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.
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.
He usually sticks around articles about things ending in 'AA' (RIAA, MPAA, etc).
Perhaps if we change the title to "NY Court Says Police Can't Track Suspect with GPSAA" he'll swing by.
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!
And it ruins the surprise!
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
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?
And all will be fitted with Onstar-like systems with two-way microphones. For the safety and convenience of motorists, of course.
Dozens of Wisconsin criminals have been seen driving in the general direction of New York.
Smivs on the intertubes!
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.
Wrong. The ONLY punishment appropriate when government violates the rights of the accused in the course of collecting evidence is to deprive them of the use of that evidence.
If that means guilty people getting off, so be it, in the end, denying government actors the use of illegally obtained evidence in the end is the ONLY way we have giving them a disincentive to conduct illegal searches and seizures.
The Constitution is not a technicality.
Corporatism != Free Market
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.
Yeah, who needs stupid things like due process. It's not like it's a constitutionally guaranteed right or anything.
Should someone who committed a crime be let go because some did not follow procedures
Yes. That's the whole point of having a judicial system. It spells out how the police and the legal profession must act to bring cases to trial. If you're going to abandon that system, then I don't suppose you have a problem with police coming into your house at any time of the day or night to see if you are breaking any laws.
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.
If you, as the police or prosecutor, can't be bothered to follow proper procedures, who's to say you didn't make up evidence to indict someone? It stands to reason if whatever procedures are in place weren't followed, how does the court know that what it is asked to rule on is valid?
To use the well-worn phrase: Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
1. It did not use up the "valuable" resource that is the detective. Meaning the police could just plant one of these devices on all cars in the city.
2. If a detective is following you, he normally will not follow you onto your private property, else he could be charged with trespass.
3.If a detective follows a person around that person has the ability to at least seek harassment charges.
Yes.
Beyond the constitutional arguments, The exclusionary rule is, arguably, one of the few effective measures for keeping police from disregarding due process and abusing their power. Otherwise, it is oh-so-very-very-tempting to just bend the rules a little to get the guy you "know" is the right one. If doing the wrong thing is a good way of getting your case thrown out, you'll be a lot less likely to do the wrong thing.
There is empirical evidence, as well, for this position. This is an op-ed from a legal academic who has studied the matter.
"Getting tough on crime" at the expense of method is initially attractive; but it is extraordinarily corrosive to our rights and liberties in the medium and long terms. The ethical flexibility that allows the cops to create a fictional confidential informant to seize otherwise unavailable evidence today, will be the same flexibility that allows the cops to create fictional evidence tomorrow.
Should someone who committed a crime be let go because some did not follow procedures NO
Actually, yes they should. Otherwise, police have no incentive to follow procedures.
You're essentially contradicting yourself. You say "sure, evidence collected using improper (that is, illegal) procedures is admissible in court!" and then contradict it with "but evidence collected using improper procedures can't be used to show guilt."
The police need to follow the law. If they don't, then they are the ones out of luck. If this is not the case, then there is no incentive for the police to follow the law. In fact, there is considerable incentive for them to break the law. If they are able to collect more compelling evidence by breaking the law, have it allowed in a court case, and then result in a guilty verdict that they may not have gotten by following the law, then what is the incentive for them to follow the law?
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.
From my basic understanding of the US legal system, evidence obtained improperly is considered tainted and suspect, and is thus thrown out.
Think of it this way; If the police officer in question is willing to collect evidence in a manner contrary to procedure and law, it is entirely likely that he is willing to plant or forge evidence to get a conviction.
Remember: In America, it's still "Innocent until proven guilty." no matter what one advocacy group or another might say. While I hate for a burglar to go free, we cannot assume that the defendant in this case was indeed a burglar just because the police say so. Nor can we assume the evidence wasn't forged in some manner if the police weren't even willing to follow procedure.
The judges did the right thing in tossing out the evidence, IMHO.
Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory
It's got nothing to do with due process.
For the safety and convenience of motorists, of course.
