Massachusetts Police Can't Place GPS On Autos Without Warrant

pickens writes "The EFF reports that the Supreme Court of Massachusetts has held in Commonwealth v. Connolly that police may not place GPS tracking devices on cars without first getting a warrant, reasoning that the installation of the GPS device was a seizure of the suspect's vehicle. Search and seizure is a legal procedure used in many civil law and common law legal systems whereby police or other authorities and their agents, who suspect that a crime has been committed, do a search of a person's property and confiscate any relevant evidence to the crime. According to the decision, 'when an electronic surveillance device is installed in a motor vehicle, be it a beeper, radio transmitter, or GPS device, the government's control and use of the defendant's vehicle to track its movements interferes with the defendant's interest in the vehicle notwithstanding that he maintains possession of it.' Although the case only protects drivers in Massachusetts, another recent state court case, People v. Weaver in the State of New York, also held that because modern GPS devices are far more powerful than beepers, police must get a warrant to use the trackers, even on cars and people traveling the public roads."

Comments

What is very sad

[Moryath]

is that there had to be a case where the Police overstepped their authority, and did this without a warrant, before this question of law could be settled.

That's a definite flaw in our legal system: someone has to be abused (at least) once before the courts can rule.

Re:What is very sad

[sopssa]

It's only good that they need to get it. What's the problem anyway - if it's justified to put a GPS tracking device in the car, they get the warrant. This decreases the abuse from police where they would use those device's without a good reason.

Re:What is very sad

[j00r0m4nc3r]

Why is that sad? You expected the people who made the laws 100 years ago to predict the existence of a satellite-based global positioning system with modules small enough to be placed on a vehicle to track it anywhere on the planet? THOSE MORONS!

Re:What is very sad

[K. S. Kyosuke]

"That's a definite flaw in our legal system: someone has to be abused (at least) once before the courts can rule."

The judges are lazy! Sounds like living in legal Haskell...

Re:What is very sad

[bkpark]

is that there had to be a case where the Police overstepped their authority, and did this without a warrant, before this question of law could be settled.

That's a definite flaw in our legal system: someone has to be abused (at least) once before the courts can rule.

Um, no. That's the flaw in the common law system, but that flaw exists by definition, since the judges cannot rule on cases that have not been brought before them.

In America, though, nothing stopped the state legislators from passing a law explicitly saying that police may not surreptitiously place a tracker on a car before getting a warrant. They could have done that long before any police officer got it in their head to overstep their boundary.

But of course, they were---especially in Massachusetts---too busy taxing and spending their constituent's money to devote any time to protecting their fundamental rights. But make no mistake. It is not the system that has failed, it's the legislators that the people of Massachusetts elected that have failed.

Re:What is very sad

[kilfarsnar]

Good point. I have often thought this myself. We all can probably think of laws we think are unconstitutional. It would be good to be able to challenge those laws before someone's rights are violated.

Re:What is very sad

[Jurily]

Why is that sad? You expected the people who made the laws 100 years ago to predict the existence of a satellite-based global positioning system with modules small enough to be placed on a vehicle to track it anywhere on the planet? THOSE MORONS!

Note how the judge had to classify that "seizure" to ban it. If you need a new law, why not write a new law?

Re:What is very sad

[andymadigan]

It's sad that the police saw fit to abuse an area of the law that was ill-defined rather than following the logical procedure of getting a warrant.

Re:What is very sad

[x_MeRLiN_x]

You misunderstood the GP's post. He's expressing dismay that someone must overstep the mark, as ambiguous as it is, before proceedings can be brought and a judge can rule on whether the defendant acted unlawfully. What he's suggesting is that there ought to be a way for either the police, an independent body or perhaps an individual to identify ambiguous areas of law, that exist because of a changing world or otherwise, and seek clarification from a judge as to how the law should be interpreted.

Whether this is in fact impossible under the current system, or whether his proposal would be unworkable, I could not say.

Re:What is very sad

[TheRaven64]

In some countries, you can bring hypothetical cases to the courts for trial. This is particularly useful when you want to get a law overturned as being unconstitutional because, unlike the US system, you don't have to wait for someone to be harmed by the bad law. The US system has a nasty loophole here, where you can pass unconstitutional laws and have them classify people prosecuted under them as non-citizens. These people then don't have standing to bring a case before the supreme court to get the law overturned.

Re:What is very sad

[commodore64_love]

Judges are forced to do stuff like that, because the lazy legislators are not doing their job. As soon as this case hit the news, the legislators should have been passing laws or constitutional amendments that stated, "The People's movements shall not be tracked except when a warrant is issued by a judge."

Re:What is very sad

[Verdatum]

I agree with you that laws are preferable to bench legistation, but even if a law was instated, (unless I'm mistaken) the judge still would have to do the same thing, due to ex post facto issues.

Re:What is very sad

[Hotawa Hawk-eye]

So in other words, we need better QA for the "program" that is the US legal system. I'll agree with that.

Re:What is very sad

[slackbheep]

It's not sad that it took 14 years before a ruling was made on this? I'm all for not being bogged down with unnecessary laws, but who really thinks this is the first time GPS has been used like this?

Re:What is very sad

[Kjella]

Isn't that exactly what declaratory judgment is supposed to be?

Re:What is very sad

[Anonymous Coward]

Not so. The legislatures can make certain laws retroactive, it's just that criminalizing something is prohibited. There's nothing in the Constitution saying that the US Congress couldn't pass a law requiring warrants to have been issued, and even banning the evidenced collected without a warrant, if the police, for example, avoided getting a warrant because they knew they wouldn't get one. They could even blanket ban the evidence, though I think without the law being in place, some provision should be made for good-faith acts on the part of the police.

I don't know about all the states though.

Re:What is very sad

[locallyunscene]

In America, though, nothing stopped the state legislators from passing a law explicitly saying that police may not surreptitiously place a tracker on a car before getting a warrant. They could have done that long before any police officer got it in their head to overstep their boundary.

But of course, they were---especially in Massachusetts---too busy taxing and spending their constituent's money to devote any time to protecting their fundamental rights. But make no mistake. It is not the system that has failed, it's the legislators that the people of Massachusetts elected that have failed.

Nice troll. The law does specifically require a warrant. I'm rather upset that the police thought they could get away with it and wanted to test it. Just get the damn warrant! If your suspicions are sound you should be able to get it!

The ability of judges to relatively freely interpret laws as written is one of the checks and and balances in the system that has always amazed me. On one hand, it protects the people against bad laws. On the other it opens another avenue for abuse. I think it's better overall, but you end up with a very muddled law system.

This may be a bit out there, but I feel like the judiciary is a bit "unfinished". I think there needs to be better way for the judicial branch to recommend removal of and changes to laws to the legislative branch. Not force those recommendations mind you, just improve the process of refining laws.

Re:What is very sad

[Kjella]

If politicians had to listen to all hypotheticals, including all the batshit insane ones, they'd never find time to deal with reality. If it hasn't happened once in the entire history of the courts, it's probably not worth piling another law on top of an extremely long list already to deal with it unless it's a major new principle.

Re:What is very sad

[Rogerborg]

Just one of the many joys of living with a Constitution that sets limits on laws: laws are seen as being... advisory... until they are challenged and ultimately confirmed or struck on Constitutional grounds.

Re:What is very sad

[Ogive17]

I don't think it's a flaw that our system can adapt to new situations. Do you want to be the person who's locked away in a room writing new laws for millions of things that "could" happen?

Not that the system doesn't have it's flaws, but adaptability isn't one of them.

Re:What is very sad

[ta bu shi da yu]

Actually, I would have thought that the Fourth Amendment makes it somewhat doubtful that this can be done to a U.S. citizen at all. It states that:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The specificity requirement would tend to indicate that the one placing the GPS tracker specifies the place it will be used, which sort of defeats the purpose of placing the tracker in the first place.

Re:What is very sad

[misexistentialist]

It's more likely that the legislature would furiously work to circumvent judicial interference. Gotta be tough on crime!

Re:What is very sad

[Runaway1956]

Great, common sense wins for once. If the cops really need to track someone, they can still do so. It only takes a short period of time to ask a judge to sign a warrant. If a judge isn't willing to sign the warrant, then the cops have no case, simple as that. Lazy cops who would rather rely on technology instead of "police work" have no business being a cop.

Re:What is very sad

[hedge49]

We routinely volunteer our movements with the use of shoppers discount and debit/credit cards, RFID toll devices on our cars, turned on cellphones (and call logs), and voluntary presence in an increasingly 'on camera' landscape. Seems hard to believe that a GPS 'implant' is considered any more intrusive, except that its purpose is more explicitly for evidentiary information gathering. Mass and Houston police, who were recently prevented by public outcry from deploying 'Predator' type continuous surveillance drones over the city, are probably Googling the same searches...'network + camera + 1989 Volvo 145 + rusty red + driver in curlers + body in trashbags in rear'...

Re:What is very sad

[RiotingPacifist]

If the ruling went the other way it would be great, that the police saved time thier & courts getting warrants and spent more time stopping crime!
I think GP was looking for a way for people to make the area of the law well defined instead of pushing it and finding out what happened (often letting criminals go free, if they were wrong)

Re:What is very sad

[codegen]

Declaratory judgments require a case or controversy. An organization such as the EFF can't seek a declaratory judgement since they are not party to the controversy. What you are thinking of is an advisory opinion. We have it it Canada, but most US courts are not allowed to issue advisory opinions.

Re:What is very sad

[Archangel Michael]

Why should we have laws for new shit that nobody's thought before.

The government should be on a "DENY ALL, ALLOW FOO" type policy for ALL actions. If the government wants to do something "new" they should get permission before they do it. PERIOD.

In this case, the police should have had a policy for GPS tracking devices in place BEFORE the first one was deployed. Strict guidelines on when, how, and why they are used.

This is the problem with the shoot first, ask questions later mentality we tend to have in our government.

