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."
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.
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.
And it ruins the surprise!
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?
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.
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.
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.
if someone steals your phone, it's still yours. even if it's out of your reach, you still have authority over it, so the police would be legally allowed to track it if you consent to it. any lawyer or paralegal here to correct me if i'm wrong ?
I remember some years ago a story about a stolen mac that had a remote management software that phoned home everytime the notebook connected to the internet. as soon as the thieve dialed up (it was still on the dial-up age), the owner logged in to his mac and used the iSight camera to snap a picture of the individual. this was not considered an invasion because the mac was his to begin with. IIRC, the police used the picture to identify and arrest the thieve. the mac was located and returned.
What ? Me, worry ?
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?
If having a plant listen to a phone conversation is legal (and it is), I'm not sure why doing the same thing through a switch-box would not be.
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.
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 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?"
here it is from engadget:
"Here's a little story for you: An Apple Store employee had a party in her apartment. A couple weeks later her place was cleared out to the tune of about $5,000 worth of electronics, including her new Mac. Days later, a friend sees that she's online and alerts the Mac's rightful owner. Since she was running Leopard with Back to My Mac, owner-girl logged in remotely and activated Photo Booth via the screen-share function. And what do you know, it turned out that the thieves were some "friends" who were at the party a few weeks back. She took the photos to the cops and -- voila -- busted! The thieves, Edmon Shahikian, 23, and Ian Frias, 20, both of the Bronx, have been charged with second-degree burglary and fourth-degree criminal possession of stolen property. Go go crafty nerdy girl!"
it was not dial-up era though... seems the little hard drive in my brain has some bad sectors already...
What ? Me, worry ?
Actually, I am from and live in the deep south. My college roommate once joked that anyone born north of I-10 (that passes through New Orleans) was a yankee. He was a bit stringent on that definition...hahaha.
But, rather than get into a discussion on the war of northern aggression, lets let the past be where it is...enjoy the fact that we are still one large country, but, try to undo some of the ill effects of the past, and support these laws that are trying to help reassert states' rights, and give the 10th amendment some teeth again.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........