Don't forget the children. You gotta think of them.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Sounds good in theory maybe but its a very dangerous idea. Your rights would then be limited by the amount of grief an officer is willing to go through in order to catch you in some illegal act. Imagine you're a cop tracking down a serial killer and you think there's evidence inside someone's house, wouldn't you be willing to risk punishment to prevent the guy killing again?
All the sudden the rule would be 'you need a warrant and probably cause OR be willing to risk punishment' which is not quite the same thing. Throwing out the conviction is the only punishment that will work to deter abuses, because it is the only punishment that takes away the reward for illegal searches. Otherwise there will always be times when the reward (catching the bad guy) is greater than the punishment (the end of your career), especially when you'll be a hero to the public for your 'brave sacrifice'.
Should someone who committed a crime be let go because some did not follow procedures
The problem with allowing the conviction to stand is that it encourages sloppy police work, in a "kill em all and let god sort em out" kind of way. You end up with police violating everyone's rights but then only charging the guy who actually did it. You also end up with police who bust into the homes of people they just don't like in hopes of finding some kind of evidence of a crime.
As odd as it sounds, the purpose of overturning this conviction is more to protect you and me than it is to protect the burglar in this case.
William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.
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.
What I meant and said poorly, is that there must have been some sort of stolen goods that the guy had in his possession. That alone should be good enough for the guy to be put in jail. The fact that police followed improper procedures needs to be addressed in a very harsh manner. However, I still think that someone should not be able to get away with a crime on a technicality.
And, especially before the 1960's, police behavior was egregious, and sanctions and fines were pitifully ineffective.
Probably because NYCL is into civil law, not criminal law.
Due process is the principle that the government must respect all of the legal rights that are owed to a person according to the law of the land.
This case was about the police not respecting the legal rights of the accused person hence by it's very definition it is a violation of due process.
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
This is where technology starts to create a gray area for ethics. Would it be okay for your neighbor to slap a GPS on your car to track you without your knowledge? Spying on individuals for the sake of law enforcement investigation is already pushing close to the boundary of ethically acceptable practice in my opinion. And anyone could legally do it. If slapping a GPS on your car without a warrant is acceptable for law enforcement, then it would also have to be acceptable for your neighbor.
I see the glass as full with a FoS of 2.
No.
If the police and prosecutors can get away with not following procedures, then they will never follow procedures. If ignoring legal procedures does not jeopardize the chance of conviction, then there is no penalty for not following those procedures, and instead creates incentive to bypass the procedures completely. After all, even if the defendant finds out, they'd still be convicted.
Overturning a conviction because of procedural violations sets an example that procedural violations will not be tolerated.
Our system of justice is built on the premise that it is better to let a guilty person go free than penalize an innocent. The state does not get a free pass to do whatever it wants. It must operate in a legal manner, and that means following established procedures designed to not violate the rights of the potentially innocent. We hold the state to this standard so that everyone has the opportunity for a fair trial.
I'm out of my mind right now, but feel free to leave a message.....
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?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruit_of_the_poisonous_tree
Who would engage in discipline for not following proper procedures?
Internal affairs? The DA?
There are myriad examples of police officers getting with slap-on-the-wrist punishments for things that would net the average citizen 20+ years.
Take, for example, the police involved in the Kathryn Johnston murder. I'm completely unaware of any cop involved getting more than 10 years. They lied to obtain a warrant, shot a woman and planted drugs in her house while she bled to death.
What do you think the punishment would be for failing to secure a warrant? 1-day paid suspension?
Think of the exclusionary rule like asset forfeiture. When a person engages in an illegal act, the tools they used as well as any assets acquired as a result are seized. It should remain the same way for evidence-if the government breaks the law by not securing a warrant, any rewards are removed. Thus, there is no incentive in not following procedure.
If the government can seize lottery winnings because the ticket was bought with money alledgedly made from drug dealing, then the government has to deal with having everything they learned/obtained as a result of an improper search excluded.
I don't think it's as cut and dry as you say. There are obviously differeing opinions. If there weren't we wouldn't need judges. We would all just know what was right and what was wrong.
The police didn't obtain a warrant, the prosecutor didn't have a problem presenting that evidence at trial and the judge allowed it into evidence. I'm assuming defense counsel opposed it.