Re:What is very sad

[bkpark]

Nice troll. The law does specifically require a warrant. I'm rather upset that the police thought they could get away with it and wanted to test it. Just get the damn warrant! If your suspicions are sound you should be able to get it!

O.K. So I was wrong on that, and I guess I may be wrong on the next thing I am saying, as I am unfamiliar with this particular Massachusetts law, but what the law should have done is specify punishment (or at least require the police departments to come up with disciplinary procedure) if an officer tries to place a tracking device without warrant.

Requiring warrant with no negative consequences in the event of noncompliance (beyond being unable to use the evidence, which would have been the case anyway without warrant, with or without the tracking device) is nothing but weaseling out of the responsibility (by the legislators)---kinda like how some legislators keep claiming national health care will not cover undocumented aliens but continue to oppose any verification mechanisms.

Re:What is very sad

[causality]

I don't think it's a flaw that our system can adapt to new situations. Do you want to be the person who's locked away in a room writing new laws for millions of things that "could" happen? Not that the system doesn't have it's flaws, but adaptability isn't one of them.

I'm sorry but that's just silly. Do you really need a "person who's locked away in a room writing new laws for millions of things" before you can decide that hey, maybe we don't want the police to plant electronic devices on your property to track your every location at all times without a good reason, and that maybe getting a warrant is the standard way to show that there is a good reason? Seriously, how much foresight does that take?

For that matter ... Who has ever read the 4th Amendment and thinks that the authors of it would support this kind of warrantless surveillance of citizens? Do they imagine that the Founders would have said "no, we only mentioned papers and effects, so clearly finding a clever new technological way to warrentlessly surveil people who have not been charged with a crime is A-OK!" I'd like to meet these people, if only to see whether they really exist. No, really, in the media and on the Internet I see opinions that are this asinine and childish but I've never met a real living breathing person who actually felt that way.

Re:What is very sad

[hey!]

Err... That's the way the courts act. They don't make laws, they figure out how existing laws apply to new classes of situations.

The basic problem is that there is no right of information privacy in US law. In fact, the common law right of privacy didn't exist until Louis Brandeis wrote his famous law review article, and even *that* varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

Way back in 1973, HUD under Elliot Richardson undertook a study on the privacy effects of this new information technology. It was very prescient and insightful about the coming problem, but curiously anemic in its response, which has specific action items onlly for Federal agencies, even though it was clear from the report that they were only a tiny slice of the problem. Why? Because Richardson left HUD (where as a liberal Republican he'd been safely buried) and took over Justice after the Watergate "Saturday Night Massacre". His replacement: Caspar Weinberger, later Reagan's Defense Secretary.

The report's recommendation for the private sector: let the market take its course, and where problems arise that are unbearable, write new laws to patch that problem. That's been the basic stance of US statutory privacy law ever since. That's why we have HIPPAA, and a patchwork of *different* laws embodying *different* philosophies of privacy for each commercial sector, such as banking and credit. It's a mass of ad hoc patches passed whenever the political heat on some problem got too much to ignore. Unlike the European Union, we don't have a fundamental information privacy law. That's why the details of our private lives can be publicly traded.

One of the upshots of this is things we can *see* are *obviously* abuses have to be hashed out in the courts using circuitous reasoning. We have no legal *interest* in the details of our private lives, which are just another commodity. We have to do all kinds of intellectual gymnastics to fit specific acts into frameworks not designed to cover them, because we miss the fundamental interest we have in our privacy, what Brandeis called, "the right to be left alone." We have no such right in US statutory law.

Re:What is very sad

[jggimi]

...100 years ago...

As far as I know, the "Bill of Rights" was adopted September 25, 1789. If that's correct, then the period of time these amendments to the constitution have been effective would be 220 years, four days, not including today.

Re:What is very sad

[Abreu]

Someone better tell Spiderman... He's been doing this for ages

Re:What is very sad

[plague3106]

Sorry, none of those give at all the same level of detail as GPS. The GPS can tell where you (or, your car) is every second of the day. The fact that you were at the store at this time only really tells you that; the store doesn't know where you were prior, or after. The same with everything else in your list. Also, the more detailed tracking done in this case is by the government... far more menecing than any of your examples as well.

The government explicity doesn't have the right to monitor us continuously without a warrant. That's what being "secure in your person and possessions" means.

Re:What is very sad

[DavidTC]

You can describe a place without stating the location or address.

For example, if you think someone was the bank robber you're looking for, and hide the money, you can describe the place as 'the place the money is hidden'. That is what the warrant is trying to find.

It's essentially the same as how they do normal search warrants...they don't have to specify, for example, which murder weapon they're going to be looking for and seize. They just say they're looking for anything connected with that specific murder, including a weapon that is approximately X size and shape.

The fourth just means that warrants have to state what their purpose is and what the police intend to find. It doesn't mean they have to specify exactly what they will find and where.

And before asking 'how vague is allowed', well, that's essentially up to the judge, who do have rules and guidelines they follow when issuing warrants.

It sounds extremely silly and pointless when stated, but the point is that it go before a judge with that information on it is the actual check, not that it 'have the information' at all.

Judges tend to let police trade off broadness...i.e, if you want a wide net that lets you seize a lot of stuff, you have to specify a small location. The ultimate example being the area of a crime scene, which police can search with no stated items being looked for, although that's not actually via a 'warrant'.

Likewise, if you want to search all of someone's house, you damn well better have some sort of specific thing you're looking for, and not just general evidence. And you can't look where that thing can't be found...if you're looking for a crowbar, you can't look inside a file folder.

I don't know what the rules or standards are going to be for GPS trackers. The argument before was that you had no expectation of privacy of where you drove, because people could follow you. But the courts apparently realized that, in the real world, you can actually detect when people follow you, so you do have an expectation when you know they aren't.

Re:What is very sad

[Chelloveck]

I'm pretty sure that even when the Bill of Rights was written, courts would have considered a vehicle (say, a carriage or boat) to be a "place to be searched" for the purposes of issuing a warrant. Even if the vehicle is in motion, "Bob's carriage" or "the good ship Lollipop" describes a particular place to be searched.

Re:What is very sad

[plague3106]

I believe judges can't comment on how they'd interperate beforehand because that would been see as writing the law.. effectively changing what the leglistlate said (or failed to say). Also, while a lower court may interperate the law one way, that doesn't mean a higher court (or even another judge at the same level) won't disagree... so it'd also be a waste of time.

Re:What is very sad

[locallyunscene]

FWIW, I agree there should be consequences. I don't know warrant law, so I don't know what consequences for failing to acquire a warrant there are now.

Also I apologize for calling you a troll. It would be easy to assume the worst with these kinds of laws, especially given the headline and the types of laws and rulings that usually make their way to /. My mistake was assuming you had known about the other recent article.

Re:What is very sad

[ta bu shi da yu]

Well... given that roving wiretaps are so controversial in the Patriot Act, I'm not convinced of this. A lot of people seem to think otherwise!

Re:What is very sad

[Sloppy]

You expected the people who made the laws 100 years ago to predict the existence of a satellite-based global positioning system with modules small enough to be placed on a vehicle to track it anywhere on the planet?

Read the post that you're replying to, troll. He expected the people who made the laws 200 years ago to know that governments sometimes enact laws that conflict with their constitution, and therefore there should be a way to challenge new laws before a specific victim exists.

Re:What is very sad

[bkpark]

If politicians had to listen to all hypotheticals, including all the batshit insane ones, they'd never find time to deal with reality. If it hasn't happened once in the entire history of the courts, it's probably not worth piling another law on top of an extremely long list already to deal with it unless it's a major new principle.

That's what some of the founding fathers who were opposed to the Bill of Rights said too. They thought it was unthinkable that anything in the Constitution implied that such fundamental rights as right to free speech, association, and the right to defend oneself could be abridged by the state.

But, a good number of them, including James Madison, had better foresight and included explicit protection of those natural rights into the Constitution by the first 10 amendments. Can you say that you are sorry that they had those written into the written law of the land?

It is incumbent upon the lawmakers to guard against the worst case scenarios---especially with the abuse of the state power---as best as they can. I do understand the potential problem with complicating the code, but given the kind of laws they enact---complicating the criminal and civil code in the service of state power and to the encroachment into individual liberties---I don't think that's why they didn't consider these "hypothetical" abuses of power by the authorities and prevent them.

Re:What is very sad

[Anonymous Coward]

It's sad that the police saw fit to abuse an area of the law that was ill-defined rather than following the logical procedure of getting a warrant.

This is standard operating procedure these days, and that is exactly the problem with the police in our country. Instead of finding ways to do police work within the framework of laws, they look for loopholes that allow them to skirt around the restrictions that have been specifically placed upon them.

It really comes down to an ethical and moral issue, but sadly those areas are not a prime requisite for becoming a police officer. Just because you CAN does not necessarily mean you SHOULD.

Or in other words, if the police have enough suspicion to go to the effort of tracking with a GPS device, yet don't have enough evidence to get a warrant, then they should get off their lazy asses and just follow the damn car.

Re:What is very sad

[Atanamis]

On the other hand, if nobody is being abused why would we NEED a court to make a finding on the case? Does it matter whether it is legal for police officers to throw chickens at suspects if none ever has? What is more, the court finding was that it was never legal to place the GPS units without a warrant, meaning that even though the court had never ruled on it previously the behavior should already have been avoided by those familiar with existing law and precedent. In fact, in any case where we DO want to make a law against something nobody has done, we can do so using the legislative system rather than the court system. That way if you want to pass a law banning police officers throwing chickens in the direction of suspects, you can do so even if no police officer has ever considered taking that action.

Re:What is very sad

[Dragonslicer]

I think you misunderstood. The complaint is that placing tracking devices without a warrant couldn't be prohibited as unconstitutional until someone has such a tracking device placed and challenges the police's authority to have done it. The courts can't say that something is unconstitutional on their own, but can only decide on a case with someone claiming that something that was done to them (and never something that might be or will be done to them) is unconstitutional. The decision is good, but it's unfortunate that it had to happen to someone before the decision could be made.

