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.
You are now free to drive around the Commonwealth.
With apologies to Southwest Airlines.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
$_ = "wftedskaebjgdpjgidbsmnjgcdwatb"; tr/a-z/oh, turtleneck Phrase Jar!/; print
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!
I volunteer you to be the first to have a GPS shoved up your ass.
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)
Why would a ruling by the Supreme Court of Maine affect anything in Oregon?
Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
...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]
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.
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.
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?
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
>>>>>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???
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
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?
I put the 't' in electrical engineering.
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.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
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.
I think therefore I can't be ~TTNH
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).