Dual Opteron < $600
However, I still think that someone should not be able to get away with a crime on a technicality.
Good for you. Some of us actual value due process and police following legal procedures.
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.
Should someone who committed a crime be let go because some did not follow procedures
YES. For one, it's the law. Second, this prevents government from turning into a police state... they can't just do whatever they want, they must obey the law and it's limits on them. Otherwise things like requiring a warrant become meaningless.
You seriously need to relearn consitutional law and why things are the way they are.
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.
What I meant and said poorly, is that there must have been some sort of stolen goods that the guy had in his possession. That alone should be good enough for the guy to be put in jail. The fact that police followed improper procedures needs to be addressed in a very harsh manner. However, I still think that someone should not be able to get away with a crime on a technicality.
Doesn't matter. They illegally placed a tracking device and used that as the method of catching him with the stolen goods. Because the method they used to catch him with the stolen stuff was illegal, then that evidence is tainted and inadmissible.
Trust me, you don't want it any other way. Had the police done good police work (ie: followed him with police detectives) instead of the quick and easy way (slap the GPS onto his vehicle) they would have caught him and the conviction would have stood.
We shouldn't allow the government to get away with circumventing the Constitution with technology for their own convenience.
Plus, given that the police and prosecution now have been proven to have broken the law THEMSELVES to collect this evidence, I don't necessarily take their word for it that this was the burglar. Since they were clearly willing to break the law to get a conviction, who's to say they didnt' plant this evidence? The guilty don't deserve a presumption of innocence, and by this ruling, those involved in this case have been found guilty of violating the rights of the accused.
If they didn't have enough evidence going in to get a warrant for the suspect in the first place, one wonders how flimsy their case was otherwise...
Corporatism != Free Market
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.
There is a legal principal known as Fruit of the poisonous tree. Essentially, any evidence that has been found due to an illegal search, even if it wasn't found during the search itself, is inadmissible.
So if the stolen property was discovered because of the gps, then it is likely inadmissible. The article didn't say one way or another, so it is tough to tell. If it had nothing to do with the gps, then it can still be used in court
Remember also that the judge merely ordered a new trial with the bad evidence excluded. If they still have enough evidence that was discovered independent of the illegal search, he may still be convicted.
Ultimately, there is no better way to defend our rights that to completely bar any evidence that has been found in violation of them. It sometimes has the unfortunate side effect or letting the guilty go free, but so long as police maintain their professionalism and act legally it should be a rare occurrence.
Actually, it's somewhat more complicated than that.
This wasn't a case of a citizen suing the government because his privacy was violated by GPS tracking (which is kind of the way you framed it above). Rather, this was -- as far as one can tell from the poor summaries and extracts currently made available -- a case where the defendant in a criminal action seeks to have evidence excluded under the Exclusionary Rule, because, presumably, GPS tracking is unconstitutional.
Why would it be unconstitutional? It might be because of some specific provision in the New York Constitution. Or, it might be because the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution is deemed to be applicable to this case, with that Amendment being made applicable to state action through the Incorporation Doctrine.
If the latter case, then Due Process (of the "substantive" as opposed to the "procedural" variety) would be involved, because that's the basis of the Incorporation Doctrine. But, if the cops simply violated the state constitution, I wouldn't necessarily call that a "due process" issue. That's just simply cops breaking the law they're sword to uphold.
And my Garmin stock will go through the roof again. :)
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...
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
The problem I have with the exclusion rule is that it only "punishes" the police when they violate the rights of someone who is actually guilty. What recourse do I have when they pull me over without cause and/or search my vehicle and DON'T find anything incriminating? They have still harassed and intimidated me, but because they didn't find anything they could arrest me for, it is ok? Likewise, the police could use GPS to discover information totally unrelated to the case they are investigating, e.g. the vehicle of a married man they are tracing sits in a motel for a couple hours. They now have information they can use to extort the "suspect" into cooperating with the police to entrap others.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Probably because NYCL is into civil law, not criminal law.
Civil law, business ethics, military intelligence, etc.
