got everything right in this case. I frankly wish the law worked the way they thought it did. (I think it's kind of strange that they'd rule the way they did while citing Karo later in the decision. If this case were appealed to the Supreme Court, I think it would get overturned.)
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
This is about a guy in NZ who found one on his car.
http://xmb.stuffucanuse.com/xmb/viewthread.php?tid=4399
clearly, if GPS existed when our forefathers wrote the constitution and bill of rights, GPS tracking without warrant would be illegal.
saying it's not a search or seizure is false. The device itself is searching satellites for a triangulation of their current location. The information is then provided to law enforcement without a warrant. I don't know the law, but this really sounds extra fishy to me. It sounds like the court wants to apply the law literally to a new technology.
If that's the case, downloading movies and music from the Internet is not theft or copyright infringement, since there's no copy being made.
They're using their grammar skills there.
Blahblahblah score:5
A cop was attaching a device to the suspects car when he was spotted, they went after him and shot him dead. They are of course going down for murder. Interesting though, because the police officer was on their property, in plain clothes, and of course under their car. In the USA if they had shot him on the spot they might well have got away with it, at least in some states. However, I think there are few places where pursuing him down the street and shooting him would have been acceptable. I haven't seen much discussion here about the rights and wrongs of him attaching the device.
Then of course we had an earlier case, where the car owner discovered the device and put it up for sale on Trademe, the local equivalent of Ebay. Thereby causing much consternation for the police involved and much amusement for the rest of us.
My own attitude would tend to be that if you attach it to my car, it is mine. If you manage to get it back, perhaps with a court order you might well be disappointed anyway, as it is unlikely to work afterwards.....
Both of these cases should be easy enough to find with a google search if you are interested.
If I discover some weird piece of electronics on my car, and I take it off and throw it away, have I committed a crime?
Probably not.
Now what if the police put it there. Does removing it suddenly become a crime? Remember, I have no idea the police planted it.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
If only we could get right-wingers to honor the other 9 rights listed in the Bill of Rights as much as they honor the holy 2nd.
The GP's idea is brilliant.
you had me at #!
I feel this is no different. If police start attaching GPS devices to cars of people not accused of any crimes 'just to see where he goes' and then arresting them for speeding, I'm sure the courts will toss those out using exactly the same type of finding.
What type of finding? Unreasonable search? This judge just said that GPS tracking is not held to that standard. If it was, they would need either a) evidence of illegal activity AT THE SCENE (which doesn't make sense in this case), or b) a warrant.
The question whether installing the GPS logging device warrants a warrant is intresting, but doesn't cover all the disturbing elements.
1. How is it possible for anyone in a courtroom to confirm the authenticity of a GPS based logfile of movement? (irrespective of private or public space) Can such a file be simulated, created, "case/finetuned", hacked, distorted etc etc and how would we know and prove it.
2. What does the thing prove? Back in the good old days (yes when everything was so much "better" ;-), police observation of a suspects movements was actually observing the suspect (in a car, on the sidewalk, whatever but it was observing him/her/them). I'm assuming that the GPS device is left on its own to do the observing, given the nature of its installation what does it observe? A CAR'S movement/location, nothing more nothing less, so there's basically no proof whatsoever on the actual suspect, unless there's some way of proving the suspect was driving the car for the observed period, don't think they covered that.
Unfair--they already get the fun automated weapons! Post Singularity--we'll all get them all.
Makes sense to me as far as search/seizure goes.
It seems like it could be argued that monitoring a persons location would fall under the same set of rules as monitoring a persons telephone conversations though.
Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
does this mean the equipment if detected belongs to the person`s who owns the car, or if by modified/disabling/blocking/software tampering you can be taken to court (since you didnt know ;-) this came with the car@ purchase) for said modification to your car and equipment or if removed and placed on another vehicle still owned by the same person
Why is this post modded interesting? It's wrong on so many levels...
First of all, it's the 14th Amendment that you'd be concerned with, not the 5th. The 5th Amendment relates to action undertaken by the federal government. The 14th amendment extends due process to the states.
