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."
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.
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.
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.
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).