Slashdot Mirror
NY Court Says Police Can't Track Suspect With GPS
SoundGuyNoise sends in a story that brings into relief just how unsettled is the question of whether police can use GPS to track suspects without a warrant. Just a couple of days ago a Wisconsin appeals court ruled that such tracking is OK; and today an appeals court in New York reached the opposite conclusion. "It was wrong for a police investigator to slap a GPS tracking device under a defendant's van to track his movements, the state's top court ruled today. A sharply divided NY Court of Appeals, in a 4-3 decision, reversed the burglary conviction of defendant Scott Weaver, 41, of Watervliet. Four years ago, State Police tracked Weaver over 65 days in connection with the burglary investigation."
It sort of defeats the point of tracking if you tell us where it's going to be ahead of time.
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
The judgment was that they couldn't track a person without a warrant. I presume that if they had convinced a judge of probable cause before they lojacked the suspect, they would have been in the clear.
What is not noted in TFM is what the defense approach was. On what grounds did they protest the use of GPS tracking? Add to that the potential variances in state law and it's not shocking that we might get an opposite conclusion.
Of course, IANAL, so I could we way off here. Is NY Country Lawyer around to answer this one?
Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory
I want to know whether it would be wrong if they steal my phone which has GPS tracking set up to be available to me?
Can't they just ask for a warrant, and not have to worry whether the case is going to be thrown out?
If it's worth the trouble to track the guy for 65 days, surely it's worth the trouble to get a warrant.
Since there is apparently no legal issue with car companies issuing GPS-enabled remote engine locks, the police should simply start renting cars to their suspects. Problem solved!
all new vehicles will have GPSs installed as safety requirements and all old vehicles will be retro-fitted.
And it ruins the surprise!
That same line of reasoning would apply not only to a GPS bug on your car, but also to someone following you around with a notepad.
I'd like to see the full text of the opinion. The small extracts I've seen so far basically amount to "I don't like giving the police such power", which, if it were the only legal basis of the opinion, would be the worst kind of legislating-from-the-bench, and not likely to survive an appeal. Surely in 20 pages of opinion, there was an actual legal basis given for their decision. One can hope?
When one reads the linked article, the court indicated it was because no warrant was obtained that the tracking via GPS was invalid, not the tracking in and of itself.
Had the police done their job and obtained a warrant to plant a device on the persons car, there wouldn't have been a problem. They obviously had reasonable suspicion to suspect he was the burglar because they knew enough to single him out.
This isn't about Big Brother watching you, this is about sloppy police work (though it does tie in nicely with the previous article from Wisconsin).
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
From the skimming I did of the summary it looks like the sentence was over turned because they didn't get a warrant for using GPS to track the guy. Should someone who committed a crime be let go because some did not follow procedures NO, should there be discipline for not using proper procedures absolutely. Improper procedures should not cause a case to be overturned unless of course it could be shown that the person was guilty only because of the improper procedures.
My understanding here is that monitoring without a warrant would constitute (no pun intended) a breach of the 'unreasonable search and seizure' part of the US constitution. If a cop can't investigate someone on the sole basis of profiling (racial or otherwise), then he shouldn't be allowed to GPS tag them without a warrant either. Seems simple to me... No?
How is this different from assigning a detective to follow the guy around all day?
Dozens of Wisconsin criminals have been seen driving in the general direction of New York.
Smivs on the intertubes!
That it is better to let ten guilty men go free than to convict a single innocent man.
Throwing the case out is the discipline used when the police or prosecution step out of line.
I understand the argument that GPS tracking is not significantly more intrusive than tailing.
But I wonder how police officers would react if GPS devices were surreptitiously placed on their cruisers.
There is not necessarily any conflict. That which is forbidden by the constitution and/or statutes of one state may be permitted in another. Whether or not this is permitted by the US Constitution must be decided by a Federal court.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
Thank you for a great business venture idea. The market needs such a service.
The way to deal with police mistakes is with sanctions and fines. This is the way it was before the 1960s.
And it was completely ineffective. Sorry, but I'd prefer not to go back to a time where due process and warrants were afterthoughts.
And, especially before the 1960's, police behavior was egregious, and sanctions and fines were pitifully ineffective.
This is the way it was before the 1960s.
Ahh, so yours is an argument from tradition, then? Or do you have an actual argument?
And you're free to be the one innocent man that is imprisoned for life with no hope of parole.
I'd rather live on the block with 10 guilty guys, thanks very much.
It may look like I'm doing nothing, but I'm actively waiting for my problems to go away.