Based on NYCL's writings, there is nothing "civil" about how the **AA lawyers treat their victims.
If the latter case, then Due Process (of the "substantive" as opposed to the "procedural" variety) would be involved, because that's the basis of the Incorporation Doctrine.
And that is the basis of their decision which is why I said what I did because I had actually read the ruling and not just the summary.
2-Not at all true. There are a bunch of ways a detective can legally follow you on to private property. They also don't need to be following you due to the open fields doctrine. 3-Oh really? How is a detective supposed to get the probable cause required for a warrant without being allowed to follow people? I bet you also think they need warrants to frisk people.
Wrong. The ONLY punishment appropriate when government violates the rights of the accused in the course of collecting evidence is to deprive them of the use of that evidence.
It might be worth pointing out that this is only true in the United States. No other country (including those with search and seizure protections enshrined in their respective constitutions) adheres to an exclusionary rule as a matter of constitutional principle.
Even in the U.S., the exclusionary rule took a while to evolve. Even after it was crafted as a federal standard, the states took a while to fall in line. There are ways of deterring bad official conduct that don't involve excluding relevant evidence of a criminal offense. (Civil suit against the police, independent disciplinary bodies, etc.) Other countries manage just fine.
What recourse do I have when they pull me over without cause and/or search my vehicle and DON'T find anything incriminating? They have still harassed and intimidated me, but because they didn't find anything they could arrest me for, it is ok?
No, it's not okay. Your recourse is to file a complaint with the police department and/or your state government (Attorney General's office might be a good place to start if the local police department doesn't handle the complaint). In a system that isn't completely corrupted, the officer will at least be suspended for the duration of the investigation.
They should edit the title of the article, then.
NY Court Says Police Can't Track Suspect With GPSAA
Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
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?"
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"
You are arguing that having evidence thrown out is a greater deterrent to a police officer than the loss of his job? I could not disagree more. The end result in this case is that a guilty burglar had to appeal to the highest case in the state before the evidence was thrown out. The officer probably doesn't give a rat's ass that the evidence was suppressed. I don't think we should punish the officers for making good faith judgments about legal gray areas, but if we did, I think it would be a far greater deterrent than the occasional suppression of evidence.
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.
The ONLY punishment appropriate when government violates the rights of the accused in the course of collecting evidence is to deprive them of the use of that evidence.
I disagree. If a police officer acts outside of the authority given him, he should be treated like every other citizen. If their actions would amount to stalking if I did it, then the police officer should be charged with stalking.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm
Crime rates doubled, tripled per capita across the board since 1960.
This is my sig.
If slapping a GPS on your car without a warrant is acceptable for law enforcement, then it would also have to be acceptable for your neighbor.
No, as law enforcement is often granted powers beyond that of "the common citizen," so that's all they'd argue. "Regular people can't do it, since they're not agents of the State."
You and I know it's still a crap argument, but that's what they'd say.
Canada: The US's more awesome sibling.
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.
If that means guilty people getting off, so be it, in the end, denying government actors the use of illegally obtained evidence in the end is the ONLY way we have giving them a disincentive to conduct illegal searches and seizures.
I tend to disagree. In our current system, it is indeed normally the only way. But what if the police STILL don't care? 'We'll get him next time!'.
Personally, I'd add firing, fining, even criminal charges if the violation was deliberate. But I have to somewhat agree with Pulse - mistakes have let too many real criminals go.
I don't read AC A human right
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?
Well, since you were too stingy to do so, I dug up this and will provide the link:
http://www.nycourts.gov/ctapps/decisions/2009/may09/53opn09.pdf
It was decided under the state constitution, since federal law was deemed to still be undecided on the issue. What I find intriguing is that the judges looked to rulings in other states (Oregon and Washington), but apparently the Wisconsin case was too recent to be included in that survey. I wonder if they would have ruled differently? Recall that the N.Y. decision was 4-3, it would have taken only 1 of the justices to tip the other way...
This would explain why you are able to sue the police for harrassment, false imprisonment, etc.
