Slashdot Mirror
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."
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.
There are terrorists, pedophiles and drug dealers out there. Any arguments for civil liberties and the rule of law are automatically invalid!
May the Maths Be with you!
There is no expectation of privacy or security in a stolen vehicle. In fact, there is an expectation of seizure.
-1, Disagree is not a valid option. Troll, Flamebait and Offtopic are not a substitute.
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.
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.
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.
May the Maths Be with you!
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?
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.
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
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).
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.
All the worlds indeed a
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.
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.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
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.
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.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
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.
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).