Slashdot Mirror
Secret GPS Tracking Now Legal In Massachusetts
dr. fuzz writes "The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts has ruled in favor of John Law tracking you with secret GPS devices in Massachusetts provided a warrant is obtained. You've been warned. To the dissenters' credit, Justice Ralph Gants is quoted with 'Our constitutional analysis should focus on the privacy interest at risk from contemporaneous GPS monitoring, not simply the property interest.'"
I guess if its too much of a problem you could buy one of these things.... http://www.dealextreme.com/details.dx/sku.8758 at a little under 27 USD with no taxes and no shipping I imagine its cheaper then the tracking device.
To be fair, that's a lot better than in Wisconsin, where they use secret GPS devices to track you without a warrant.
Call me a troll, but I'd like to remind everyone that what W started, the O is continuing...
I won't call you a troll, but I'll remind you that neither Bush nor Obama had any hand in composing the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights, which spelled out what was considered unreasonable search and seizure. The appointing of Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court members is also completely independant of the Executive Branch.
0 = 1 + e^(Alt something)
The real problems happen when, as in the case of Professor Gates, police ignore the requirement for a warrant and just ram their way into homes/car where they don't belong. (Oh and no a phone call is not probable cause according to the supreme court.)
OK, I'm probably gonna lose karma for this, but...
According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Louis_Gates_arrest_incident (and yes I know how flawed Wikipedia can be, but it does seem to fit with what I remember in articles from the time and I don't feel like digging further), The police met Gates at his door and indicated that they were investigating a possible breaking and entering. When asked for ID, Gates entered his house AND LEFT HIS DOOR OPEN so the officer followed.
Now, IANAL, but if my memory serves from what I've read (and no, I don't want to look it up right now, I'm avoiding work and don't have much time...)
(1) Not officially requesting a warrant or explicitly requesting that the officer wait outside DOES give them permission to follow you into your house, especially if you leave the door open.
(2) If a crime is suspected to be in progress, a warrant is not required, though it might result in censure of the officer if they can't properly justify it later.
Now, a possible breaking and entering, a door with obvious damage, and a man who is leaving the officers sight because he "needs to get his ID" is suspicious enough that I suspect that point 2 would be enough.
As to who said what to whom and was it racial blah blah blah... I haven't commented on that. I'm only saying that the observable facts suggest that the officer had reasonable justification to proceed without a warrant, at least until identification was provided.
--
I drank what?
Actually, that is in dispute. She says that she responded to the clerk, turned the lights off and tried to calm down the clerk who was freaking out. The "clay" was a baked sculpture of a flower that she was carrying to give to the friend that she was meeting.
I'd say that calling the police over somebody with flashing lights, or a red hat, or a leather jacket (all of which have equal relevance to terrorism or bombs) constitutes flying into a panic.
Just to be clear, this was not a TSA checkpoint, or a secure area--it was a counter in the outer atrium, full of people with uninspected suitcases, any one of which could hold enough explosive to kill everybody in the room.