--Scott Adams
In criminal law, Blackstone's formulation (also known as Blackstone's ratio or the Blackstone ratio) is the principle: "better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer", expressed by the English jurist William Blackstone in his Commentaries on the Laws of England, published in the 1760s.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstone%27s_formulation
You're right! it was from the 60's!
So, the police get a slap on the wrist and an innocent person goes to the electric chair? No. Absolutely no. We have to err on the side of caution and give the accused the benefit of the doubt. Innocent until proven guilty, and you can't be proven guilty with illegally obtained evidence.
I'd like to see a citation for this. Even if it is true, so what? Who cares what it was like before the 1960s. We didn't have high speed internet before the 1960s either. Should we also go back to computers that take up a whole room and aren't connected to one another?
Okay, I'll live on the block with 10 guilty guys, and you can be the one innocent man going to butt-rape prison. That works for me.
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do.
And you can see them fleeing live on the net.
If following somebody in an unmarked car without a warrant is legal (and it is), I'm not sure why an electronic device that accomplishes the same thing through satellite tracking would not be.
SirWired
I'd rather live on that block than in a jurisdiction where shoddy policy work and disregard for procedure and civil rights are encouraged.
You don't achieve justice by breaking the law.
As long as you live on the block with the asshole fascist cops.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
That it is better to let ten guilty men go free than to convict a single innocent man.
No, its not. You go right ahead and live on the block where 10 guilty guys went free.
The way to deal with police mistakes is with sanctions and fines. This is the way it was before the 1960s.
I'm assuming you're innocent so why don't we just put you and the 10 guilty guys together in a cell.
You go right ahead and live on the block where 10 guilty guys went free.
Tell you what. I'll live with the criminals, and you live in the next town over where the cops can do whatever the hell they want. I guarantee you I'll have a longer, safer life than you will. What people like you never seem to understand is that when cops don't follow the law, they're no longer serving and protecting -- they're just the biggest, toughest, meanest gang on the street.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
He knows where you are going. Always.
It's actually very simple as to why using a tracking device isn't considered kosher while tailing someone is.
Just imagine if the subject happened to be a phone conversation: It's the difference between putting a wire tap on a phone, and being in the same room and overhearing a phone conversation.
I use irony whenever I can, but my shirts are still wrinkled...
Perhaps if police weren't allowed to have an IQ cap and instead hired the brightest applicants instead of deliberately weeding them out, then they would have more success catching the 10 criminals on your block and could do it without breaking the law themselves.
Laissez lire, et laissez danser; ces deux amusements ne feront jamais de mal au monde. - Voltaire
Say the police in state A* attach a GPS tracker to a car sans warrant, then say that the owner of that car drives to a different state, B**; would evidence collected whilst the vehicle was in State B count? Would the officers in State A be exposing themselves to actual liability (as opposed to the evidence simply being thrown out) in State B?
*Wisconsin
**New York
FGD 135
Anecdotal fallacy.
Appeal to tradition.
I've seen many Republicans like you, providing no evidence to support their positions, just spouting lame garbage. Often people like you will even sound sensible on the surface, but then ten seconds of critical thought later, your arguments are exposed for the lies and hypocrisy they truly are.
I pity you, for seeing the world through such a distorted view must make your life incredibly miserable.
not to worry; the flavor is always surprising
What police can or can't do to a vehicle depends on what state you are in. Big surprise.
"The Adobe Updater must update itself before it can check for updates. Would you like to update the Adobe Updater now?"
I've seen many Republicans like you, providing no evidence to support their positions, just spouting lame garbage. Often people like you will even sound sensible on the surface, but then ten seconds of critical thought later, your arguments are exposed for the lies and hypocrisy they truly are.
This is just name calling. Nothing more, nothing less.
I pity you, for seeing the world through such a distorted view must make your life incredibly miserable.
Blah blah blah more name calling. I don't pity liberals at all. Things that are not human are not worth pity.
This is my sig.
As long as you live on the block with the asshole fascist cops.
Oh, and instead you liberals would have us be disarmed living with ten crooks. Yep, no wonder every city run by liberals is a shithole, and our country is increasingly becoming one.
This is my sig.
This issue isn't about whether GPS tracking, applied to one individual case, can collect information that can't be collected by tailing the suspect. The issue is about the restrictions on the power of the police to mess with people. Even if GPS tracking and following somebody around produce the same information, warrantless GPS tracking gives the police plenty more opportunity to abuse their power.
