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."

22 of 194 comments (clear)

  1. What is very sad by Moryath · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:What is very sad by commodore64_love · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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."

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    2. Re:What is very sad by locallyunscene · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

    3. Re:What is very sad by Vohar · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

  2. Free to drive by davidwr · · Score: 3, Funny

    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.
  3. TERRORISM!! by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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!
    1. Re:TERRORISM!! by Nadaka · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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).

  4. Right against self-incrimination by EmagGeek · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Right against self-incrimination by nomadic · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:Right against self-incrimination by Kjella · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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
  5. Bait cars? by Avalain · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Bait cars? by Drunken+Buddhist · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.
  6. Re:And the point goes to the criminals by nomadic · · Score: 4, Funny

    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.

  7. Re:And the point goes to the criminals by EastCoastSurfer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  8. Re:And the point goes to the criminals by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    May the Maths Be with you!
  9. APS by pleappleappleap · · Score: 3, Funny

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

  10. Re:And the point goes to the criminals by kilfarsnar · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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)
  11. Re:And the point goes to the criminals by olsmeister · · Score: 3, Insightful
    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.

  12. fishing expeditions by Darth+Cider · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  13. Why not get a warrent? by redelm · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

  14. But the dude was still busted, and conviction held by herojig · · Score: 3, Informative

    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
  15. Re:How is the GPS installation physically done? by DavidTC · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

    --
    If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?