Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

NY Court Says Police Can't Track Suspect With GPS

Posted by kdawson on from the when-a-cop-slaps-you-on-the-back-check-your-back dept.

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."

9 of 414 comments (clear)

  1. Headline is inaccurate by ergo98 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Headline is inaccurate by Teese · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Which is weird, because in the Wisconsin case, the officers had a warrant. The judges there said it wasn't needed!

      --
      "I'm a Genius!"*


      *Not an actual Genius
    2. Re:Headline is inaccurate by cayenne8 · · Score: 5, Insightful
      "It isn't that strange, state laws are anything but uniform."

      Nothing strange about it at all!! That's the way things are (supposed) to be set up. Rather than an all knowing all powerful federal govt. telling you what to do...the most power to make laws should be at the state and then local level. This is done in that state and local are more apt to serve their populations needs and wishes better. People living in NYC, and Tucson, AZ have vastly different needs and wishes due to climate, land mass, and culture of the people. You are a citizen of your state first, and then a citizen of the United States...

      It is great that way, in that if you don't like the laws and regulations where you live, you are free to move to a state that is more in line with your way of thinking. Wanna have medicinal pot easily? Move to CA. Things like that.

      Hehehe...if you think these laws are wide in variance....just look at liquor laws not only from state to state, but, from county to county (or parish to parish in LA)....those are the most fscked up things I've ever seen when traveling.

      But, what you observed isn't a bad thing or strange thing. The US was set up that way!!!

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    3. Re:Headline is inaccurate by davester666 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Well, who knows how many people they slapped these GPS trackers on. This article just refers to the one guy charged. It wouldn't surprise me if they slapped them on the vehicles of a bunch of "known offenders", and then charged the one whose vehicle movements roughly lined up with some crimes.

      It's the same as if the police searched all their homes without a warrant, and just arrested the guy where they found the stuff. The police wouldn't tell the judge they did mass searches, just that they did this one search without a warrant.

      Except the 50 other people may not know their vehicles had/has a GPS attached to it (whereas they probably would know if the police searched their house).

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
  2. What's the matter with these cops? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  3. Close, but no cigar by smooth+wombat · · Score: 5, Informative

    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
  4. Re:Stolen device has GPS? by C0vardeAn0nim0 · · Score: 5, Informative

    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 ?
  5. Re:That is a 1960's liberal mistake. by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  6. Re:Did he still steal stuff? by ricree · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.