Judge Doesn't Care About Supreme Court GPS Case

nonprofiteer writes "The Supreme Court is currently deciding whether or not law enforcement needs a warrant before they put a GPS tracker on a person's car. A judge in St. Louis doesn't seem to care about that, though. He ruled last week (PDF) that the FBI didn't need a warrant to track the car of a state employee they suspected was collecting a paycheck without actually going to work. (Their suspicions were confirmed.) While in favor of corrupt government employees being caught, it's a bit disturbing that a federal judge would decide a warrant wasn't needed while the Supreme Court has said the issue is unclear."

Comments

Sorry, what was the problem?

[Osgeld]

unclear does not mean one way or the other, until then its the decision of the local law

Re:Sorry, what was the problem?

[msobkow]

Agreed. Until the Supremes rule, the Federal judge has no prior cases on which to base a ruling. The Federal judge has to make a decision now which may be overturned on appeal based on subsequent Supreme Court rulings, but until the Supremes rule on the issue, all bets are off.

Re:Sorry, what was the problem?

[cayenne8]

But, what is the precedent for this type thing?

Do most federal judges not hold out on ruling on cases that are currently before SCOTUS?

Re:Sorry, what was the problem?

[Sir_Sri]

And it's not clear if a ruling on the broader matter by the supreme court would matter to the specific case (it might, it might not).

Re:Sorry, what was the problem?

[Martin Blank]

Judges will usually hold a case where a higher court is hearing a case that could affect it to prevent it from having to be reviewed (or possibly appealed and remanded) if the judge's decision is contrary to the higher court's opinion. It's basically an attempt to save the court's time and resources.

Re:Sorry, what was the problem?

[Archangel Michael]

Well, even if a case is before the SCOTUS it may be different enough that the SCOTUS ruling will not affect the case before the lower court.

I would think that putting a GPS on a Government Vehicle wouldn't require a Warrant of any sort, simply because the owner gave permission to tract the vehicle. In this case the judge is probably correct in application of legal principles and won't be affected by the SCOTUS ruling, which probably has to do with private vehicles.

For the others that are complaining about rights being violated, sometimes the world isn't as black and white as you would like. I have no problem with employers of any kind, including governments putting GPS tracking devices on their own vehicles. In fact, I would consider it prudent behavior and anyone not wanting to be tracked in employer's vehicles shouldn't be using them.

Re:Sorry, what was the problem?

[ZombieBraintrust]

The precedent would be the appelate court ruling that was being appealed to the Supreme Court. The appelate court likely ruled they were legal. So they would stay legal till the Supreme Court says they illegal or untill Congress changes the law.

Re:Sorry, what was the problem?

[ZombieBraintrust]

Holding the case here wouldn't help. This ruling effects how the FBI opperates. Either the FBI has to change how they use GPS or the don't have to change. Here the judge is saying they don't have to change untill the Supreme Court says they have to change.

Re:Sorry, what was the problem?

[icebraining]

employer's vehicles

Reading TFA, the car actually belongs to the guy, not the employer:

Whether the Constitution allows police to put a tracking device on a car without either a warrant or the owner's permission

Emphasis mine.

Re:Sorry, what was the problem?

[Martin Blank]

Judges routinely hold cases where it affects how law enforcement operates. It doesn't always happen, but it's pretty common when cases are pending at higher levels. The FBI may have pushed for a ruling here because of legal uncertainties, but it suggests something in how widespread warrantless GPS tracking may be if this decision throws off the entire agency.

Re:Sorry, what was the problem?

[msobkow]

You have the right to a fair and speedy trial. That precludes waiting for other decisions that may not even prove relevant.

It's unfortunate that this means sometimes people who will eventually be determined innocent may be unduly punished, but we can hardly ignore current law just because it might change.

I have far greater concerns about people who might be swept up in the NDAA clause. We know it's unconstitutional. We know the Supremes will eventually reject that legislation. It's unfair to the population at large to allow that bad clause to become law for any period of time, no matter how brief -- and it may take YEARS for the Supremes to hear a case that overturns it.

NDAA presumes that "We The People" refers only to citizens, not the population as a whole. With the number of work visa and landed immigrant people in the US who are not citizens, the arbitrary reinterpretation of over a century of case law is far too radical to be allowed without a Constitutional referendum. Much as the militant psychopaths might hate it, terrorists are people too, and deserving of human rights protection. That's why they were enshrined as HUMAN rights, not citizen rights.