Jumbo Shrimp, rap music....etc
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
The problem I have with the exclusion rule is that it only "punishes" the police when they violate the rights of someone who is actually guilty.
I believe you mean "convicted." Or perhaps "charged." Since the evidence was improperly obtained, there's no reason to assume the individual is actually guilty.
However, despite the semantical difference, I do agree that there needs to be more in place to prevent abuses that don't lead to charges being filed. Ever tried filing a police harrassment complaint? Good freaking luck having any kind of impact.
Canada: The US's more awesome sibling.
Wait. They still do that? Ugh. *faith in humanity -50*
Canada: The US's more awesome sibling.
So instead of following the guy with people for two months, round the clock, at $20/hour, they tracked him with a $400 box attached to his car. $28,000 vs $400 - and the constitution says nothing about attaching homing beacons to vehicles.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
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
It's exactly the opposite a lot of the time. Often, private citizens can do something for which a cop would require a warrant.
>From my basic understanding of the US legal system, evidence obtained improperly is considered tainted and suspect, and is thus thrown out.
Normally yes. But SCOTUS has been working hard to make police mistakes admissible. That seems like a slippery slope argument. How do you tell if its a mistake? The polices word? Every time is a mistake then.
I find the whole argument that the legal system works is laughable. We have appellate courts overturning cases all the time. States who cant even agree on the same rules. Federal and State disagreements on evidence. SCOTUS interpreting the law for each's own moral or political views and ignoring common sense.
I'd rather side on caution for the person than the state. But that view seems to be lost in our nanny 911 culture.
-
God is Great, Beer is Good, People are crazy -
Billy Currington
They can't say it and have it hold up without a law providing that authority. To the best of my knowledge, the only law that could be used here is the PATRIOT Act if the guy was a suspected terrorist.
I see the glass as full with a FoS of 2.
your post shows just how lucky you have been in life. I have been harassed in this manner several times and complaints have been met with a polite version of stfu in the best circumstances and literal shut the fuck up at least once.
Linux Zealots: Smarter than Mac Zealots, but still zealots.
Take, for example, the police involved in the Kathryn Johnston murder. I'm completely unaware of any cop involved getting more than 10 years. They lied to obtain a warrant, shot a woman and planted drugs in her house while she bled to death.
What do you think the punishment would be for failing to secure a warrant? 1-day paid suspension?
In the case of the cops in the example, I'd have made it a death penalty case.
1. Lying to obtain a warrant should be a felony
2. Killing somebody in the course of executing a warrant obtained by felony pergury mades it premeditated murder
3. Planting evidence afterwards only makes it more obvious
As for securing a warrant, I think it depends on the circumstances. If they believed they didn't need a warrant or had a valid one(that they didn't lie to get), then the punishment should be less severe.
Think of the exclusionary rule like asset forfeiture. When a person engages in an illegal act, the tools they used as well as any assets acquired as a result are seized. It should remain the same way for evidence-if the government breaks the law by not securing a warrant, any rewards are removed. Thus, there is no incentive in not following procedure.
I absolutely, utterly hate asset forfeiture. It only encourages the drunks to buy cheap vehicles that cost the cops more to haul off than the drunk driver paid for it. A person shouldn't lose their car because a friend/relative borrowed it to buy some weed and got caught. It's also been the cause of at least one murder by cops.
No, any assets forfieted should be part of the punishment set by the court - and still limited to any criminal gains and potential fines.
Still, I understand where you're coming from. I'm just aware that cops can ruin somebody via legal harrasement. That's part of what I'd fix - Cause more damage looking for drugs than the fine for that half gram of weed(because you slashed all the furniture of the house before finding the ditch weed in the good-will couch in the basement)? Guess what, the cops are stuck paying for the difference. Bust down Granny's door by mistake? Well, you'd better fix it*.
*Actually happened, the sheriff posted a deputy there the rest of the night, the carpenter fixed it that day, the Sheriff actually apologized, and the old lady didn't sue.
I don't read AC A human right
Should someone who committed a crime be let go because some did not follow procedures NO,
Look, the rights of the accused are some of the most powerful outlined in the Bill of Rights for a good reason. If the government is going to accuse and attempt to convict and punish you for a crime, they are obligated to do so within the framework of the law they are enforcing. If they can't play by their own rules, they don't get to be in the game at all.