Having a detective tail a suspect is costly, so the police can be expected to limit its use to the cases where they most expect to uncover evidence of a crime. Warrantless GPS tracking, on the other hand, is cheap, so the police will be tempted to abuse their power by tracking all sorts of people who did nothing wrong.
Are you adequate?
Meh, this is all kinda silly. This will be ironed out on both sides soon enough, that's how the courts work. Inevitably, they'll decide you can be tracked immediately on the basis of probable cause.
"I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist"
Historical crime statistics
Since 1960, violent crime has tripled, robberies quadrupled.... pretty much every crime rate has at least doubled or tripled per capita.
This is my sig.
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm
Crime rates doubled, tripled per capita across the board since 1960.
This is my sig.
The problem is the Miranda Warning, 1966.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_warning
Ed Meese was right to argue against it during the Reagan Administration.
This is my sig.
The summary suggests, that there would be only one global way that this decision can go. While in reality, tracking a suspect with GPS can, and most likely is, ok in some cases. While in others it is not. And in some, it is even dependent on other factors.
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
Score +1 to the US people ....yeah! ....awwwwh
TOTAL
US people +1
Big Brother +4,000,589
Indeed, I don't think that quote in isolation presents the best case against warrantless GPS tracking, by far. I haven't seen the decision, so for all I know the quote is not representative.
Anyway, in mind this issue isn't about whether GPS tracking, applied to a given, individual case, can collect information that can't be collected by tailing the suspect. The issue is about the American tradition of restricting the power of the police, in order to protect the people from abuse by the authorities. Even if GPS tracking and following somebody around produce the same information, warrantless GPS tracking quite simply gives the police much more opportunity to abuse their power than their current ability to follow suspects.
Having a detective tail a suspect is costly, so the police can be expected to limit its use to the cases where they most expect to uncover evidence of a crime. Warrantless GPS tracking, on the other hand, is cheap, so the police will be tempted to abuse their power by tracking all sorts of people who did nothing wrong. They will undoubtedly uncover some folks' secrets, and there will always be the temptation to use those secrets against them ("tell me what you know about my suspect, and I won't tell your wife about your weekly visits to Motel 8 to see your mistress.").
Are you adequate?
The application of anecdotal fallacy is incorrect. A rhetorical statement about letting ten men go free was made, and I replied with a rhetorical statement.
Besides, since when do anecdotal fallacies ever stop liberals..... the whole art of liberal protest is to find some shmoe who is willing to lie about about their circumstances or inflate them for a bit of tv time...
and of course you argue that appeal to tradition is wrong. of course, just wait till people start making fun of liberal traditions.
This is my sig.
Wait. They still do that? Ugh. *faith in humanity -50*
Canada: The US's more awesome sibling.
To answer Wisconsin's specious assertions:
ANYONE should be allowed to zip up their car in a car cover and once it's zipped with the licence plate viewable in front and in the rear, and clear plastic windows permit viewing of the normally viewable areas of the car (to address concerns of car abandoned with bodies in the seats), THEN, Wisconsin police would ONLY be able to (reduced to/ass-kicked-down-to) attaching GPS devices on the cover.
Now, if the motorist disposes of the car cover, or de-bugs it, TOUGH SHIT for the WPD! Cutting/tearing the cover and inserting a device should be regarded as breaking and entering. "Exploitation" of a slit/cut car cover should offer NO protection, even if in some states a home's open front door might be a permission for police to enter...
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
Neither do I, from a legal standpoint anyway.. I do know claims have been made for 'touching' someone as assault.
To follow me, you follow me.
to GPS track me, you are touching my car.
if touching your shirt is assault, why isn't touching my car destruction of property?
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
There are instances in which the police may wish to track someone in order to gather intelligence. This information will never appear as evidence in court. So, they'll go on planting GPS units wherever they want. They'll just have to manufacture some probable cause to make a stop.
This sort of thing has been done for ages. The cops know who the 'bad' people are. And they've got a pretty good feel for when they're up to no good. So, where something like running a stop sign or failure to signal a lane change are overlooked for the general public, the usual suspects will get pulled over, patted down and have their vehicle tossed*. GPS technology just allows them to collect intelligence from the comfort of a donut shop instead of actually patrolling a neighborhood.
*A friend of mine in the local PD refers to this as charging someone with "Mopery with intent to gawk".
Have gnu, will travel.
It's called a warrant, you fucking fascist. They've been around a while and I don't see a reason to change things.