Re:What is very sad

[PitaBred]

And then their opponent would come out with ads saying that the candidate trying to protect our rights really just hates children, and wants to prevent the police from being able to track pedophiles.

Politicians by and large don't stand up for what's right because if they did, they'd get voted out of office by the mouth-breathing, uninformed "think of the children!" twits that are unfortunately a majority of voters.

Re:What is very sad

[Dragonslicer]

Great, common sense wins for once. If the cops really need to track someone, they can still do so. It only takes a short period of time to ask a judge to sign a warrant. If a judge isn't willing to sign the warrant, then the cops have no case, simple as that. Lazy cops who would rather rely on technology instead of "police work" have no business being a cop.

And most of the time, judges will grant retroactive warrants. If time is an issue, you can plant the tracking device when you find that you have the opportunity to get to the suspect's car at 10:00 a.m., then go to the court after lunch to get the warrant for it. The ease of getting a warrant is what bothers me the most about doing anything without one.

Re:What is very sad

[fhuglegads]

Giving that information knowingly is very different than having the police obtain information about you without your knowledge by physically altering your private property.

Re:What is very sad

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Well... given that roving wiretaps are so controversial in the Patriot Act, I'm not convinced of this. A lot of people seem to think otherwise!

You are joking, right?

The wiretaps are roving, not the phones being tapped.

The roving wiretaps are not affixed to any physical place at all. In no way, shape or form could one reasonably argue that the pay phone at the shopping mall and the phone in my house 50 miles away are the same place.

Re:What is very sad

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Whether this is in fact impossible under the current system, or whether his proposal would be unworkable, I could not say.

I believe that one must have "standing" in order to bring suit and without a real or at least expected infringement on oneself, one does not have standing and will be dismissed. I don't think anyone is going to try to claim, "I commit crimes, so sooner or later the cops might try to track me" and "I'm a law-abiding citizen, so sooner or later the cops might try to track me" isn't plausible enough, yet, in this society...

Re:What is very sad

[mcgrew]

What is very sad is that so many illiterates have logged into slashdot today. I've been ignoring it all day, damn it, but I've got the flu and I'm cranky. Are you in the second grade or something?

This decreases the abuse from police where they would use those device's without a good reason.

Soppsa (and the other illiterates here), meet Bob. Terry Pratchett also had fun with you bozos in Going Postal, which I'm about to do today. Please explain why you think that apostrophe belongs there? It's annoying as hell.

Sorry about the rant, but illiteracy in a supposedly nerd site is annoying, and like I said, I've seen way too much of it today. Log off the computer and read a book, woudja?

Re:What is very sad

[jgoemat]

What I thought was interesting about the article was that it equated the placement of a GPS device with a seizure of the vehicle since it interfered with the driver's interest in the vehicle and not a search...

Re:What is very sad

[jgoemat]

As soon as this case hit the news, the legislators should have been passing laws or constitutional amendments that stated, "The People's movements shall not be tracked except when a warrant is issued by a judge."

That would severely restrict investigations by the police. Police can currently stake out or follow someone to find out where they're going, they just can't use an automated device without a warrant. Written like you say, the police couldn't even ask someone at the crime scene who was there because that would be 'tracking' them.

The privacy concerns if police were allowed to track anyone without warrant or even reason are astounding. I'm sure they would love it if they could stick cheap RFID tags on vehicles without people knowing and install monitors on all traffic lights. They could gather all the data and issue automatic speeding tickets based solely on how much time it took your RFID tag to go between two detectors. They could bring anyone that drove by a store that was robbed in for questioning even though they didn't do anything...

Re:What is very sad

[lenehey]

It's not a flaw of the courts, it's a flaw of the legislature, which means it's a flaw of the people elected into office, which means it's a flaw of the electorate, for voting these people into office, which means, ultimately, its OUR fault.

Re:What is very sad

[Vohar]

Maybe this varies by state, but as someone who works in a 'related field' I can tell you this is wrong in several states, at least. Warrants are required to be very specific when it comes to which house is to be searched. I've seen cases where that meant a street address, and cases where that involved a detailed description of the house itself: Second house on x street from y street, with off-white paint and pale blue shutters.

I saw an example like the one above result in a failed raid, because the house in question had pale green shutters or something instead. Police were pretty sure they had the right house, but since the description didn't match exactly they had to stop the operation.

So no, "the place the money is hidden" won't fly for a search warrant.

Re:What is very sad

[Jane Q. Public]

Not only what the other poster said, but who you callin' "we"?

My shopper's discount cards all contain false information, as do my signups on websites. I wouldn't touch an RFID with a 10-foot pole. My telephone does not have tracking capability except for triangulation, and it is illegal in my state to triangulate anyway except for emergencies or with a warrant. Police officers here can, and have been, charged and convicted for breaking the privacy rules surrounding citizens' information. One police officer in my town was fired, charged, and convicted for using police facilities to look up information on his new girlfriend.

And according to recent reports, more than a million surveillance cameras in London have not slowed crime. The best estimate is that one "crime" has been solved per 1000 police cameras, and it is unclear whether those crimes would have been solved anyway. In any case, crime in London has not decreased at all; it has increased.

Re:What is very sad

[ta bu shi da yu]

You have heard of this technology called the cellular network, right? It involves phones you can carry around with that don't used fixed lines.

Re:What is very sad

[ta bu shi da yu]

+1 funny? What crack is that mod smoking?

Re:What is very sad

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

You have heard of this technology called the cellular network, right? It involves phones you can carry around with that don't used fixed lines.

You seem to be ignorant of the definition of a "roving wiretap."
I suggest you look it up before embarrassing yourself any further.

Re:What is very sad

[smithmc]

That's a definite flaw in our legal system: someone has to be abused (at least) once before the courts can rule.

But the courts are not the only avenue. If people felt strongly enough about it, they could have tried to get a bill together in the MA legislature.

Besides, how much free time do you think the courts have? Aren't they spending their time hearing actual cases? When are they supposed to find the time to think about legal issues that might arise in the future?

Re:What is very sad

[DavidTC]

Like I said, you can trade off on broadness.

WRT to GPS trackers, they will just get less specific about the place, and more specific about what they are looking for.

Looking for a single paper out of hundreds is very privacy infringing if they have to go through all of them.

Looking for a location that someone goes, and is seen going to, is not very privacy infringing at all. It's privacy infringing enough to now require a warrant, but still not very.

And, incidentally, a lot of the specificity of the address doesn't have anything to do with the fourth amendment rights of the person being search, and is more related to making sure they're searching the correct house, simply because all too often police have made very very stupid mistakes. Likewise, I imagine the courts will require the car to be specified as exactly.

Re:What is very sad

[commodore64_love]

>>>>That would severely restrict investigations by the police.

Good! The group called "the police" are FAR scarier than any imaginary terrorist. Just check out these videos for yourself:

- unlawful search of innocent driver http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2ZV_kQh048 [youtube.com]

- unlawful arrest of Professor Gates http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n15KsSLQhBg [youtube.com]

- beating of an innocent pastor by police. His story http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUzd7G875Hc [youtube.com]
- Actual video of beating http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jgejD6c-9YA [youtube.com]

- unknown person getting beaten http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZrVbWYyfOMI [youtube.com]

- guy has already surrendered, but the cps start kicking him in the head http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vd5yrq2QB-g [youtube.com]

I could go on and on and on with vide-after-video, but instead I'll share my own personal story: I was on a VACATION doing a crosscountry trip from California to D.C. when I got stopped in Texas. I was nowhere near a border but for some reason the border patrol stopped me and demanded to see inside my trunk. I asked for a warrant and they said they had none. They asked me to step out of my car, and made me stand for an HOUR in the cold night air while they kept demanding to see inside my trunk. They did a visual search of my driver seat, passenger seat, and rear seat, but kept insisting they want to see inside my trunk. Finally they said, "You're not going to let us see your trunk?" And I said "not without a warrant... no." They then ordered me to get in the car and drive off.

What. The. Hell. Are we no longer allowed to enjoy a simple vacation without getting harassed by the Yakuza...oops I mean the Gestapo... oops I mean the U.S Feds???
--

Re:What is very sad

[ta bu shi da yu]

Please feel free to enlighten me.

Re:What is very sad

[ta bu shi da yu]

I've just reread what you are writing, and I'm not sure where you are disagreeing with me. A roving wiretap indeed follows the target, who moves from location to location. That's my understanding. I'm sorry you are feeling aggressive, incidentally, perhaps my comment further down made things worse, I'm not sure. But chill man.

Re:What is very sad

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

A roving wiretap indeed follows the target, who moves from location to location.

A roving wiretap does not follow the target.

The term "roving wiretap" is shorthand for a set of individual taps on multiple phones in series in an attempt to tap whatever phone the target is using at that point in time without a warrant specifically naming which phones will be tapped.

Comparing that to the gps tracker on a single car is misguided, a more correct analogy would be the emplacement and removal of gps trackers on any vehicle the target uses as he boards and disembarks each vehicle.

Re:What is very sad

[cemulli]

I'm rather upset that the police thought they could get away with it and wanted to test it. Just get the damn warrant! If your suspicions are sound you should be able to get it!

.............

This may be a bit out there, but I feel like the judiciary is a bit "unfinished". I think there needs to be better way for the judicial branch to recommend removal of and changes to laws to the legislative branch. Not force those recommendations mind you, just improve the process of refining laws.