Re:Sorry, what was the problem?

[g0bshiTe]

From TFA the vehicle belonged to the employee in question.

Re:Sorry, what was the problem?

[g0bshiTe]

As an aside the dipshit should have argued that another vehicle was being used for his transport, there-by negating the gps tracking. GPS only says where the vehicle is, it doesn't say who was driving.

Re:Sorry, what was the problem?

[the simurgh]

the real question is did they gps his car with his gps unit or a government provided car with a government provided gps?

Re:Sorry, what was the problem?

[tnk1]

The only reason a judge really would have to hold off would be an injunction of some kind or, more likely, if they felt they would get appealed on and they decide to stall things to see what happens.

Still, while no judge wants to be overturned on appeal, waiting to see what happens in the higher courts is not a procedural reason to stop a trial unless there are actual injunctions and/or motions. At least in the US, there is a right to a speedy trial. Of course, there's plenty of reasons that a trial could go long, but that's because it takes that long to run it's course through standard procedures. Judges can not simply stop or unilaterally slow down consideration of a case without relevant cause (although they do have considerable capabilities to slow things down using procedure if they really wanted to try).

Re:Sorry, what was the problem?

[Aighearach]

The judge holds the case where it isn't time sensitive, or where a right to a speedy trial is not invoked. Usually everybody wants to wait, so the judge also agrees to wait. It is expensive for all sides, it is always better to wait when the matter is not truly time sensitive. In this case, waiting would mean that every active investigation correctly following current rules that is using this technology would be held up. That's just not acceptable.

I'm really hoping they will decide that tracking is searching. It seems obvious to me, but so far it is not officially obvious, they tend to say, "Gee, I dunno, let congress decide."

Re:Sorry, what was the problem?

[Albanach]

The precedent would be the appelate court ruling that was being appealed to the Supreme Court.

Actually, no. The case being heard by the Supreme Court is being appealed from the D.C. Circuit. Decisions of the D.C. Circuit are not binding on other circuits. However the article says the Judge cited an Eighth Circuit decision United States v. Marquez. As the Eastern District of Missouri is part of the Eighth Circuit, the decision in that case is binding on the lower court.

Effectively, it appears the judge had no choice. If the case citation is accurate, binding precedent in the Eighth Circuit appears to be that no warrant is required for GPS tracking unless and until the Supreme Court decides otherwise.

Re:Sorry, what was the problem?

[msobkow]

I'm bringing up the NDAA as an example of how the public can be affected by bad legislation until a ruling by the Supremes can overturn it. As the most popular topic of the day, I thought it was a good example of the problem.

Would you rather I use one from my medical cannabis argument arsenal? While those issues aren't as popular as NDAA, they're perfectly valid examples for the point.

Re:Sorry, what was the problem?

[sexconker]

But, what is the precedent for this type thing?

Do most federal judges not hold out on ruling on cases that are currently before SCOTUS?

Who gives a shit?
Precedent is not law.
Precedent is a tool for consistency. Precedent is a tool to make a judge's job easier, and thus help keep the courts expedient.

EVERY SINGLE CASE is to be judged on its own merits, regardless of whether or not the exact same thing was decided on last Tuesday.
Furthermore, any judge can give a ruling that disagrees with a prior ruling by a higher court. When this happens, the losing party will file an appeal to a higher court, and the higher court will read the lower court's decision and look at the issue again.

If the Supreme Court says Pi = 3, and some judge in San Francisco calls that out as the bullshit that it is a month later, then it'll bubble up through the courts again.
The Supreme Court is supreme in the sense that it is the highest level of appeal for any given case - the court is NOT an authority of any sort. Courts do not make, validate, or approve laws - they interpret them when conflict arises.

Re:Sorry, what was the problem?

[CrimsonAvenger]

I have far greater concerns about people who might be swept up in the NDAA clause. We know it's unconstitutional.

Of course, Thomas.gov has the entire text of the NDAA up (including the version the President signed). Oddly enough, the version the President signed has a specific exclusion for US Citizens, Resident Aliens, and ANYONE actually present in the USA at the time of arrest/capture.

So, I fail to see where the problem lies....

Re:Sorry, what was the problem?

[SomePoorSchmuck]

The current precedents are all about radio beacon tracking which the Supreme Court said was legal years ago. The decision is an extension of the idea that there is no expectation of privacy of where you drive a vehicle on public roads. Everyone can see you drive by.

