Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Massachusetts Police Can't Place GPS On Autos Without Warrant

Posted by Soulskill on from the good-news-suspects dept.

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."

7 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: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.
  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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!
  6. 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.