As to the first, it requires probable cause, not just sound suspicions. On a sliding scale, probable cause requires more than "reasonable belief" (which sounds similar to "sound suspicions") but requires less than "more likely than not." Am I playing a BS semantic game? Quite possibly. But this is exactly the analysis that the courts use when they're trying to find if there was probable cause. No warrant shall issue, but upon finding of probable cause... This is the standard that the courts apply, and that is the sliding scale that the courts use. And I know that Massachusetts would at least require probable cause for a warrant in this instance, because states cannot reduce the protections of the 4th amendment, they can only strengthen them.

As to the second, I'm a judicial activist myself, but there are still other concerns. They have the power to interpret laws (Marbury v. Madison), and this is a big deal. But federal judges are prohibited from making advisory opinions. There has to be a current case and controversy, period. It is against the federal constitution for federal judges (even at the Supreme Court) to say to Congress "Hey guys, um, you might wanna look at this, it looks unconstitutional and problematic." The legislature is proactive, the courts are reactive. However, some state courts may have the power to issue advisory opinions, but that will really depend on the state that you're in. But generally, because of the nature of the courts, they really are restricted to cases and controversies that have already resulted from injuries to individuals or groups. The less activist among the judiciary are likely to wind up with a controversial hot button topic and immediately say "It's not our place to make public policy. Legislature, you take care of this" and punt it back to the legislative branch. Which is, of course, one of the most effective things you can do to paralyze action on a topic, since passing legislation at any level tends to be a very complicated and unwieldy process.

Re:What is very sad

[Ogive17]

Considering it hadn't been thought of before, I guess it takes more foresight than you're willing to admit.

Face it, most laws are reactions to a specific event. People are always wanting to push the boundries... sometimes the laws exist but need to be updated. You just don't know that it's outdated until someone abuses it.

Re:What is very sad

[iamangry]

Except the legislators want "The People's movements" to be tracked.

Re:What is very sad

[ta bu shi da yu]

Just so we are clear, can you tell me where you are getting this information from? I've looked through chapter 119 of title 18 of the U.S. code and I can't see this, but I may have missed something.

Re:What is very sad

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Just so we are clear, can you tell me where you are getting this information from?

Common sense. You appear to believe that either a person is somehow physically 'tapped' or that a tap on a single phone number that happens to be a cell phone instead of a landline qualifies as a roving wiretap. Either interpretation is just utterly bizarre and nonsensical.

If you really can't find confirmation of what a roving wiretap is with google and wikipedia then I doubt anything that I could show you would convince you either.

Re:What is very sad

[DRACO-]

Judges don't exactly make law, they just interpret. Case law is historical presentations of past interpretations.

Judges are like pastors leading their church, interpreting the bible written by someone else entirely. Judges/pastors didn't write it, but they have to figure out what it means.

Re:What is very sad

[ta bu shi da yu]

I stand corrected.

Scary.

[Drunken Buddhist]

"Your tracking device appears to have malfunctioned, citizen."

(or)

Seems that Inspector Gadget will have to figure out a new way to track the bad guy back to his lair.

Free to drive

[davidwr]

You are now free to drive around the Commonwealth.

With apologies to Southwest Airlines.

TERRORISM!!

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

There are terrorists, pedophiles and drug dealers out there. Any arguments for civil liberties and the rule of law are automatically invalid!

Re:TERRORISM!!

[davidwr]

First they came for the bomb-making kiddie-loving drug-dealers ....

Re:TERRORISM!!

[MiniMike]

What about the civil liberties OF THE CHILDREN!?!?!?!?

Re:TERRORISM!!

[L4t3r4lu5]

andnothingofvaluewaslost

Re:TERRORISM!!

[Anonymous Coward]

... and then they came for L4t3r4lu5.

Re:TERRORISM!!

[Nadaka]

silly rabbit. Civil liberties are not for kids.

Really. Just take one look at the average school board handing out restrictions left and right to children.
Thou shalt wear the uniform approved by the state, thou shalt not disrupt class by having the wrong color hair.
Thou shalt not express wear the any symbol of a faith other than our own (crosses are ok, pentagrams, jewish and islamic symbols are not).
Thou shalt not question our authority to suppress you beneath our jack booted thugs.
Thou shalt not have tattoos or piercings, thou shalt not be gay, etc.

Children have no rights and no real representation, yet when they do work they are taxed, when they spend money they are taxed (in locations with sales tax).
Yet they can not vote, nor can they legally protest. This bothered me when I was young, and it still bothers me now that I am old.
Unfortunately I have no answers, no solutions.
Allowing young workers and buyers to go tax free would inevitably be exploited.
Allowing the vote is not a good idea due to their lack of knowledge and critical thinking (though the same could be said for many adults).

Re:TERRORISM!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Any intelligent bad guy is just going to have a GPS blocker permanently installed in their car.

Re:TERRORISM!!

[steelfood]

And filesharers. Don't forget the filesharers!

And they're all linked by an intricate network of tubes, which are getting clogged up.

Re:TERRORISM!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately I have no answers, no solutions.

I have a solution. it's very simple. Remove all taxes and remove the state

Re:TERRORISM!!

[jimbolauski]

Children's income tax is applied to the parents who are legally accountable for them so it's the parents who are taxed. Children are basically property of their parents until they turn 18 any money they make is their parents and the parents are liable for their shenanigans too.

Right against self-incrimination

[EmagGeek]

You cannot be forced to provide testimony or evidence against yourself. By tracking your vehicle, the state is forcing you to disclose your location at all times against your will, which is also a violation of the 5th.

This is the same reason why you cannot be forced to reveal the encryption keys on your computer by your own will.

Re:Right against self-incrimination

[nomadic]

You cannot be forced to provide testimony or evidence against yourself. By tracking your vehicle, the state is forcing you to disclose your location at all times against your will, which is also a violation of the 5th.

That doesn't sound right; by that logic wiretapping would never be allowed because the defendant may incriminate himself against his will.

Re:Right against self-incrimination

[Anonymous Coward]

That doesn't sound right; by that logic wiretapping would never be allowed because the defendant may incriminate himself against his will.

But the difference with a wiretap a warrant is required and the wiretap is only active for a set period of time. Plus it is managed by the phone company who has a legal obligation to remove the tap if the warrant expires. The police can not set a tap on your phone on their own. Plus, how do they know the person driving the vehicle is the person they are tracking?

Re:Right against self-incrimination

[Anonymous Coward]

I dont think this was reppelled on the base of the 5th. Notice that a judge CAN auhtorize this tracking, while he cannot force you to testify against yourself (or give your encryption keys).

This has more to do with the recognition that tracking your position is as intrusive as wiretapping you, which sounds reasonnable.

As for passwords/5th amendment, I think we need to state in the constitution that whatever happens inside your brain is off-limit. This might sound science-fictionesque, but if a lighter version of an MRI is ever created, I wouldnt want it used as a routine test for terrorist intent or whatever (see automatical "evel intent" detection by cameras in airports/planes).

Re:Right against self-incrimination

[nomadic]

But the difference with a wiretap a warrant is required

The point of the story is that now you need a warrant to put in a GPS unit.

Plus it is managed by the phone company who has a legal obligation to remove the tap if the warrant expires.

Not necessarily true, you can tap a phone with a device that transmits directly to the police via radio waves.

Plus, how do they know the person driving the vehicle is the person they are tracking?

When the phone is first answered you don't know who picked it up either; in both cases the police are monitoring a technical device.

My point is just that self-incrimination is not really implicated here.

Re:Right against self-incrimination

[bdenton42]

This is the same reason why you cannot be forced to reveal the encryption keys on your computer by your own will.

Yes, but would you really want to put it to the test? http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/07/15/120220. That guy is still in jail to this day.

Re:Right against self-incrimination

[Kjella]

What nonsense. You can refuse answering questions or giving evidence, but the police can observe your actions without warrant where possible and with warrant where necessary. If that reveals your crimes that's fair game, the 5th amendment doesn't apply unless you've been asked or instructed to provide something. It is then your right to refuse.

Re:Right against self-incrimination

[Dare nMc]

I like your interpretation better, unfortunately that's not the common interpretation. People are required to turn over evidence against themselves all the time. Evidence of where you have been, what you did/said/bought is all fair game (with just cause.) Heck if you recorded yourself, and the prosecutor hears about it you can be forced to turn that over. Your not even allowed to destroy it if you know it is evidence in a on going case. You are not required to tell anyone about the GPS/tapes/purchases... that you know about because of the 5th, and your not required to take the stand (and the prosecution is not allowed to use the fact you won't testify either.) But any actions you take can be used against you.

Re:Right against self-incrimination

[Full Linux Alchemist]

The point of the story is that now you need a warrant to put in a GPS unit.

You say it like its a bad thing ;-)

Not necessarily true, you can tap a phone with a device that transmits directly to the police via radio waves.

When the phone is first answered you don't know who picked it up either; in both cases the police are monitoring a technical device.

Law enforcement can only admit evidence that is within the scope of the warrant. Anything that is outside of the scope gets discarded. The helps prevent fishing expeditions by law enforcement. On a aside, what happens if I find one of these on my car? I think it would be funny to put it on another police car and let them track that. Another thought, if no warrant is required what stops citizens from GPS'ing police cars?

My point is just that self-incrimination is not really implicated here.

I'm not arguing that police shouldn't use this technology but whats really wrong with a warrant. If they have probable cause, they will get the warrant. Plus there are judges on standby all hours for emergency orders. Idk why it is such a hassle, probable cause is a really low bar to jump over.

Re:Right against self-incrimination

[DavidTC]

You can't be required to self-incriminate yourself with a warrant, either, you loon. Your entire analogy is stupid...you aren't disclosing your location, a police device is.

It's like arguing that mug shots are self-incrimination, because 'you' are disclosing what you look like. No, you look like something, and you are at a specific location, either of which anyone can plainly see, and the police have recorded those things as evidence.

Now, the courts have held that tracking you in secret is like tape recording you in secret, which needs a warrant. This is entirely logical. If there are no obvious people there who could hear you, you have an expectation of privacy of what you say, despite you being 'in public'. If you deliberately lose people who are following your vehicle, or made sure no one is in the first place, you have an expectation of privacy in your location, despite you being 'in public'.