"They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
Mild correction for those that do not understand the New York court system. The New York Court of Appeals is its highest court, equivalent to other states supreme court. While the New York Supreme Court is its trial court, and the Appellate Divisions are its intermediate appellate courts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Court_of_Appeals
I realize this is confusing, but that means the summary was wrong in saying "an appeals court in New York". This decision holds more weight than Wisconsin's by comparison - a supreme court vs an appellate court.
Instead of: "today an appeals court in New York reached the opposite conclusion."
It should read: "today New York's Court of Appeals (its Supreme Court) reached the opposite conclusion."
That would clarify the confusion. Best of luck folks!
Yep, no wonder every city run by liberals is a shithole, and our country is increasingly becoming one.
Citation please.
I'm sitting less than 10 feet from a gun. Making assumptions just makes you an ass.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
You don't need a warrant to follow someone. the FBI and police detectives do it all the time.
1) If my car is always garaged, don't the police have to break and enter to install a GPS tracker?
2) How do I detect whether or not a GPS receiver has been attached to my car?
3) If this box was there for 2 months, it must be drawing power from the car battery. Doesn't that make it a lot easier to detect? Doesn't that also mean that it is probably only working when the car ignition is on?
4) GPS signals from satellites are low-power, therefore they must be easy to jam. Isn't there a potential market for devices that do just that? You probably only need to jam the signal when the ignition is on. Better yet, transmit false GPS data and really mess with the cops' minds.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Who marked this redundant? It's funny as hell. Fucking retards.
We here in South Carolina applaud your rhetoric but thanks to that Yankee jackass Lee, your assertion that we are state citizens first and US citizens second has been proven false.
For all the crap people give the south, I'm glad y'all are realizin' what the whole "state rights" thing was about. I always read with interest the rants most recently from Cali and Texas governments about their relationship with the Fed.
First of all, I don't agree with how you were moderated as a troll for bringing in your point of view.
No, its not. You go right ahead and live on the block where 10 guilty guys went free.
Try telling that to the guy who lost 26 years of his life rotting in prison for a crime that he didn't commit. A study in 2004 suspects thousands of more cases based on 328 criminal cases where the defendant was exonerated. A quote from the study:
The study identified 199 murder exonerations, 73 of them in capital cases. It also found 120 rape exonerations. Only nine cases involved other crimes. In more than half of the cases, the defendants had been in prison for more than 10 years.
I put the word "suspects" in bold because I'm trying to be realistic; there is no way to tell the exact number and the study only looked at 328 cases.
The way to deal with police mistakes is with sanctions and fines. This is the way it was before the 1960s.
I completely respect your view of how we should deal with this, but I do have to disagree. I'm all for the pre-1960's method of sanctions and fines if there was some way to guarantee that an innocent person didn't have to spend an extended period of time behind bars until proven innocent. Hell, we can't even guarantee that right now.
I may be wrong, but I think that you're under the assumption that with the pre-1960's method, the mistake is quickly caught and the defendant only spends a short period of time in the slammer before released. Unfortunately, they can be in there for decades, and even after the mistake is caught, it may take even more years for paperwork unless they get an immediate pardon.
Best "String" Ever!
But mainly it is different cause if you keep a detective in a Faraday's cage for couple of days - he just stops working.
Also, if you drive fast with a detective attached to your car he tends to fall of.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
Something i left out... As for "zipping up the car", i should have stated, encasing/entirely zipping up the car, not just covering it and securing it by closing the hood and trunk over the ends and lanyard-tying the sides to the wheels. This way, if the car is "encased", then the cops have NO choice left but to dick with the covering, which ought to (if a warning is spray-painted on stating "no GPS or other kinds of tracking devices to be placed on or under this covering, nor on or in the contents of this covering"... or something to that effect.
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
Watervliet is on the upper low end of the economic spectrum when it comes to Albany suburbs.
Albany, being the state capital is about as corrupt as you can get. It puts NYC metro area to shame in that regard.
If a Judge can be bothered to side with a perp,
it's more likely he has a hardon for the Colonie PD and not any silly notion of Justice.
Really, it is (sarcastically) "Big surprise".
The USA is a federation of little chunks more than it is one big chunk, where each chunk is free (within some limits) to govern itself.
No surprise the little chunks make different rules.
State laws are trumped by the U.S. Constitution. Constitutionally guaranteed rights should be respected by all state and local governments. I should not have a diminished right to privacy simply because I live in Wisconsin as opposed to New York.
"States rights" was not about what you claim, it was about slavery. The war was started over slavery. Don't take my word for it, read the writings of the people who started the secessionist movement and ran the rebellion.