Therefore - it is legal for the police to follow your car without a warrant

Therefore - it is legal to use a radio beacon to follow your car without a warrant, just makes it easier

Therefore - it is legal to use a GPS tracking beacon to follow your car too.

It is easy to see the logic of how we got to this point. But prior to the GPS tracker, it took a team of dedicated police officers to track an individual. Even with radio beacons, it was labor intensive. They didn't do it unless they thought it was going to be productive

With GPS trackers it can all be run by computer. Put the tracker on the vehicle and recovering it are the most field labor intensive part of it. A team of people can track multiple people. Police are doing it more, even if they don't expect anything to become of it, just because they can.

It is the automation of the process, therefore the expanding scope of it, that is the most worrisome.

I don't think that logic is necessarily easy to see. Sure, when I'm in public anyone could theoretically follow me anywhere. But do the police have a right to enter and search the physical contents of my car or person just because I'm in public? In other words, isn't the act itself of placing the tracking device a kind of search, which would require a warrant?

To ride your slope down to the next logical step, why shouldn't the police/FBI be able to surreptitiously place a tracking device in your clothes, in your wallet, etc.?

Re:Sorry, what was the problem?

[icebike]

Exactly. The article makes it sound like this judge should have sat on his thumbs until SCOTUS made a decision, when the facts of the matter are somewhat more settled within his jurisdiction. There is no way he can rule based on his perception of what might be decided sometime in the future.

That we have rulings in one circuit that are somehow not binding on other circuits would seem a clear violation of the equal protection clause, showing once again just how little regard most courts have for the constitution.

Re:Sorry, what was the problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

The precedent is whether the judge cares if the case has to be retried on remand. The defendant can still appeal after his conviction, and the judge or appellate court might even stay the judgment. Trial level judges make these kinds of technical cost+benefit decisions all the time. It's almost all they do.

Also, regardless of SCOTUS' calendar, there may still be good law in the judge's federal circuit that says no warrant is required. Until SCOTUS says otherwise in a binding decision, the local of the circuit is still the law. Putting a case on the calendar does not invalidate the law in a district. At best it gives a soap box for a particular justice with an axe to grind when issuing his writ of certiorari.

Re:Sorry, what was the problem?

[Martin Blank]

They have existing cases that say that it's permissible, so operating on that basis without this judge ruling should be possible.

This is one of those things that should be hard (for relative values of difficulty) for police to do. They claim it would take LE five guys to watch him. My response is: So? If you want to get the guy, either assign five guys or get a warrant. It doesn't seem like it would be difficult to do if there's already evidence against him. That kind of thing doesn't appear to be invasive in the way that a black-bag bugging operation would be, and judges tend to be lenient with such requests.

Re:Sorry, what was the problem?

[dontmakemethink]

Depends on whether you think everything's ok to do without a warrant until the Supreme Court says it's not ok, or if you think nothing is ok to do without a warrant until the Supreme Court says it's ok. When it comes to emerging technology, I definitely think it should be approved by the Court before being used without a warrant.

Since the obligatory car metaphor is already taken by TFA, let's instead say a mind-reading device is developed and cops want to use it before adequate testing for health problems has been done. Warrant or no warrant?

Re:Sorry, what was the problem?

[honkycat]

The purpose of honoring precedent is not for judicial expediency so much as providing stability and predictability in the judicial system. Without a strong respect for precedent, it would be nearly impossible to understand how the laws are going to be interpreted. Since the interpretation and application of those laws is often complicated, lawyers and decision makers need to be able to expect that future rulings will be similar to past rulings.

Of course, you are correct that precedent is not strictly binding, but to have rulings in two identical cases be different is quite exceptional, and it a higher court has previously considered the issue, the appeals court is almost certain to follow. As the appeals ladder is climbed, reversals are increasingly rare, to the point that Supreme Court reversals are newsworthy events.

No two cases are identical, but when the facts in a case are determined to be materially the same as those in other cases, it's a pretty good bet that the former ruling will be mirrored.

Re:Sorry, what was the problem?

[Moryath]

Decisions of the D.C. Circuit are not binding on other circuits.

No, but decisions of other circuits do constitute a strong advisory opinion.