And with that expectation of privacy is the requirement that the government get a warrant to overcome it.

But has nothing at all to do with self-incrimination.

Re:Right against self-incrimination

[nomadic]

I don't think we're disagreeing here, I was just pointing out that the whole GPS tracking thing really doesn't have anything to do with self-incrimination, it's search and seizure.

Re:Right against self-incrimination

[Anonymous Coward]

Then why is drug testing legal?

Re:Right against self-incrimination

[CohibaVancouver]

By tracking your vehicle, the state is forcing you to disclose your location at all times against your will, which is also a violation of the 5th.

There are two ways the state can track your vehicle, resulting in the 'disclosure of your location at all times against your will' -

1) Surreptitiously follow you around, photographing where you're going and taking notes. This is how it was done previously, and didn't require a warrant. Often subjects would be tracked night and day, without their knowledge. Ever heard of a 'stakeout'?

2) Use a GPS tracking device

What's the difference, other than less resources required?

Re:Right against self-incrimination

[steelfood]

You can't be forced to turn it over. Everybody else around you can be subpoenaed for information, and your possessions can be siezed as the police come upon them, but if you have papers in a hole ten feet under the ground in a plot of forest somewhere, you can't be forced to reveal the location of that hole.

Re:Right against self-incrimination

[kthejoker]

Or even better, by this logic someone else witnessing the crime wouldn't be allowed because the actual act of committing the crime is a form of self-incrimination if someone observes you doing it without your permission.

And the point goes to the criminals

[BadAnalogyGuy]

The idea that somehow installing a tracking device interferes with the owner's use of the vehicle is preposterous. It is even more preposterous to make that claim if the owner has no knowledge of the installation of the device.

Neither is this a matter of illegal search and seizure, as the movements of a car can be tracked directly by having a car follow it everywhere. The tracking device does nothing more than make this an automated task.

The courts are wrong here and it does nothing but empower criminals and reduce the avenues of justice for the average citizen. This type of weakening of police powers is precisely why groups like the Yakuza are able to get away with so much in Japan. By skirting the very edges of the law, they are able to remain untouchable while those they terrorize are very likely to overstep their legal bounds due to the inability of the police to successfully remove the true criminals.

I don't support the EFF because I don't support this type of pseudo-YRO type of knee-jerk ideology. Pure ideology is fine, but when it runs afoul of reality it must bend.

Re:And the point goes to the criminals

[Anonymous Coward]

Your a fucking idiot, sorry to break it to you. The police still have the power to do what they need to get done and can place gps units on suspects cars. What they can not do is do it WITHOUT A WARRANT. What's that? It sounded like a piece of paper was being thrown in the shredder, man I used to remember what it was called, started with a c something.. oh well hey look American idol is on!

Re:And the point goes to the criminals

[nomadic]

This type of weakening of police powers is precisely why groups like the Yakuza are able to get away with so much in Japan.

Gojira, too.

Re:And the point goes to the criminals

[EastCoastSurfer]

So you think it's okay to just put GPS tracking devices in each person? The device would do nothing more than automate following each everywhere. The device could be put it at birth and the owner may never had any knowledge of it.

Stuff like this would make it real easy to round up those people who don't quite agree with the current government.

Re:And the point goes to the criminals

[ShadowRangerRIT]

Sufficient quantitative differences can become qualitative ones. If a police officer is required to take time out of his day to tail a car, then it will likely be for a good reason; they simply don't have the manpower to tail people without cause. If they can just slap a GPS tracker on any car without a warrant, it becomes trivial to troll for suspects. Requiring a warrant is perfectly reasonable: If they have probable cause, they can ask a judge for a warrant. They can still install the device secretly, so the suspect isn't aware of it, but there is some level of oversight. If police aren't constrained, they *will* overstep their bounds, because their goal is to catch lawbreakers, not protect rights. It's not maliciousness (in most cases), they just prioritize law enforcement. We have judges, theoretically, to act as a check on that power, to ensure that the pursuit of lawbreakers does not unduly affect the innocent. Requiring a warrant is a perfectly reasonable way to do this.

Re:And the point goes to the criminals

[axl917]

It does nothing of the sort, stop being such a drama queen. If law enforcement has a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, then they present evidence to a judge who can the issue a warrant. If they wish to search your house or tail your car, it is all the same thing.

Checks and balances. Read up on it sometime.

Re:And the point goes to the criminals

[Thornburg]

Neither is this a matter of illegal search and seizure, as the movements of a car can be tracked directly by having a car follow it everywhere. The tracking device does nothing more than make this an automated task.

You're wrong. If the cops are following someone's car--on suspician, no one is in imminent danger and they are not aware of a specific crime having been committed--and then the car goes onto private property (say, a large estate with miles of road on it), the police can't keep following the vehicle without either a warrant or probable cause. If they put a GPS tag on the vehicle, they can track it wherever it goes, public or private. This constitutes an illegal invasion of private property.

Suppose that Lockheed becomes successful in selling their flying camera drones (these things are relatively small) to police departments. Do you want the police flying a camera around your property without your permission? How about inside your home?

Allowing GPS tracking without warrant or probably cause is the first step to allowing the police to monitor everything every person does at all times.

Re:And the point goes to the criminals

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

The idea that somehow installing a tracking device interferes with the owner's use of the vehicle is preposterous. It is even more preposterous to make that claim if the owner has no knowledge of the installation of the device.

Precisely. For example, it's clear that a concealed spy camera, placed discretely in people's living rooms or bedrooms can have no effect on their normal behavior or use of these rooms. So, it's clear that no one should need warrants to install such devices. To enforce such a debilitating requirement would give "empower" criminal citizens to do as they please within the privacy of their own homes. Clearly, an unjust and unfair outcome.

Re:And the point goes to the criminals

[kilfarsnar]

Suspects. The word is suspects. You cannot assume that the people being tracked are criminals. Besides, the ruling states that a warrant must be obtained, not that the police can't track cars with GPS. It provides valuable oversight on a police power that can easily be abused. I live in Massachusetts and this ruling actually makes me feel safer.

Re:And the point goes to the criminals

[Anonymous Coward]

Waah, the police have to use proper procedure and get a warrant before finding out my travel patterns. OMG its the end of civilization and the country is going to be overrun by criminals now. Because warrants are so hard to obtain if the police have a reasonable need to track a vehicles movements.

If they have a reason to track somebody, let them present it to a judge and get a signature on a piece of paper allowing it.

Re:And the point goes to the criminals

[olsmeister]

Sometimes I think people such as yourself would stand in line to give up your freedoms if you could. Your post is wrong in several ways.

Neither is this a matter of illegal search and seizure, as the movements of a car can be tracked directly by having a car follow it everywhere. The tracking device does nothing more than make this an automated task.

You cannot follow them onto private property without some type of warrant. It's not the same.

This type of weakening of police powers

It's not weakening anything. It's a clarification of the boundaries. They shouldn't have been able to do it to start with.

By skirting the very edges of the law

Then change the law. Don't legislate from the bench.

Re:And the point goes to the criminals

[nomadic]

Sometimes I think people such as yourself would stand in line to give up your freedoms if you could. Your post is wrong in several ways.

He's trolling...well, more subtle than trolling, he just likes to be so tongue in cheek that you're never sure if he's serious. You have to look at other posts of his to realize he's just trying to get a rise out of people.

Re:And the point goes to the criminals

[Rogerborg]

I agree! Also, we should be able, without warrant, to put trackers on all police cars, and local, State and Federal legislators'. And yours.

It's OK; if you don't commit any crimes - or go near any, or have your vehicle stolen or borrowed, or are accidentally misidentified through a flaw in the flawless system - then you have nothing whatever to worry about.

Fair enough?

Re:And the point goes to the criminals

[MirthScout]

The court did NOT rule that it interfered with the owners use of the vehicle as you claim.
The ruling is that the police tampering with the vehicle interferes with the owner's interest in the vehicle. In my opinion, this makes perfect sense because any interference with the owners interests in the property lessens the owners degree of ownership (control) of the property. It is in fact a partial seizure of that property.

Logically and from what I've read of the ruling so far, the fact that this case involved a GPS tracking device or that tracking was done seems to be irrelevant to the ruling. It is the mere fact that the vehicle was tampered with by someone other than the owner and without the owners permission (or a warrent which would be permission of the court) that is the real point. The ruling would, and should, be the same if the police had attached a small empty cardboard box to the car.

Re:And the point goes to the criminals

[BadAnalogyGuy]

Does this mean that the chalk mark the meter maids put on my tire are also outlawed? Because I could support that.

Re:And the point goes to the criminals

[commodore64_love]

>>>>>This type of weakening of police powers... groups like Yakuza

As scary as those types of groups (like KKK) may be, the group called "the police" are FAR scarier. Just check out these videos for yourself:
- unlawful search of innocent driver http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2ZV_kQh048

- unlawful arrest of Professor Gates http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n15KsSLQhBg

- eating of an innocent pastor by police. His story http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUzd7G875Hc
- Actual video of beating http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jgejD6c-9YA

- unknown person getting beaten http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZrVbWYyfOMI

- guy has already surrendered, but the cps start kicking him in the head http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vd5yrq2QB-g

- I could go on and on and on with vide-after-video, but instead I'll share my own personal story:

I was on a VACATION doing a crosscountry trip from California to D.C. when I got stopped in Texas. I was nowhere near a border but for some reason the border patrol stopped me and demanded to see inside my trunk. I asked for a warrant and they said they had none. They asked me to step out of my car, and made me stand for an HOUR in the cold night air while they kept demanding to see inside my trunk. They did a visual search of my driver seat, passenger seat, and rear seat, but kept insisting they want to see inside my trunk. Finally they said, "You're not going to let us see your trunk?" And I said "not without a warrant... no." They then ordered me to get in the car and drive off.