The interesting question not mentioned is what are the ramifications if the suspect finds the
device and destroys it? Is he/she then charged with destruction of Government property?
I can't tell you how overjoyed I am to hear that one of our courts has remembered there are limits to police power.
Unfortunately, the men with the uniforms and guns aren't worrying about such trivia. Have you spoken to any police officers lately? If you don't happen to work in municipal systems or security like I do, hop over to the forums at "officer.com" for an eye-opening read.
The current meme running among police officers is "wolves, sheepdogs and sheeple." That is, the "bad guys" are wolves, cops are sheepdogs, and the civilians are sheep. Sheep are worthless, stupid and deserve to get skinned.
The last member of a SWAT team I met told me a joke. He stomped on the ground twice and spit toward his foot. "You know what that is?" he asked. I shook my head "no." He grinned and said "cop cpr." When I asked if that was the procedure for criminals or victims, he called me a liberal fraker.
Another cop was telling me a story, well bragging really, and a footnote to the story was that a teenage girl was injured. When I asked him why that happened, he responded in fairly rough terms that officer safety took priority over all other considerations. I told him that during my time on base, we were always told that armed men in uniform were supposed to put themselves in harm's way to protect the civilians. Again, in rather rude terms, the officer responded that he didn't care how many civilians were killed, but that he was absolutely not going to expose himself or his fellow officers to real danger.
The court decisions are wonderful, but until we fix the broken traditions and discipline within our nation's police departments, it's an academic exercise at best.
He put his boots up on the table and made a face. "The sig," he smirked. "You can waste your life in search of the sig."
"States rights" was not about what you claim, it was about slavery. The war was started over slavery. Don't take my word for it, read the writings of the people who started the secessionist movement and ran the rebellion.
Hello. Thank you for your thoughtful post. Might I suggest another angle and get your perspective.
I might suggest that, like all of the US government, those money making plantation owners (and often, but not always, slave owners) were in bed with the government. They saw a law banning the use of their workforce as a direct threat to their livelihood, a little money changes hands, and all of a sudden the state Congress is in a tizzy! Chest thumping turns into gun rattling, sides are chosen, lines are drawn and thus, The Civil War!
Caused by a bunch of arrogant morally bankrupt politicians and the wealthy constituents they represent.
Was the South wrong? Absolutely! As a southerner I blame the Southern politicians for the escalation of the Civil War over what was an incredibly immoral practice. It was their war to lose. I'm just sayin' Lee didn't have to burn down every God forsaken thing on the way out.
I'm all for going after criminals when there is a reasonable suspicion they're up to no good. The issue is that the police has been given special powers on the condition of exercising them with discretion, and the oversight is the warrant system.
If you remove the warrant requirement you remove the controls. That is NOT a good idea IMHO.
Insert
I hope you twats are happy about this descision to let a criminal like this go free because you have some unfounded fear of GPS tracking
What part of "the end does not justify the means" do you not understand?
I have no problem with the state investigating, apprehending, charging, convicting and making criminals serve their time. But the methods they use must not reduce us to the level of a totalitarian police state. That's too high a price to pay for our safety and security, particularly when the crime in question -- burglary in this case -- is only about property. If this guy were a violent criminal, a stronger argument could be made, but I would hope that search warrants would be easier to obtain with respect to violent-crime suspects, thus mooting the issue.
(Same AC as GP.)
If it's about cost, and using a detective is ok, then what happens if detectives get cheaper? Hire a third worlder. Buy a robocop.
Is a judge going to say that there's a minimum salary for the detective, below which is a 4th amendment violation? Hard to believe.
BTW, I'm not really taking a contrary position to you, or advocating warrantless GPS tracking. I'm just saying that it's easy to get into places where there's no logical way to "draw the line" between what's ok and what isn't. The line is going to be some place arbitrary and citing the bill of rights isn't going to help. And that's when it'll get really fun/nasty, as people's differing opinions and goals will come into play. Everybody will be wrong (in most people's opinion).
The cop tells the judge that they misplaced their GPS unit. To find it, they started tracking it so that they could send an officer to pick it up again. And wouldn't you know it, when they went to get it, they noticed the guy was selling drugs. What a happy coincidence.
Xaotik Designs
Yes, a chopper would be unlikely to peer in your windows. So would a GPS. Yes, I suppose evidence about precisely where in a garage your car was located would be excluded (if the GPS managed to pull in a signal there), but I'm having a hard time figuring out how that would be a problem for any criminal case.