In a case like this it's pretty clear-cut, too. Getting a warrant is dead simple in most jurisdictions and judges will hand them out like candy on the flimsiest of pretexts. If the cops couldn't come up with a decent enough reason to convince a judge that this guy needs to be monitored, then what business did they have monitoring him anyway?
Punishing the police after the fact would do nothing for the guy whose rights were violated, either, and sets dangerous precedent. "Oh yeah, sorry we forced an illegal confession out of you and you're going to spend the next ten years in the slammer, but don't worry, we put the offending officer on a week of paid vacation -- er, 'administrative leave'." Why even have a Bill of Rights at that point?
mirrorshades radio -- darkwave, industrial, futurepop, ebm.
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.
Wasn't there a guy in Australia that got in trouble, because he found a GPS tracking system attached to his car without permission, and removed it and sold it on Ebay? I seem to recall that being a big issue a few years ago... ;)
What are we going to do tonight Brain?
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!
Except they didn't. They ordered a new trial without the GPS records.
Your ad here. Ask me how!
Neither article says, but based on the language quoted, it was probably the Fourth Amendment. If so, there is no reason for a variance among the various courts. If New York, through their state constitution or by statute, has extended the protections provided by the Fourth, then it is hard to compare the cases. However, based on Supreme Court precedent, Wisconsin seems to have the better take on Federal Law. The police can put a beeper on a car, as long as they don't acquire any information they would have had if they tailed you the entire time. A GPS doesn't seem that much different. Of course, there may be additional facts not present in the excerpts that would change that analysis.
http://bgcommonsense.blogspot.com
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 are arguing that having evidence thrown out is a greater deterrent to a police officer than the loss of his job?
Not quite. MozeeToby is arguing the having evidence thrown out removes the incentive to break procedure. If there is no gain to breaking procedure (assuming the cop doesn't just think he'll get away with it), the mildest of deterrents (bad rep, in this case) will serve to prevent the action. This is subtly, but importantly, different than providing a deterrent larger than the incentive. It is very difficult to judge magnitude in matters that are so subjective, but zero is pretty easy to spot.
...sometimes, in order to hurt someone very badly, you have to tell that person terrible lies. - PA
The police didn't obtain a warrant, the prosecutor didn't have a problem presenting that evidence at trial and the judge allowed it into evidence. I'm assuming defense counsel opposed it.
Which is what gave him grounds for an appeal. All three were wrong.
If a police officer gets his evidence thrown out in court due to improper actions on his part, and it gets thrown out *repeatedly*, I'm fairly certain he will be fired. Because he's of no value to the department.
No, but NY law does prohibit the police from modifying private property or tapping a communications device without a warrant.
The issue is not that they attached a box to his car. The issue is that they did so without a warrant. However, the police do not require a warrant to follow someone in public areas. The problem is that the GPS also follows the person onto private property where the police are not allowed to go.
Additionally, the GPS is unable to tell you what the person did at a location, only that he was there. What if you have a strip mall with an adult toy store, a liquor store, and a gun shop. The guy parks in the parking lot for 15 minutes. The GPS cannot tell you if he was picking up a fifth of vodka, strawberry flavored condoms, or a box of ammo.
The argument can be made for what store he parked in front of, but you have no way of knowing how many other parking spaces were taken at the time he went to park.
A GPS device is no replacement for actual investigative actions. And, in NYS at least, any evidence obtained as a result of a warrantless tracking of the vehicle - say copies of receipts and video surveillance from the gun store - would be inadmissible under the Fruit of the Poisonous Tree doctrine.
From the perspective of your argument, I agree with you.
However, I wouldn't make it a death penalty case simply because I wouldn't make *any* case a death penalty case. Until you can guarantee that no person will *ever* be subjected to a punishment which is irreversible, *no one* should be subjected to it.
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.
It's not that you said it poorly, or that we did not understand what you meant.
We are disagreeing with your opinion.