What. The. Hell. Are we no longer allowed to enjoy a simple vacation without getting harassed by the Yakuza...oops I mean the Gestapo... oops I mean the U.S Feds???

Re:And the point goes to the criminals

[RiotingPacifist]

You cannot follow them onto private property without some type of warrant. It's not the same.

Couldn't all data collected on private land require a warrant to be admissible in court? I mean I see your point, but it seams like this ruling will just result in wasting of police time following people round when a GPS tracker could do that for them, limiting the effectiveness of the automated gadget to that of the manual method would achieve the same thing. While a car would not be able to track them, what would the legal standing of a helicopter or UAV following them on private property be?

Re:And the point goes to the criminals

[RiotingPacifist]

They don't need a warrant to track you, they can just follow you the low-tech way, this ruling just results in more police time being wasted tailing suspects!

Re:And the point goes to the criminals

[xednieht]

The founding fathers were criminals in the eyes of the British. The courts in this case are correct. It's not about ideology it's about principle. The assumption you make is that all "criminals" are bad and all "officers" are good, a bit too elementary.

Re:And the point goes to the criminals

[MirthScout]

Yes, unless there is a law allowing it.
Of course, good luck arguing about it in court unless you are rich and get a particularly good judge.

Re:And the point goes to the criminals

[rliden]

The courts are wrong here and it does nothing but empower criminals and reduce the avenues of justice for the average citizen. This type of weakening of police powers is precisely why groups like the Yakuza are able to get away with so much in Japan. By skirting the very edges of the law, they are able to remain untouchable while those they terrorize are very likely to overstep their legal bounds due to the inability of the police to successfully remove the true criminals.

Here is the thing no one is a criminal yet. That is a foundation of our legal system. People are innocent until proven guilty. So this doesn't reduce the power of police over criminals. It puts in check the power of the executive branch with regards to citizens who are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. This doesn't prevent the police from using GPS trackers. It makes sure their use is checked by the judicial system.

Your bad analogy about a crime gang in Japan is irrelevant. We're talking about the United States not Japan. Japan's legal system might let suspects skirt their system and the US might let suspect skirt theirs, but this decision has nothing to do with the Japanese legal system.

Re:And the point goes to the criminals

[Anonymous Coward]

If the chalk mark can be used to track your movements then yes.

Since it can't no.

Re:And the point goes to the criminals

[Attila Dimedici]

No, it doesn't. Using the manual method (having an officer physically follow the vehicle) places a limit on the ability of the police to track someone. This limit means that the police will, generally, only do it when they have a reasonable suspicion that the person they wish to track is involved in illegal activity. This ruling puts a similar requirement on using a GPS tracker, they must have sufficient reason to suspect the individual of illegal activity to convince a judge (and they must provide a specific category of crime they are investigating).

Re:And the point goes to the criminals

[plague3106]

Oh no, police actually have to get a warrant! Its the end of GPS tracking!

I'd rather the police not be able to follow people "they don't like" at whim.

Re:And the point goes to the criminals

[Sloppy]

The courts are wrong here and it does nothing but empower criminals

This is where you police state people go wrong. We are not talking about criminals here; we're talking about allegedly suspected criminals.

This does do something other than empower criminals: it empowers non-criminals. It empowers you.

This type of weakening of police powers is precisely why groups like the Yakuza are able to get away with so much in Japan.

This type of weakening of police powers is precisely why American citizens can look down their noses at Stasi and the people who collaborated with them.

If you don't like it, move back to North Korea.

Re:And the point goes to the criminals

[plague3106]

this ruling just results in more police time being wasted tailing suspects!

That's ok, they seem to have copious amounts of time to waste to catch a few speeders.

Re:And the point goes to the criminals

[DavidTC]

And, just as important, you can actually observe people following you in cars.

It's like audio recordings. The police can follow you around in public and listen to what you say, and write it down. (And I'd argue they should even be able to record what they can personally hear, but that's neither here nor there.)

This is because you have no expectation of privacy from someone when they're standing close enough to hear you!

They cannot, however, stand across a public park and point a directional mic at you without a warrant. Even if you're in public and they're in public. They can hide in the bushes (You don't have an expectation of privacy from bushes that can conceal people unless you've checked there's no one there.), but they can't record you from 100 feet away.

So that should extend to cars. People can actually determine if cars are following them. People who do detect that can attempt to no longer be followed by various maneuvers, people can simple choose to go wherever they're trying not to reveal. They have no expectation of privacy from other cars on the road, but they know when those cars are there.

But with a GPS tracker, they could easily end up in a circumstance when they did have an expectation of privacy, even if they are, strictly speaking, on public property. 'Public property' is just shorthand for publically-owned property...it doesn't mean you have no expectations of privacy there. (Or no one would ever use public restrooms.)

Re:And the point goes to the criminals

[fuzznutz]

this ruling just results in more police time being wasted tailing suspects!

That's ok, they seem to have copious amounts of time to waste to catch a few speeders.

Don't confuse justice with business. It's all about the Benjamins...

Re:And the point goes to the criminals

[cdrguru]

There seem to be two definitions of "criminal" here.

The definition that the police would like to use is "someone who committed a crime".

The definition that some people would like to use is "someone convicted of a crime".

I'd say the first is more accurate, with "convicted criminal" applying after the trial. With the second definition there is no need for police because there can be no criminals until they are sucaessfully prosecuted. You might find that difficult using the second definition. Judges do not grant warrants to the police for investigations of innocent people. They might grant a warrant for a criminal that has not been successfully prosecuted yet.

This is especially true in states where judges are elected rather than appointed. Criminals vote too, you know.

Re:And the point goes to the criminals

[Anonymous Coward]

The idea that somehow installing a tracking device interferes with the owner's use of the vehicle is preposterous. It is even more preposterous to make that claim if the owner has no knowledge of the installation of the device.

Installation of after-market accessories voids some auto warranties. It also can invalidate your auto insurance. And just because you don't think it causes problems does not make it so. It is quite possible that a tracking device could interfere with in-car navigation, GPS, or other electrical systems. In addition, a GPS beacon can be tracked by ANYBODY with the know-how; the equipment is cheap to get.

The issue is clear. Are the police allowed to tamper with your private property for no reason, or should they be required to have a good reason before doing so?

I don't support the EFF because I don't support this type of pseudo-YRO type of knee-jerk ideology.

This doesn't say cops can't track via GPS. It just says they can't go around sticking GPS trackers on anything they feel like whenever they feel like doing it, without being accountable for doing so. They have to have a REASON. That's not "pure ideology" it's one of the fundamental tenants our country was founded on.

So you are ok with random strangers being able to fuck around with your car? I'm not, and if I caught someone doing it they'd get the shit kicked out of them on the spot.

The courts are wrong here and it does nothing but empower criminals

No it just means if the cops want to track someone they have to get off their lazy asses and follow them until they get a good enough reason to start fucking around with their property. All the GPS does is tell you where the CAR is, not the person, whereas a cop following them can tell both, and can tell when someone parks the car and gets into a taxi.

Re:And the point goes to the criminals

[locallyunscene]

Then change the law. Don't legislate from the bench.

I've heard this phrase, but it doesn't really parse for me. The job of judges is to interpret law. That's not "legislating from the bench"; that's their job. Also it's one of those pesky checks and balances on the legislative branch for when a law is too vague(even though it wasn't actually vague in this case).

Re:And the point goes to the criminals

[rliden]

That's just it. There aren't two definitions of criminal as a noun. A criminal is a suspect who is convicted of a crime (dictionary.com, reference.com, merriam-webster.crom, and wiktionary all support this definition). Until a person is convicted they are a suspect. It takes a conviction in a court of law to become a criminal.

Judges to grant warrants to investigate innocent people that are suspects. What is the point of the warrant then? The police suspect a person may have committed a crime, but weren't there to have probable cause for search. They petition the judicial system for permission to search that person or their property. I'm under the impression that the police need to provide a reason to the judge for the warrant to be issued. This is the check to help prevent unreasonable searches. Isn't this how it works?

Re:And the point goes to the criminals

[kilodelta]

That's part of why I love New England in general. It tends to stick more the constitutional side than anything else.

So in MA they need a warrant to GPS you or your car, in RI they can't have random road blocks for alcohol checks.

Re:And the point goes to the criminals

[steelfood]

There is freedom, and there is security. They are typically diametrically opposed, though if you get somebody smart, you can achieve both to a certain degree.

Some of us value freedom over security.

It seems that there is neither freedom nor security in Japan. It seems like people want security, but the government wants to grant them more freedom. So it becomes half-assed, and nobody has anything.

Re:And the point goes to the criminals

[steelfood]

- eating of an innocent pastor by police.

I'll bet he was claiming to be the Son at the time.

Re:And the point goes to the criminals

[mcgrew]

Dude, you commented under the wrong user name. Do you have a "ihatefreedom" Ior "ilovecops" or "ilike1984" ID? Just like a wiretap, they should get a warrant. They can't follow everybody in their squad cars, but they CAN follow everybody with GPS, whether they believe you've committed a crime or not.

This country was started on the premise that it's better to let ten guilty men go free than for one innocent man to be imprisoned. It's unpatriotic cowards like you who have turned the country I love into a police state.

Re:And the point goes to the criminals

[dbcad7]

The tracking device does nothing more than make this an automated task.

I have a problem with this.. It's lazy, and inaccurate information... Drug dealer parks in front of your house 3 times in a week visiting the guy across the street.. Who are the cops going to visit ?

Bait cars?

[Avalain]

Would this law come into play in the use of bait cars? On one side the police would be tracking a suspect via GPS installed on a car without a warrant. On the other side it would be the cops own vehicle instead of the suspects. Common sense tells me that bait cars would be perfectly fine, but I can still see a car thief using this ruling as a defense.

Re:Bait cars?