I'm also not buying your argument about sticking on a tracking device as a "modification." Meter maids use chalk to mark car tires all the time to track how long a car has been parked; is that a "modification" of your tires?
SirWired
there different states.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
maxume a Liberal?
Hahahahaha!
Thanks, I needed a good laugh today.
(wipes tears)
No calling you a stunted childish fuckwad with no balls would be name calling. What the above poster wrote is the truth and your reaction is pathetic.
How you must hate the fact that reality has a liberal bias.
Why do we reverse convictions made based on evidence that was obtained illegally ?
No matter how it was obtained, as long as it's real evidence, I don't see why that means the person who did the crime should go free because of it.
Instead, the officer should face charges for breaking the law and they both go to jail.
Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
Isn't it illegal to modify someone else's property (i.e. attach a device to a vehicle) without the expressed consent of the owner of the vehicle or a warrant allowing the modification to take place? The only other option IMHO would be if the police had sufficient probably cause to determine that the vehicle would be used immediately in the action of a crime.
some facts:
* you do not need a warrant to follow someone
* the police follow people as they drive all the time
* a gps will do the same exact thing as police driving in an unmarked car following you around town
what part about "its the same" do YOU not understand?
if you had said something like "because its private property" you might have a point but your police state concern is hogwash.
Actually, this is a 1760s liberal truth. That's an old quote from the Founding Fathers, who were quoting various philosophers before them.
And if you're so afraid of those big mean bad men that you'll throw innocents to the wolves, then maybe your heart, conscience and courage could stand some reflection.
He put his boots up on the table and made a face. "The sig," he smirked. "You can waste your life in search of the sig."
No. Just stating my experiences. Anne Coulter comes to mind, or any things I've seen on FOX News.
No, I said I feel sorry for you as -- judging by your posts -- your life is filled with anger and hate.
This is a prevalent attitude amongst those who would commit genocide.
Oh, and I'm not a liberal.
I don't pity liberals at all. Things that are not human are not worth pity.
You, sir, have just achieved a new low in online political discourse. Anyone who spews any amount of bile, on Slashdot or in any other online forum, will be able to say when called on it, "Well, at least what I said wasn't as bad as what tjstork said!" -- and odds are they'll be right.
Um ... congratulations, I guess.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
Obama put out a paper saying that the DEA will NOT raid anymore medical marijuana distributors/growers, actually upholding a states rights. So unless you papers arent in order you will not be raided by the DEA.
I'd like to see the full text of the opinion. The small extracts I've seen so far basically amount to "I don't like giving the police such power", which, if it were the only legal basis of the opinion, would be the worst kind of legislating-from-the-bench, and not likely to survive an appeal. Surely in 20 pages of opinion, there was an actual legal basis given for their decision. One can hope?
The newspaper said the defendant's name was Scott Weaver. From this, if New York puts its appellate cases on-line (Virginia is one state that does), one could look up "State v. Weaver" or "People v. Weaver" (depending on how criminal cases are styled in New York) and see all the cases in 2009 that were decided with that header.
I started with http://state.ny.us/ which translates to http://www.ny.gov/ . Right on the page is "New York State Unified Court System" Click that, then click on "How do I", click on "find a decision", clicked on "Court of Appeals", clicked on "May" and found People v. Scott C. Weaver, No. 53. The PDF and the Word Perfect document are available there at: http://www.nycourts.gov/ctapps/decisions/2009/may09/53opn09.pdf and http://www.nycourts.gov/ctapps/decisions/2009/may09/53opn09.wpd Indirectly I found out there is a website for the court, and somehow found the HTML version: http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2009/2009_03762.htm
The lessons of history teach us - if they teach us anything - that nobody learns the lessons that history teaches us.
In about five minutes of clicking I found it on the decisions of the New York State Court of Appeals, People v. Scott C. Weaver:
To confirm it was the right case, I checked the first paragraph:
"LIPPMAN, Chief Judge:
In the early morning hours of December 21, 2005, a State Police Investigator crept [*2]underneath defendant's street-parked van and placed a global positioning system (GPS) tracking device inside the bumper. The device remained in place for 65 days, constantly monitoring the position of the van. This nonstop surveillance was conducted without a warrant.
The lessons of history teach us - if they teach us anything - that nobody learns the lessons that history teaches us.
Well, that was likely an 'executive order' if anything that official. And as you have seen, ANY new president can repeal any former exec. order.
We need legal precedent, or a constitutional amendment (better) to legally define what the reach the feds DO have with respect to the interstate commerce act that affect so many things. We need this to roll back the fed power to what it should be in general...