Following your logic leads directly to a state of not being able to tell the cops from the criminals...both are breaking the law.
There is valid reasoning behind the cliche: 'The road to Hell is paved by good intentions.'
It's deplorable that 'technicalities' and procedural violations allow criminals to get away, but it's a small price to pay to keep the rights you still have.
Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
This may be true in some cases, but make sure you don't get it mixed up with another thing that isn't quite the same:
The second one isn't really a case of private citizens being allowed to do things that the cops aren't; a private citizen isn't allowed to break into your house and search your stuff, period. However, to the extent that the break-in and search wasn't prompted by the authorities, any information they uncover about you may be used as evidence against you. (There are some gray areas having to do with the cops prompting a private citizen to search or surveil a suspect.)
Are you adequate?
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.
Dragonslicer obviously has much lighter skin than you do.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
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"
I agree with you, and in some cases criminal charges are made.. problem is they are usually only in extreme cases. For some reason, we as a society have accepted abuse of athority.. For instance, the common practice of having a driver get out of a car and searched and handcuffed while they search for warrents during a routine traffic stop.. you see it all the time, and it's pretty much on every episode of Cops.. Since when is handcuffing someone while they find out wherther or not they can arrest them acceptable ?.. you got to feel for the poor guy stopped for changing lanes without a turn signal, sitting on the curb in handcuffs with people driving past gawking at him like he may be some rapist they just caught... The problem is, that in the minds of many police, this is accpetable as a puniushment for whatever traffic violation is made.. and that is perhaps the biggest problem with some cops, is accepting that they are not in the "punishment" buisness.. No cop should be punishing anyone for anything, there job is to enforce the law and arrest offenders.. the courts and the penal system are responsible for the punishment.
waiting for ad.doubleclick.net
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.
2.There are plenty of ways for me to shoot trespassers who fail to identify themselves. At the very least I can call the state troopers on them.
3. I said has the ability to at least seek the charges not that it would happen. You can most certainly attempt to have a police officer charged with harassment.
Dragonslicer obviously has much lighter skin than you do.
You have no idea. I'm a Jew from Maine. They don't really come much whiter than me.
How is a detective supposed to get the probable cause required for a warrant without being allowed to follow people?
And what if the detective is following his exgf around? What then?
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
No other country ... adheres to an exclusionary rule as a matter of constitutional principle.
Ummm. How about Canada.... (Section 24(1&2))
Atlas stands on the earth and carries the celestial sphere on his shoulders.
Distinguishing between removing an incentive and creating a disincentive is slicing the baloney a little thin. Look at it like this. If a cop makes 10 illegal searches, maybe one will be questioned in court(most of these people plead guilty). If the guy has a really good attorney, his conviction might get overturned. The cop has 9 searches where he received a gain and one where he did not. He is then free to play again. Only by punishing him by more than having the evidence suppressed in one case will there be a disincentive to keep going.
If they were all striving to be heroes, and got caught every time they messed up that might work, but it assumes that the officer is striving for some sort of non-job-related reward. Being praised for being a hero for catching a serial killer or something like that. Doesn't really happen too often in real life. In real life, they might get some notice in the department for an additional arrest. Taking away that reward by punishing them for illegal searches would be a far more effective punishment than withholding the evidence, and has the added benefit of not allowing an undoubted criminal out of jail on a technicality. It would also have the benefit of removing dirty cops from the police force rather than just having the evidence suppressed when they get caught.
While this solution solves the problem of the cop who is willing to risk any sort of punishment to catch a serial killer problem, it doesn't remedy the everyday problem of people's rights being infringed
There are a million ways to get a warrant with little evidence. The only reason they didn't have one in this case is they probably didn't know they needed it(3 judges agreed with them).
"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.
2-Sorry, I thought we were talking about what was legal and what wasn't. Have fun shooting trespassers. 3-Oh sorry, when you said seek charges, I thought you meant seek charges with a chance that they would be enforced by a court. If you are seeking charges against an officer who is investigating you, the would be unlikely.
I hope you're joking, but in case you aren't, it would depend whether he was investigating her and whether there was a restraining order against him.