[Drunken Buddhist]

There is no expectation of privacy or security in a stolen vehicle. In fact, there is an expectation of seizure.

Re:Bait cars?

[MyLongNickName]

Hi, police cannot seize from you (in a legal sense) what is not yours. Defense fails.

Re:Bait cars?

[Anonymous Coward]

Even if they did need a warrant, can't imagine it would be hard. Even if they wanted one to cover their asses...

Re:Bait cars?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hi, the expectation is that they would seize you. Defense upheld.

Re:Bait cars?

[MozzleyOne]

But they aren't tracking criminals, they are tracking their own car - if a criminal happens to steal it, well, that's really nothing to do with the police is it

Re:Bait cars?

[DavidTC]

In fact, there is an expectation of seizure.

Does this mean, if you're driving a stolen car, and they don't seize it, and they don't have a warrant not to seize it, you can sue them for violating your civil rights? ;)

I laugh, but actually police probably do need some sort of court-ordered justification (It probably wouldn't be called a 'warrant'.) to let a non-owner drive off in a stolen car if they, for some reason, wanted to do that.

Re:Bait cars?

[DavidTC]

The police do not 'seize' people, they arrest them.

And do not need a search warrant to do so.

Re:Bait cars?

[Drunken Buddhist]

There's a reality TV show on Speed about a task force that puts out bait cars and then follows around the drivers of said bait cars until they get enough people tailing them to take them down. They track actual stolen cars as well, but there's never a mention of needing a new warrant each time the car is used. I believe the car is registered with all relevant jurisdictions' authorities, but aside from that, police observing a crime in a setting in which there is no expectation of privacy (e.g. in plain sight) arrest the perp for that crime.

Re:Bait cars?

[slackbheep]

I can't imagine this would be a problem. Honestly anything short of turning the car into a microwave once the ignition is turned is fine in my book in this case.

And the point goes to the Citizen-Sovereigns

[epluribusunum]

The freakin cops have so much power and whatever power these government types get, they always abuse. If they really need to track someone, they can get a warrant licketty-split. These cops just crave plenary power to do whatever they want to the very citizen-sovereigns they work for.

APS

[pleappleappleap]

I volunteer you to be the first to have a GPS shoved up your ass.

Would this kill Oregon's GPS mileage tax?

[schwit1]

http://www.popularmechanics.com/blogs/technology_news/4298625.html

Re:Would this kill Oregon's GPS mileage tax?

[Zordak]

Why would a ruling by the Supreme Court of Maine affect anything in Oregon?

Re:Would this kill Oregon's GPS mileage tax?

[schwit1]

I suspect the Oregon police are doing the same with GPS.

Re:Would this kill Oregon's GPS mileage tax?

[Dragonslicer]

Why would a ruling by the Supreme Court of Maine affect anything in Oregon?

Maine and Massachusetts have been separate states for almost 200 years.

Re:Would this kill Oregon's GPS mileage tax?

[Zordak]

Yes, my bad. But how's a Texan supposed to muster enough care about a couple of Yankee states that both start with 'M' to remember which one the article was about before making a mildly snarky comment about its irrelevance to a state on the Left Coast? We're talking multiple layers of apathy here. The only reason I could even muster the interest to comment at all was because it involved a question of state sovereignty, which Texans do care about.

Perhaps I should re-do my post. "How does the ruling by the high court of [INSERT ANY RANDOM STATE] affect the law in [ANY OTHER RANDOM STATE]? And more importantly, Texas barely recognizes the authority of the federal government over us, much less some tiny, inferior state where you can't even get good BBQ."

Re:Would this kill Oregon's GPS mileage tax?

[RandomUsername99]

I'm a chef, I've had lots of BBQ down south, and there actually are a few places that you can get really good BBQ in Mass. You're awfully confident in your superiority for someone who can't "muster enough care about a couple of Yankee states" to even bother looking to see what's there, eh? Then again, I doubt it would be easy for one to be overconfident about their superiority if they actually check to see if it was true. Actually, I think you'd be very comfortable in NYC with that attitude.

Re:Would this kill Oregon's GPS mileage tax?

[Zordak]

They must keep the good food a state secret, because when I went to Mass., everybody just wanted me to try the "[BLAND WHATEVER] with Lobster." Sure, there's some novelty value to saying, "Yes, I ate macaroni and cheese with lobster," but I still would have killed for a good habanero.

re: definite flaw

[macraig]

"That's a definite flaw in our legal system: someone has to be abused (at least) once before the courts can rule."

Do you realize that is the same dynamic at work in our free-market economic system? People have to get repeatedly abused by the system (e.g. corporations) before adjustments are made to stop the abuse (usually in the form of kludges rather than real solutions, but that's another discussion). I'm not saying that's the way it should be, merely that this is the way it is. This is DEscriptive, then, but we can choose to be PREscriptive when we work up enough collective bile and disgust over our treatment of each other to then do something permanent about it.

Really all of human history is like that: just one knee-jerk response after another, lather, rinse, and repeat. We're still learning the hard way, and sadly doing a lot of RE-learning on a routine basis.

Any other alternative to the high speed chase?

[richardoz]

I would think that is is preferable to track a suspects car (at a distance) using one of these devices than to persue them at close range causing a "high speed chase". A number of innicent persons have been hurt as a result of police persuits. Not every police department can have a helicopter ready for these due to cost constraints.

Re:Any other alternative to the high speed chase?

[MirthScout]

I agree as long as the police to it legally. They present their evidence for reasonable suspicion of a suspect to a judge. The judge issues a warrant allowing the police to tamper with the car owner's property by installing the GPS tracking device.

Re:Any other alternative to the high speed chase?

[cdrguru]

Why would a judge issue a warrant without proof? Unless there is proof that the "suspect" committed a crime there are plenty of judges that will not issue a warrant based on "suspicion" or even "probable cause". In areas where judges are elected many judges are rightfully concerned that they might not get elected if they approve police requests for warrants. Criminals vote too, you know.

From what I have heard, it is a continue battle between prosecutors (who get the warrants), the police (who want them to conduct an investigation) and the judges. There are likely judges that will approve almost anything where there is probable cause - but there are certainly judges that do not approve warrants without information far in excess of probable cause.

The result of this is requiring a warrant for GPS tracking of a vehicle simply means that officers will be tailing the suspect directly until there is a sufficient proof to satisfy a judge. If anything, that is worse.

Re:Any other alternative to the high speed chase?

[Sylver Dragon]

I doubt that there would be a legal problem with slapping a GPS tracking device on a car which the driver has already used to break the law, in view of the police. At the very least, I think this would be covered under probable cause. In an actual court, I think the argument would be covered by the judge's derisive laughter.

Of course, there is that whole getting a GPS device attached to a car doing 100 mph problem, but that is more of an engineering problem.

A Follow-up Question

[CopaceticOpus]

How about the reverse? Can we put GPS trackers on cop cars? I really want to replicate the video game minimap experience with a GPS dash unit.

fishing expeditions

[Darth Cider]

Suppose the technology becomes so cheap that a hundred thousand motorists can be tracked by GPS in any given city, much less any given state. Why wouldn't the police want to deploy every available tracking device in a fishing expedition, even if no suspicion of wrong-doing guides their choice of who to track? The odds are that eventually someone innocent will be in the wrong place at an inauspicious time. I wouldn't want to be that person, then have to explain how "opportunity" is irrelevant, especially if there is any vaguely tenable argument for the presence of means and motive.

Let them get warrants. Let there be some oversight. The technology hasn't been banned. Presumption of innocence shouldn't begin in the courtroom.

Re:fishing expeditions

[JediTrainer]

Suppose the technology becomes so cheap that a hundred thousand motorists can be tracked by GPS in any given city, much less any given state.

Why bother when you can already do this with cameras?

Re:fishing expeditions

[Anonymous Coward]

The odds are that eventually someone innocent person's car will be in the wrong place at an inauspicious time.

There, fixed that for you.

I agree with your point 100%, just wanted to point out the GPS is even worse when used in blanket tracking.

To reply to "JediTrainer" who posted:

Why bother when you can already do this with cameras [infowars.com]?

Exactly how to you propose that cameras track me on private property or locations without cameras? They can't. And even in countries like Great Britain where cameras crawl out your ass and live in your hair they still don't do jack shit to prevent or solve crimes. And it doesn't take long before you're spending so much money on maintaining the camera systems that you might as well just dump them all and hire some decent cops to hit the streets and save a pile of money. Hell, the presence of a cop does more to deter crime than all the cameras in the world, even if he's just standing there eating snacks.

Re:fishing expeditions

[winwar]

"Why bother when you can already do this with cameras [infowars.com]?"

Because you could write a ticket EVERY time they exceeded the speed limit.

Re:fishing expeditions

[GravityStar]

I was just listening to the news today, and some marketing yahoo was extolling the virtues of Egnos (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Geostationary_Navigation_Overlay_Service) and how one of the features it would enable was taxation of vehicles per kilometer driven.

There are really people who think having a tracker in every single road vehicle is good. And they are busy lobbying for it.

Re: definite flaw

[commodore64_love]

Actually there are a lot of laws in place to protect citizens from abuse by corporations, but many people don't avail themselves of those laws (typically due to ignorance). For example I saw a story on local tv about a guy who purchased some vitamins for a "trail bottle" of only $2. But the company charged him the full $99 instead. Then they send him another bottle for another $99. And another. And another. He stopped the automatic shipment, but the company refused to refund the money for the other bottles.

The guy just sat their on TV crying about losing ~$300, but if he had taken time to learn the law, he'd know all he has to do is return the bottles, with tracking confirmation, and then file a credit card dispute to recover the money. That's what the law states - If you return something, and prove your returned it, then a company MUST refund the money.

Anyway back to point - Laws already exist to protect the consumer. But most consumers don't know the law so they don't use it.

Sorry Spidey...