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Citation please.
Detroit, this was where we used to build cars
Cleveland, used to build parts for cars
Philadelphia, Kensington, this was where we used to build ships
Akron, tires
I could go through every blue state in the USA, and we'd find the same story of the three stupid mistakes made over and over and over again:
a) rampant corruption
b) anti-business climate
c) support for free trade
Pretty much, you make cities a terrible place to manufacture things and have industry, and then have a national set of laws that lets people go wherever they want, and what do they do? They leave.
This is my sig.
That such a surrogate technological deployment [use of a GPS tracking device] is not — particularly when placed at the unsupervised discretion of agents of the state "engaged in the often competitive enterprise of ferreting out crime" (Johnson v United States, 333 US 10, 14 [1948]) — compatible with any reasonable notion of personal privacy or ordered liberty would appear to us obvious. One need only consider what the police may learn, practically effortlessly, from planting a single device. The whole of a person's progress through the world, into both public and private spatial spheres, can be charted and recorded over lengthy periods possibly limited only by the need to change the transmitting unit's batteries. Disclosed in the data retrieved from the transmitting unit, nearly instantaneously with the press of a button on the highly portable receiving unit, will be trips the indisputably private nature of which takes little imagination to conjure: trips to the psychiatrist, the plastic surgeon, the abortion clinic, the AIDS treatment center, the strip club, the criminal defense attorney, the by-the-hour motel, the union meeting, the mosque, synagogue or church, the gay bar and on and on.
— People v. Weaver, 2009 NY Slip Op 03762 http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2009/2009_03762.htm
The lessons of history teach us - if they teach us anything - that nobody learns the lessons that history teaches us.
You, sir, have just achieved a new low in online political discourse.
Cool!
This is my sig.
No calling you a stunted childish fuckwad with no balls would be name calling. What the above poster wrote is the truth and your reaction is pathetic.
Whose the one posting A/C?
How you must hate the fact that reality has a liberal bias
Would that be the "I'm just going to let GM and Chrysler go belly up so my buddies in Korea, Japan and China take over the US manufacturing base", reality bias?
Even Reagan had the guts to tell importers to pound sand for a couple of years to give Detroit a chance to fix itself. But oh no, the great savior of the working man and his Jap car driving buddies all just stand back and watch what's left of American manufacturing get gutted...
Way to go.
This is my sig.
The left has been depersonalizing the right for decades. Their essential political tactic is to personalize everything. So to heck with them. If they can dish it out, they should be able to take it.
This is my sig.
So you're saying that you'd rather live in Gary, IN while I live anywhere in Denmark? You're a fucking moron. We don't have the "Fruit of the Poisoned Tree" obsession that your supreme court does, and we do a lot better in almost every way.
Maybe this is how you feel, there may be a grain of truth in there (although I see little evidence for it), but even so: two wrongs don't make a right.
Maybe this is how you feel, there may be a grain of truth in there (although I see little evidence for it), but even so: two wrongs don't make a right
Two wrongs do not make a right, tis true. We added prescription drugs to Medicare, increased Federal spending across the board, brought the federal government into local schools, all as olive branches out to the left, and look what it bought us. Nothing. Reaching out to the left got us nothing, so there's really no point to doing it. What I don't get though, is how, after pretty much ignoring every overture from Republicans in the interest of gaining power for themselves, how Democrats expect that dictators around the world would somehow act -better-.
This is my sig.
You go right ahead and live on the block where 10 guilty guys went free.
Tell you what. I'll live with the criminals, and you live in the next town over where the cops can do whatever the hell they want. I guarantee you I'll have a longer, safer life than you will. What people like you never seem to understand is that when cops don't follow the law, they're no longer serving and protecting -- they're just the biggest, toughest, meanest gang on the street.
Funny, they said that in CSI once. A cop was talking to someone who was in a gang, and said that if he wanted to join a better gang, he should consider the police department, they have better guns. Where upon one of the CSI quips, "And dental!"
The lessons of history teach us - if they teach us anything - that nobody learns the lessons that history teaches us.
The problem is the Miranda Warning, 1966.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_warning
Ed Meese was right to argue against it during the Reagan Administration.
Isn't that the guy where they had the signs around saying, "Experts agree: Meese is a Pig"? Who are you to be arguing with the experts? :)
The lessons of history teach us - if they teach us anything - that nobody learns the lessons that history teaches us.