Effectively, it appears the judge had no choice. If the case citation is accurate, binding precedent in the Eighth Circuit appears to be that no warrant is required for GPS tracking unless and until the Supreme Court decides otherwise.

Actually, the judge did have a choice. One of the reasons the Supreme Court will normally take up a case is to resolve conflicts between the standing decisions on a particular topic at circuit court levels. That is the reasoning in this case: multiple circuits have ruled, and have done so inconsistently.

The standard procedure for most courts, once the SC takes up a case like that, is to stay proceedings pending the outcome of the Supreme Court case, so as to avoid misruling and limit wasted time in appeals.

Re:Sorry, what was the problem?

[swalve]

It is not perjury to suggest an alternate explanation to the evidence, AFAIK. Or at least for the defendant's lawyer to do so.

Re:Sorry, what was the problem?

[muridae]

If they hold on a ruling long enough, then the defendant did not receive a "speedy" trial as the 6th amendment requires, and the case can be dismissed on appeal. SCOTUS agreed to hear the case, and may issue a ruling, but until that time the ruling is issued, all the local judge has to go on is local, district, and prior federal precedent.

Re:Sorry, what was the problem?

[jamesh]

It is not perjury to suggest an alternate explanation to the evidence, AFAIK. Or at least for the defendant's lawyer to do so.

defendant lawyer: The GPS only proves the location of the vehicle, not who was driving it at the time.
prosecution lawyer: Mr Defendant, were you driving the car at the time?
defendant: I... errr... um...

If the defendant was driving at the time and is asked the question directly, lying about it is still perjury no matter how many alternate possible explanations might exist. They could maybe weasel their way out of it with a "I don't recall" though, assuming that other people driving the car was a regular event.

Re:Sorry, what was the problem?

[flimflammer]

You're right that you can buy policies that extend to anyone in the vehicle but most people do not actually purchase that type of insurance unless they actually have a number of other people driving the car. It drives the premium a lot higher because of all the unknowns about who is driving the car.

Re:Sorry, what was the problem?

[flyneye]

That's all well and fine, but, what this article failed to address with any clarity is, how common corruption, apathy and malfeasance appear in courtrooms every day. It's just a job like plucking chickens to some, process them and get em on their way, according to the law, with no room for justice, just process. It's a platform for their politics or religion to others. Some even satisfy some sexual desires.( don't laugh, recently a judge was caught masturbating at a cruel sentencing.) The inablility of the modern court system, nay even enforcement and punishment systems is so fucked at every level, I don't understand why talk of revolution is only based on the antics of legislative and executive branches. Time to rethink this crime and punishment thing.

Re:Sorry, what was the problem?

[ArsenneLupin]

prosecution lawyer: Mr Defendant, were you driving the car at the time?

Isnt't that what the fifth is for?

Re:Sorry, what was the problem?

[Entrope]

The Fifth Amendment allows a criminal defendant not to testify in his trial. It does not allow him to avoid cross-examination if he chooses to testify; choosing to testify waives the right to avoid self-incrimination, at least with regard to the case being tried.

The defendant's lawyer can raise that possibility, but would have to introduce some evidence to trigger reasonable doubt of guilt.

Re:Sorry, what was the problem?

[SomePoorSchmuck]

In other words, isn't the act itself of placing the tracking device a kind of search, which would require a warrant?

It requires inspection of the car, yes. But searching the outside of your car isn't unreasonable search, so it's not relevant..

So then planting a tracking device on your person only requires "inspection" of your clothing. Is planting a tracking device on your person not unreasonable search? If not, then what legal barrier is there to prevent the government from simply planting tracking devices on all people?

Re:Sorry, what was the problem?

[lsatenstein]

I believe the employee is entitled to protection, UNLESS he is subsidized for using his own car or it is a FBI (company) vehicle. I can probably state that in every company you worked, you clocked in and you had to produce and you clocked out at the end of the day. You also attended meetings, so your on-the-job presence was known.

Was that the case for this individual?

Re:Sorry, what was the problem?

[sexconker]

Expedience and consistency are closely intertwined.
Consistency is already a goal. If the lawyers have to go through the same arguments and the judge has to look up the same laws every time the same issue comes up, it'll take forever. If they want to be quick, they risk sacrificing consistency.

If lawyer A can just say "Dickson vs Twatson, 1994." and the judge can go look it up, you get consistent and expedient results.

Re:Sorry, what was the problem?

[glodime]

I caution against the assumption that precedent ruling = immutable or binding on future cases.