Procedural due process relates to procedure - like a trial. This case seems to have been decided on the basis of whether or not a search took place, not the admissibility of the evidence. Procedural due process has no relevance. You can say that the decision was wrong, but as is - you're missing the mark.
"Substantive due process" doesn't mean much without some context. How exactly does this violate SDP? What is it about this that so fundamentally offends the concept of ordered liberty?
Most importantly, though, where the hell is your argument about "using his property for a public purpose" coming from? Got any sort of backing for that?
For one, cars have almost no privacy interest to begin with. Police can stop you while driving and search your car based on probable cause alone. (Chambers) Until only a few weeks ago, once arrested while driving, they could put you in the back of the squad car and then go and search the passenger compartment to ensure the officer's safety, (even though he's clearly already safe...) as a matter of routine. (Stunningly, the court made a sensible decision and reversed this in the Gant case.) They can also search your car for "inventory" purposes when it's impounded. (Opperman)
Virtually nothing having to do with cars requires a warrant.
The court held that "tracking" your car is the equivalent of visually tracking it. How does it matter that they're using your property to track YOU? Who else's car would they track? Beside, as Katz pretty well settled 40 years ago, the 4th amendment (the only one that's relevant to this question,) protects people, not places (or things!) It's all about what you should expect when you're driving in your car.
Really, this seems like its already a well-settled question. US v Knotts and US v Karo already established that the police can use "beepers" placed on a car to track them. This decision is just updating the decision slightly to keep up with the times. Based on Kyllo, the prevalence of GPS nowadays, and the complete disregard for privacy in cars, I can't believe this makes the news...
Better idea: Send a bill to the police department for transporting their property. Impound it and demand that they more that it's worth to get it back, like they do when they tow your car.
Your ad here. Ask me how!
I'm mostly immune--I use my car only when I really can't go by bike, and on many days I use the bus. Now law enforcement stands to lose out if we move towards responsible, sustainable transportation. Expect them to join the fight on the side of the bad guys...
"The biggest problem with communication is the illusion that it has taken place."
XD
...that it also means I get a free little electronic goody of my very own if they attach it to my vehicle and I find it. ;^P
that has me rooting more and more for the criminal. But the real game is determining which side is acting in a criminal manner.
If the police are following you than you are probably suspected for a crime. Aside from your truism, I agree with your sentiment.
Although this makes apparent sense, it is in fact false. To use an obvious example, a cop following a man because "he looked like a nigger," does not in fact suspect that man of a crime.
I don't mean to imply that all (or even most) cops are racist, merely that suspicion can itself be suspect.
Changa hates change.
Doesn't the police need your permission first? http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2008/oct/27/chattanooga-man-arrested-placing-gps-tracker-wifes/
Also, if I find a strange box on my car can I sell it on EBay? I seem to recall an article where this actually happened (I think in Australia but I can't find the link right now).
You prevent the police from "attaching GPS devices to cars of people not accused of any crimes, just to see where he goes" by requiring a WARRANT for the activity!
You don't just allow it, and hope that "after it's abused enough, the courts will start tossing it out"!
This is NOT the same thing as tailing someone, because for one thing, you're talking about the police physically TAMPERING with your vehicle, which is your PERSONAL PROPERTY. There's a good chance such a device is going to need to be spliced into your car or truck's battery for power, for one thing. GPS units are notoriously high drain devices, and we're talking GPS *receivers* here, not *transmitters*. You think it's acceptable for a cop to start cutting up the wires on your vehicle to attach one of these things, with NO warrant first?
Legal to tail a cop? That's a good point, one that said officer would probably discuss with us after an hour or so. I was thinking in the other direction. Having RTFA, but not the ruling itself, I object to the concept that the GPS was no different that tailing the suspect. Does a tail follow someone into their garage? Really, this is the sort of hair splitting that determines whether we get to kick the camel's nose when it comes under the tent flap.
The judge used the wrong analogy. This wasn't like a tail. This was like a cop sitting on the suspect's trunk lid.
Luke, help me take this mask off
Don't presume that just yet.
We have 8 years worth of "the police can do anything - no one else can mirror their stunts."