Either the chalk is a "modification" to your vehicle or it isn't. I don't see how the end use of the chalk (parking space tracking vs. movement tracking) changes that.
In the end, I just don't see how tracking the movement of your vehicle on public roads via a 'copter is fine, but tracking you with a satellite receiver isn't. Both methods have the same result, neither method involves entering your vehicle (which would be an unallowed search); one method is just far easier and cheaper.
SirWired
I assume you are being sarcastic...
There is a large difference between the two situations. On the phone, if nobody is physically nearby to listen, I have a reasonable expectation of privacy. On the road, I have no reasonable expectation of privacy when it comes to the location of my vehicle, as anybody with a pair of eyes can track my car.
SirWired
Your trust of the cops, and the ability of them to abuse their authority has absolutely nothing to do with the constitutionality of a particular tracking method.
My argument is about the legality of the methods, not how creepy they make people feel. Either you have a reasonable expectation of privacy in regards to the location of your vehicle on public roads or you don't.
To address your second point: Are you saying that if the GPS receiver cost a billion bucks, required a PhD to interpret, and required a platoon of cops to monitor (factors that would tend to decrease its use) it would magically become just fine, even though it would produce the same information from the same method? An evidence-gathering method does not become less legal just because it is cheap and easy.
SirWired
http://www.forbes.com/2009/04/01/cities-city-ten-lifestyle-real-estate-livable-cities_slide_16.html?thisSpeed=undefined seems to be mostly blue cities
Xavier Rabourdin for president 2012
Distributors and growers won't get raided now, but about 6 months ago they would have. I understand that Obama's changed that rule (good news), but that's not really a solution.
I am officially gone from
I agree with you on a purely legal basis. I don't think GPS tracking violates the U.S. Constitution's ban on unreasonable searches and seizures. I personally find the reasoning of the Wisconsin court more persuasive than that of the New York one, and note that the New York court decision was based on its state constitution, and thus sets no precedent for the application of the Fourth Amendment to GPS tracking.
But can't you see what a slippery slope this is? GPS tracking makes it economically and logistically feasible to track any number of individuals 24x7x365. Without any kind of judicial input or oversight, they can do this to anyone, at any time, for any reason. Maybe just because the "suspect" has unpopular views or is disfavored because of their ethnicity, race, religion, sexual orientation (I don't think the Civil Rights laws apply to mere surveillance, but I could be wrong on that). Perhaps you have such complete trust in law enforcement that you see no potential for abuse; pardon me for being more cynical than that.
So, whereas from a legal perspective, there is currently nothing stopping law enforcement from proceeding down this path, I would hope that the people, and the legislatures that supposedly represent them, would move to ban or at least put strict limits on the practice.
read thisor the full document's google cache.
Laissez lire, et laissez danser; ces deux amusements ne feront jamais de mal au monde. - Voltaire
I'm not arguing for campfires, Kumbayah and daisies. You won't find many "Peace, Love and Understanding" Joe Cocker-wannabes on military bases either.
What I want is a sense of Duty and Honor restored to our police force. I want cops who believe "The Honor of the Unit Lies with Each Man." I want cops who believe they should take a bullet for innocent bystanders the way Secret Service agents are eager to take a bullet for the President. I want civilian cops to regrow the balls and pride it takes not to lie on a witness stand. I want cops with the discipline and honor to play by the same rules they enforce.
I've known a few good men in civilian uniform, but you're right, they are vastly outnumbered by the cowardly thugs they serve with. I want to see the ghost of Marine General Butler to get in there and kick ass until those men deserve the shine on their badge again.
Right now, I've got more respect for the discipline I've seen among LA gang kids than most cops I've known.
He put his boots up on the table and made a face. "The sig," he smirked. "You can waste your life in search of the sig."
No one's "damned already." If you're going to accept the concept of damnation, then you have to accept the concept of redemption and salvation that go with it.
I have children of my own, sons and daughters both. Your son doesn't need this legacy. He doesn't need to be protected at the expense of Justice. He doesn't need to be shielded by corruption. He doesn't need the legacy of fear and compromise you're apparently leaving him, which he'll one day need to rise above, as I did mine.
You want to leave your son a legacy? Walk the path as it should be walked, with the dignity and compassion it deserves, and the realization you can't escape Death, but you can choose the terms on which you meet him.
The resignation and surrender you offer him -- "I'm already damned, it's hopeless, I'll do anything, just keep me safe" -- is a lousy inheritance.
He put his boots up on the table and made a face. "The sig," he smirked. "You can waste your life in search of the sig."