I think my car would also quickly become fitted with a faraday cage....by "accident" of course.
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
I think it would be unwise for him to give commentary willy-nilly on every law story on /. I wish people would stop suggesting he might pop into a thread and deliver the bottom line for us all - his contributions here are very valuable, but I'm sure he enjoys being the "slashdot lawyer" every but as much as we enjoy being the family computer guy.
I think that is correct, although I think it is very rare to have a piece of evidence suppressed due to police misconduct. For starters, most people just plead guilty. Also, it is very easy to get a warrant, and very hard to get a warrant invalidated. Also, there are a lot of exceptions to every rule. As a friend of mine once said, "If you can't get a piece of evidence admitted, you're not trying hard enough."
Until you can guarantee that no person will *ever* be subjected to a punishment which is irreversible, *no one* should be subjected to it.
News flash: NO punishment, except maybe fines, are reversible. Spend 20 years behind bars for a crime you didn't commit? That's 20 years you're never getting back.
Personally, I LIKE that extra resources are spent in a DP trial to help ensure justice. Life in Prison is 'cheap' ethically, but it costs a life just the same.
I don't read AC A human right
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."
The point was that most cops are biased and treat different people differently. Some they harass because of their race, some because of their religion, some because of their sexual orientation (I personally watched the cops put an effete guy with pink socks into a drunk tank full of extremely macho Mexicans and tell them "Be nice to this guy, he's my personal friend!") Personally... well, the major reason that I get harassed by the police is than I'm an asshole... but that doesn't mean they aren't discriminating against me!
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
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
Which is, I assume, why police departments sometimes employ "psychics." To launder the evidence and get back on track.
What, you thought the scam was by the psychics themselves on the unsuspecting police? Hah.
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
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.
I'm not. This happens from time to time. And to answer your response, no department worth its salt should be assigning someone to investigate an ex, or really anyone they have a personal connection to. By the way, how much do you think a TRO is worth against a cop?
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
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
The actual issue here revolves around "Eye Witness". Sure a GPS tracker can track a vehicle but can you prove that I was the individual driving it at the time said crime was committed? If you can not, then all you have is a profile, which is inadmissible in court due to it being heresy.
Mod me up/Mod me down: I wont frown as I've no crown
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
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.
But it's much CHEAPER to put a GPS box on the car than to put three shifts of police (at a minimum of two cars per shift) to following a suspect around.
While the principle may be the same, a lot of abuses were not brought up as issues in the past because they were rare due to the cost.
Also: With the higher cost, the administration would tend to reserve the procedure for targets where there was more signs that the surveillance would be productive - and that would usually translate to enough evidence to get a warrant. With the price drop it becomes economically feasible to "cast a broad net" - and departments that might never, or very rarely, have committed such abuses would commit them on a wholesale basis unless restrained.
So lowering the cost of tyranny can lead, not just to a quantitative, but to a qualitative change in the need for judicial intervention.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
The reason I thought you were joking is that I was talking about police officers in general, while they are investigating crimes and the fact that they probably shouldn't be following their ex-girlfriends around doesn't really have anything to do with the point I was making. I don't know how much a TRO is worth against a cop because I've never tried to enforce one. Maybe you can tell me, because it seems like you have an unnatural interest in the subject.
My way of deterring bad official conduct would be to go ahead and use the ill-gotten evidence but any police officer or other official who participated in violating the perps civil rights gets to be their roomie in the slammer for the duration of their sentance. That would probably eliminate the problems real quick.
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.
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."
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.
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.
Except that in such cases, the police are never disciplined for such "improper procedures" and thus the protections of the Constitution become mere cant. Prosecutors need police to provide the evidence to get convictions; if the prosecutors went after police on a regular basis for misconduct, the cops would soon stop doing much to help the prosecutors. And the police can't be trusted to investigate themselves, it will almost always be a whitewash or a slap on the wrist. The only means that guarantees that illegal evidence will not be used is to deny its use. That requires illegally obtained evidence to be suppressed.
The lessons of history teach us - if they teach us anything - that nobody learns the lessons that history teaches us.
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."