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
Not that either. "Disclosing whereabouts of officers would endanger enforcement".
Nice pair of venting posts though.
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
First of all, it's the 14th Amendment that you'd be concerned with, not the 5th. The 5th Amendment relates to action undertaken by the federal government. The 14th amendment extends due process to the states.
'Same thing in this context.
To suppose that 'due process of law' meant one thing in the Fifth Amendment and another in the Fourteenth is too frivolous to require elaborate rejection.
Malinski v. New York, 324 U.S. 401, 415 (1945), F. Frankfurter, concurring.
Procedural due process relates to procedure - like a trial.
Or... say... a warrant? Yep. Warrants, too. Procedural due process applies to any and all statutes, regulations and enforcement of the law. Failing to get a warrant if one was required was a violation of procedural due process.
You can say that the decision was wrong, but as is - you're missing the mark.
The decision was probably correct as to the defense that was raised.
"Substantive due process" doesn't mean much without some context. How exactly does this violate SDP?
Insofar as it represents an invasion of his private life and a trespass upon his property, the police were required to give notice to him and if they wanted to avoid such notification then they needed either an enabling law, a court's approval (a warrant) or in some jurisdictions an information or indictment from a state-attorney.
Most importantly, though, where the hell is your argument about "using his property for a public purpose" coming from? Got any sort of backing for that?
Yes. There are many substantive due process cases on point, in particular as relate to the police appropriating property outside of a hot pursuit and going onto private residential property without permission and without probable cause. You might take note of the fact that the police in this case did trespass upon private property to place the tracker. You might want to read Arizona v. Gant and consider the implications of the heightened privacy standard when applied to other situations that might require probable cause. I invite you to go ahead and do your own Lexis searches on the subject.
Really, this seems like its already a well-settled question.
Nope. Different from state to state.
I can't believe this makes the news...
Don't blame others for your own deficiencies.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
What's good for the goose is good for the gander... right?
all cars? If it's constitutional track one car without a warrant, isn't it constitutional to track ALL of them?
How about if they put a camera on every street corner like London and have a computer read all the license plates? Or put radio id tags in the plates and put radios everywhere?
How about tracking all PEOPLE. If they can put a gps in your car, can they write a law mandating that you be machine-trackable? How about your cell phone? Can they write a law that makes your cell phone company track your movements and report that to homeland security? It would be technologically easy.
If you read the judges decision, he hasn't actually decided anything. He looks at four allegations.
The judge essentially shows that attaching a tracking device in a public place to determine things that can be determined by visual observation has already been decided to not require a warrant, that police have the right to observe someone on a public road without a warrant(including by satellite), and that while information gathered while the defendant is not on public roads is illegal and must be suppressed there have already been decisions determining that just because some evidence is obtained illegally and must be suppressed does not mean that other evidence obtained legally has to be suppressed.
Everything this guy has decided is based on previous decisions, and from the referenced portions of the decisions it seems that he applied those decisions validly.
You could certainly argue that the existing decisions aren't valid, but since they're supreme court decisions this guy doesn't have the authority to overturn them.
There's also the plus that he's basically already decided that any evidence gathered about your location when you're not on or able to be seen from public roads is illegal and must be suppressed. It's good law for what he was given.
Police Departments use the GPS devices in cell phones to triangulate people's locations. It's standard procedure. The CIA advises agents to _remove the batteries_ from their phones to avoid tracking.
1984 is already here.
.. They call it "Press" ..
--- I am known for the ones who want to find me on the net. Is that a privacy risk or a privilege? One might wonder..
But it sounds like a ripe case for trespassing, tampering or vandalism. It should certainly be illegal to do this without a warrant, but not on the grounds of search or siezure.
How long til surreptitious police monitoring GPS use becomes widespread and they start firing off automated speeding tickets?
How about cameras outside every residence, peering in? The cameras are on public property right? They don't require trespassing or B&E to install them right? How is this any different?
Anyone that is ok with the police doing this is a moron.
-Viz
Don't kid yourself. It's the size of the regexp AND how you use it that counts.