Re:Sorry, what was the problem?

[lightknight]

Because then the court will have to free the guy and pay out an ass-load of money if the SCOTUS reverses the decision.

But f*ck it, it's not actually the court's money, it's the taxpayer's money, and there is plenty more where that came from, AMIRIGHT?

Re:Sorry, what was the problem?

[lightknight]

"Fair and speedy trial" with regards to the defendant, not the DA or FBI. If the defendant wants to wait in comfortable surroundings for a higher court to make a decision that may alter the outcome of his / her case, then by all means, let him / her. It will be cheaper to assign a FBI agent to watch him / her, and put them both up in a posh hotel, than to find out what kind of damages his lawyer will be suing the feds for if and when the SCOTUS decides to rule on things (because we all know that when lawyers sue, they do it for small change). I was not aware, given the current recession, that there was any place left in the US that still had the kind of money to engage in these kinds of gambling exercises; I guess I learn something new every day.

Re:Sorry, what was the problem?

[flimflammer]

Are you located in the United States? I've never heard of a cover-everyone policy that was not something you had to pay a wad more for. I've been through a number of big name insurance companies and a few minor ones, and it was always something you had to pay a good deal more for.

He doesn't care?

[MrEricSir]

Was this Judge Honey Badger, by any chance?

"Currently deciding" = "Haven't decided"

[elrous0]

I'm pretty sure a lower court judge can't just throw out a case because the Supreme Court will probably make a decision sometime later in the year that MAY OR MAY NOT contradict his own. The author of this article makes it sound like, just because some Justices expressed some reservations in their questioning of the case, that it's a foregone conclusion they're going to rule GPS tracking unconstitutional. Personally, I find it highly doubtful that such a conservative court is going to do any such thing. I suspect they'll either come up with some dodge of the issue (overruling on some narrow technicality or something) or outright uphold United States v. Antoine Jones as constitutional.

The present-day SCOTUS is little more than a rubber stamp for the President and Congress. And even when they do make the rare controversial ruling, it's for some conservative political end (like the Citizen's United case), not in some noble defense of citizens' Constitutional rights. I would frankly be surprised if anyone in that chamber has even *glanced* at the U.S. Constitution since they took a required class on it once in law school. The fact that Barack Obama can all but abolish habeas corpus and due process with the stroke of a pen without them so much as raising an eyebrow should let you know where those nine stooges stand on the U.S. Constitution.

Re:"Currently deciding" = "Haven't decided"

[Scareduck]

Personally, I find it highly doubtful that such a conservative statist court is going to do any such thing.

FTFY.

Re:"Currently deciding" = "Haven't decided"

[NeutronCowboy]

I would frankly be surprised if anyone in that chamber has even *glanced* at the U.S. Constitution since they took a required class on it once in law school.

I'm pretty sure they took more than just one class on constitutional law, and have read the entirety of it more often than you suspect. As for it being a rubber stamp - it can't be at once a rubber stamp for both the President and for Congress, since those two are pretty much at loggerheads over everything these days.

Personally, I'm pretty sure that if you'd ask anyone of the justices, they would all say that they're ruling in defense of citizens' Constitutional rights, and that they just happen to disagree with your personal interpretation of it. Or do you think that the Constitution is the only writing in history where everyone who reads it always comes to the same conclusion? I mean, computer software doesn't even behave like that, and it has one less level of human involvement: the interpreter/compiler. A software writer is as human as a constitutional law writer.

Re:"Currently deciding" = "Haven't decided"

[Oligonicella]

Sir! How *DAST" you compare me to a lawyer?

Re:"Currently deciding" = "Haven't decided"

[Martin Blank]

The NDAA has yet to be challenged. While you seem to have already decided how a future court (which may or may not look like the current court) will decide it, it's very hard to guess where some justices will come down, especially on things like unlimited confinement for an arrest made in US jurisdictions. Chief Justice Rehnquist was in favor of California legalizing medical marijuana, for example, something that surprised many.

Back to the original point, the judge doesn't have to throw out a case. He can simply put the case on hold pending resolution at higher levels unless for some reason the defendant's rights (such as to a speedy trial) are being violated by holding off. This kind of thing happens fairly often. Even appellate courts do this when an en banc or Supreme Court hearing on a similar issue is pending.

