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

[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."

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: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: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: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

[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

[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: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.