The spirit of the idea seems to be tracking an individual without having to go through the trouble of a warrant. The spirit will undoubtedly be abused. If there are no loop holes to jump through to start tracking an individual they might as well track everyone. It's even easier if the vehicle already has a tracking system such as OnStar. From there they can do whatever they want such as track speeding and mail you tickets.
I can say [REDACTED] anytime I want!
It seems to me a GPS device would give inadmissible evidence if just attached to the car and left there. The police would still have to physically follow the car to provide eyewitness testimony (or better yet, video evidence) that the car travelled to all the places the GPS unit did.
If the police don't observe the car's journeys, then they have no way of proving that the GPS wasn't removed from the original target vehicle, moved independently of it by a third party, and then reattached later.
As far as I know, that's called 'reasonable doubt', and makes the evidence sufficiently suspect to tampering so as not to be reliable in a court of law. I think it would render the evidence gathered by the device to be considered 'hearsay'.
Is it ok if I put GPS trackers on cop cars to track the cops then? That would be good info
The reason why cops might follow black people is usually because they incorrectly think that black people are more likely to committ a crime than others. That is racism, but doesn't change what I said above. There are very few circumstances where cops follow people without the intent to arrest them for what they see as a crime. That would be stalking, not a 4th amendment violation.
Adding weight to a vehicle will increase the use of gasoline. Is it legal to make someone else pay for your tracker's presence?
ultimately we're doomed to be free on the road since driving is considered a privilege and not a right. some day (soon even) we may be forced to upgrade our on-board GPS trackers during our next mandated smog test to continue having the "privilege" of driving. dont want to be tracked? i heard the bus is still the preferred choice for anonymity
Police are civilians. The police the claim otherwise are the bad actors and should be run out of the their forces. It is this non civilian mentality that has police thinking they are at war with those they serve, and acting that way.
That's the way I was thinking too. I shouldn't be required to provide the infrastructure and transportation cost to haul around a device to gather evidence that might be used against me. You want to gather evidence against me, YOU truck that device around.
What doesn't kill you only delays the inevitable
...States are allowed to regulate even if there isn't a constitutional bar to an action.
In fact, all powers not specifically delegated to the Constitution are reserved for the states. Which means that if the courts rule it isn't covered by the Constitution, each state can ignore it or pass its own law[s] on the subject.
This can lead to widely different laws, which isn't necessarily bad-- it means (in theory) that each group of people had different beliefs about what the law should be.
Excellent! Now let's use this to track police, since it's not illegal.
And since a warrant isn't needed to follow a car because anyone can do that anyway, why not attack these devices to people too?
1 - If the driveway is public, tax refunds are in order.
2 - Its my car, if i want to break it, its my business. As in: "I can remove the device when i find it... and install it elsewhere."
3 - If the installation damage the car, it become vandalism, from the cops.
4 - Building a RF detection device is trivial. Active GPS needs to emit. The usable frequency ranges are limited.
5 - If you are a real criminal, having this attach to your car is good alibi. Use it.
This insanity is right there with having RFID chips in driver licenses. The intent was to track people without their consent. The problem is that anyone can do it, not just the "authorities".
Also, being tracked in such obvious manner makes it easier to foils it. There is no excuse for law enforcement laziness.
There's no law that stops a private investigator from following you around... at least not in public spaces. The standard is "reasonable expectation of privacy", so following you into Bally's to film you working out is OK (especially if you're being investigated for medical insurance fraud), but not following you into church to film you praying.
Wisconsin now sucks as a place to live. This type of crap never would have flown back in the day of Tommy Thompson's reign.
Before long, we're going to end up as one of the red states, and our once proudly held progressive streak will come to an end.
8==8 Bones 8==8
Top court: Police cannot track suspect with GPS
You never expect irony, do you?
Want to be a professional wrestler? Visit www.iyfwrestling.com
@iyfwrestling
If it is legal to put these on any cars, what about when they figure out they can also use them to:
- Track habitual speeders (just review the logs and issue the tickets)
- Failure to failure to stop at a Stop Sign (unless speed=0, you are guity)
- Driving outside work hours (for those who are driving under a work permit)
- Finding and then following habitual drunk drivers
- Track suspected stalkers