[Anonymous Coward]

...all those criminals you tracked with your spider trackers are now being released from prison. You unconstitutional hack you...

C'mon, someone HAD to say it.

[and please note: I am VERY glad for this ruling]

Re: definite flaw

[macraig]

Those laws were themselves originally knee-jerks. Follow the money.

Why not get a warrent?

[redelm]

Why should the police be worried about getting a warrent? It is not as if officers are walking around with GPS devices to plant on suspects they suddenly see. No, these are planned operations with justification. Then why not get a warrent?

Police should not be wasting public resources nor possessing and exercising excessive discretion in "following hunches". Get the warrent. Its' easy.

How is the GPS installation physically done?

[XnavxeMiyyep]

How is the GPS installation physically performed? Do they have a cop walk up to a car and clip it onto the bottom, all while hoping no one notices? What if the car is in a garage? What if you see them putting the GPS on your car, after they have obtained a warrant? Are you allowed to take it off?

Re:How is the GPS installation physically done?

[gcatullus]

Car is parked on public street, and cop does indeed clip/tape the gps on. Cop could not enter private property i.e. garage to do that. If you removed the gps unit after a warrant you could be charged with damage to police property. Assuming that you didn't "damage" it I'm sure you'd be charged with something but it would be a tough sell.

Re:How is the GPS installation physically done?

[DavidTC]

What if you see them putting the GPS on your car, after they have obtained a warrant? Are you allowed to take it off?

Yes, you can take off the device, just like you could take off any other part of your car. You can probably even destroy it if you want.

There's actually a guy who discovered a tracker, destroyed it, was arrested by the police for destroying their property, and he won, but an important part of the case was that there was no identifying mark on the tracker identifying it as police property.

They knew he knew it was a police tracker, but could not prove it. (And he, of course, didn't have to testify if he did or not.) Hence, legally, he could do whatever he wanted to it, just like he could to any other part of his car.

So, unless they've started labeling them 'property of the police', you can destroy them if you want, or just claim ownership of them. I mean, as far as you know, it's just some part of your car. They have to prove you knew it was owned by someone else.

If it is labeled as owned by someone else, it is legally 'mislaid property', which is when the owner put something somewhere on purpose and didn't come back to get it. (As opposed to, for example, dropping it, which is 'lost property'.)

You are required to turn 'mislaid property' over the owner of the premise it's found on. Aka, the owner of the car. After which, the owner of the car has to keep it for a specific amount of time in case the person comes back to claim it. If the owner does not come back to claim it in a specific amount of time, the car owner now legally owns it.

See your state laws for your requirements, and if you have any obligation to attempt to find the owner, or notify the police. (Hilariously, if you are required to notify the local police, some police departments are so discombobulated you could probably notify the people in charge of keeping track of lost property you'd found some GPS tracker owned by 'the police', and that would never get forward to anyone who would actually claim it.)

But, regardless of whether you know it's owned by someone else, and what the laws say about mislaid property, you can certainly remove it. It's your car, you can unattach anything from it you want. (Although you'll get a ticket if you remove headlights or mufflers or whatever and then attempt to operate it on a public road.;)

But now there are a lot of people flabberghasted I'd be saying this about official police stuff. Well, legally, once you know about a warrant, you can't interfere with it, so if you knew the police had installed it on your car as part of a legal search, you couldn't remove it.

But this requires them actually informing you of the warrant, which they obviously don't do for secret tracking. Otherwise, the law allows you to assume they absentmindedly installed a GPS tracker in your car while peering under your car, and forgot to pick it up when they stood up.

Re:How is the GPS installation physically done?

[DavidTC]

Oh, and incidentally, rereading 'You are required to turn 'mislaid property' over the owner of the premise it's found on. Aka, the owner of the car.' I am not actually 100% sure that's true.

I'm pretty certain if you find mislaid items in a vehicle, the owner (or operator) of the vehicle is who you need to turn it in to, according to the law. Like if you find a coat draped over the back of a bus seat, you should turn it over to the driver. As opposed to turning it into the state government whose road you're on or convenience store whose parking lot you happen to be in at the time of discovery, which would make no sense.

I am not sure this works for things found on a vehicle, though. If I walk out of a concert and find someone's coat laying on my car, I don't need to take the damn thing with me, the coat owner is hardly going to be able to find me. It should be turned into the property owner. (Or, in practice, just moved out of the way so I can leave.)

So the law may make a distinction there, where only things 'in' vehicles should remain with vehicles, and thing 'on' vehicles should remain with the property owner.

Now, logically, the tracking device was attached to the car, so logically, the place the owners who 'mislaid' it are going to look for it is with the car. Likewise, it logically is 'within' the car's body at least, although not inside the passenger compartment.

However, 'logically' and 'the law' are not always the same thing. The last thing you want to do is get tripped up in some technicality, and believe me the police will try to invent one when they realize you've taken their expensive GPS device and they didn't claim it within the legal deadline and you're refusing to give it back.

So either check the law, or just be sure to discover the device when your car is on your own property, (Why are you looking under your car anywhere else, anyway?) so either way it's you it should be turned in to and you who ends up owning it if the owner does not show up.

Oh, and don't feel too bad if they do show up to get it. It's still pretty damn funny, especially as you have the legal obligation to have them prove ownership before turning it over. Be sure to ask them to describe it, and when they think they mislaid it, and can they describe the car they mislaid it under?

I've always wondered, actually...

[mark-t]

Here's a question though.... if the owner has no knowledge of the installation of such a monitoring or tracking device, but later discovers it, is he or she committing any crime by disposing of it on their own? Particularly considering the fact that if they did not know about it, they would not necessarily have any reason to realize why it was there in the first place, and in some cases not even realize exactly what it is.

Re:I've always wondered, actually...

[Chris Tucker]

Ideally, here in Boston/Cambridge one finds it, realizes what it is, glues a VERY strong magnet to it, and then, affixes the GPS unit to one of the Green/Red/Orange Line subway cars or buses when next to it at a stop light/or as a passenger.

Hilarity ensues.

Re:I've always wondered, actually...

[PPH]

Or find the bar that the cops park behind while on duty and stick it to one of their bumpers.

Watch them:

• Chase themselves.
• Explain what all the cops are doing at Li'l John's bar and grill all day.

Donning my tinfoil

[saur2004]

Oh ya wasn't too hard to make this decision when auto manufacturers already slop their vehicles over with Onstar, Sinc, what-have-you, tech that is already lousy with GPS.

Re: definite flaw

[plague3106]

If you return something, and prove your returned it, then a company MUST refund the money.

So its illegal for stores to refuse a return? Interesting... can you cite the law which makes it so?

Strange ruling

[MobyDisk]

Why is this not covered by wiretap laws and recording laws? The GPS device is recording information about you and sending it to someone else.

Sadness

[schne324]

As mentioned by others, the Patriot Act gives the government the right to use the appropriate tools for intercepting and obstructing terrorism. This has nothing to do with most of these cases in which members of the police force unlawfully place a tracking device on a car. What's next, me waking up with a tracking device implanted into by body? This is just one of the numerous occasions in which the police think they're above the law, and can get away with anything. It frightens me that we (the public) only find out about a small percentage of their wrong doings.

But the dude was still busted, and conviction held

[herojig]

But the dude was still busted on cocaine possession, and the conviction held. However, kudos to the Mass Supreme Court for pointing to errs in police ways. The cops just have to get more creative then that to track down whoever, and quit trying to cut corners using technology - instead they should develop better detective skills.

Bad Title

[yurtinus]

Jesus what is Soulskill thinking? This is supposed to be entitled "Massachusetts Allows Police To GPS Track Your Car," with the warrant mention buried down in TFA. You aren't going to get slashdotters panties in a bunch by posting an article about something going right!

He still got busted? good.

[KingAlanI]

Much as I have a problem with the innocent being ensnared by stuff like this, I also have a problem with actually-guilty people getting off because the cops didn't follow proper procedure.

The bad police behavior should be treated separately from the bad civilian behavior. ;P

Re:He still got busted? good.

[herojig]

Well, the supreme of MASS agrees with u! In this case, the behaviors were separated. All is well in America.

Re: definite flaw

[JustOK]

by mail is different than in person.

Re: definite flaw

[Anonymous Coward]

You miss the GP's point; let me re-prhase his comment:

If you successfully return something, and prove your returned it, then ....

What I find odd about your pedantry is that you jump on the "can't refuse returns" part and not the "must give money (not replacement or credit)" part.

How about cheap watches?

[Intron]

In Chinatown, Jack Nicholson puts a watch under a car tire to record the time that the car is moved. Would that be legal?

Re: definite flaw

[plague3106]

So cite the law.

Re: definite flaw

[JustOK]

Let's talk fees first. You realize that I will have to charge you a huge (although reasonable to me)fee for such a consultation. Don't worry that you can find the information yourself for free, the important thing is you pay me first. By reading this post you agree to the fee.

cellular phone contracts = no gps privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

meanwhile you can't find a cellular phone service contract that DOESN'T involve acquiescing to allow the cellular company to locate you via GPS.

Why a seizure?

[Tired and Emotional]

A search I can see since the police are searching where you are going.

But surely to be a seizure implies loss of use.

Not arguing the judge should have allowed the practice. Just wondering about the use of terms.

funny thing, that.

[Nekomusume]

Ever notice how pissed off the police get every time we expect them to get a warrent? It's not like you need to sacrifice a virgin to get one. You just need to convince a judge that you've got a good reason to do whatever it is that the warrent calls for.

It's enough to make you think they're just out there looking for new and interesting ways to abuse their authority.

in other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

Austin police no longer allowed to shoot children and elderly without reason.

Re: definite flaw

[plague3106]

Well, before you even get to whether or not they have to refund money for a returned item, you have to actually prove that they would accept returns to begin with.

Anyway, you can claim pedantry all you want, but the OP is passing this off as if its a good way to resolve the situtation, when its clearly not.