Re:"Currently deciding" = "Haven't decided"

[flooey]

The present-day SCOTUS is little more than a rubber stamp for the President and Congress. And even when they do make the rare controversial ruling, it's for some conservative political end (like the Citizen's United case), not in some noble defense of citizens' Constitutional rights. I would frankly be surprised if anyone in that chamber has even *glanced* at the U.S. Constitution since they took a required class on it once in law school.

Indeed, you can clearly see that in such rulings as Boumediene v. Bush (Guantanamo prisoners have the right of habeus corpus), Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association (violent video games are protected by the First Amendment), and Bullcoming v. New Mexico (the Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to confront the actual accuser, another person that is employed in the same role is not sufficient).

The current Court is certainly conservative, but it's hardly a rubber stamp on the government. The Justices clearly consider each case on its own merits, and they might disagree with you on what the right answer is, but it's not because they haven't thoroughly considered the case.

The fact that Barack Obama can all but abolish habeas corpus and due process with the stroke of a pen without them so much as raising an eyebrow should let you know where those nine stooges stand on the U.S. Constitution.

Supreme Court justices rarely say anything about a law until a case is presented to them, and they're barred by the Constitution from issuing a ruling on a law until an actual case arising under that law is presented to them. Congress can pass whatever unconstitutional laws it likes, the Supreme Court isn't involved until the laws are invoked in some manner.

Re:"Currently deciding" = "Haven't decided"

[elrous0]

The fact that the Court almost always splits along 5-4 partisan lines on any case involving liberal vs. conservative politics these days should tell you that politics is their primary concern, not the Constitution. If you think that the Justices in SCOTUS see the Constitution as anything more than a tool to advance the agenda of the party whose President appointed them, then you are truly naive. Just look at how Citizen's United broke down. This was a case where the Republican Party stood to make a major gain from it being overturned (since they benefit the most from Corporate donations). Sure enough, the 5 justices appointed by Republicans voted to overturn and the 4 justices who were appointed by Democrats voted to uphold. You think anyone in the Court that day gave a rat's ass about the Constitution? No, they were representing their POLITICAL PARTIES--period, end of story.

Re:"Currently deciding" = "Haven't decided"

[Obfuscant]

If you think that the Justices in SCOTUS see the Constitution as anything more than a tool to advance the agenda of the party whose President appointed them, then you are truly naive.

You do realize, don't you, that SCOTUS justices are appointed for life? They have no need to advance any agenda to keep their jobs. They don't have to worry what political parties think, they'll be A-list attendees at any party or event they go to.

What is more likely to be true is that the President who appointed them will appoint someone with a judicial temperment that matches his own desires, and the justice will continue that temperment into his appointment.

While you may see this as "no difference", it really is. The former requires an intent to act in a way to please others. The latter requires only an intent to continue acting in a way that the justice himself finds appropriate. The integrity and motives of the justice do count for something.

Re:"Currently deciding" = "Haven't decided"

[NeutronCowboy]

If you think that the Justices in SCOTUS see the Constitution as anything more than a tool to advance the agenda of the party whose President appointed them, then you are truly naive.

I would suggest at looking at some data about who appointed whom, and how their decisions panned out. You might be surprised. Justice Souter, for example, was so famously a thorn in the side of the Republican Party that he was probably single-handedly responsible for the march toward nominating more politically known entities to the SCOTUS. Furthermore, one of the dissenting justices in the United Citizens case, Justice Stevens, was appointed by a Republican President.

Finally, you're conflating two things: political party and philosophical framework. While one can lead to another, it is dangerous to assume that they are always 1:1 relationships.

All in all, I find your position the most naive - that you can predict the decision of a member of the SCOTUS merely by looking at who nominated them.

Re:"Currently deciding" = "Haven't decided"

[Theaetetus]

I would frankly be surprised if anyone in that chamber has even *glanced* at the U.S. Constitution since they took a required class on it once in law school.

Funny thing - at the "top tier" law schools like Harvard and Yale (where all of the current members of SCOTUS went), Constitutional Law is now an elective, and is not required for any "lawyer".

Re:"Currently deciding" = "Haven't decided"

[bratwiz]

That's why they use a R-u-b-b-e-r stamp.... things are getting stretched mighty thin....

Disturbing...

[erroneus]

At first I thought I read "government owned vehicle" but then I realized this was a government employee with a personally owned vehicle.

This is the WRONG APPROACH. These types of short-sighted rulings open doors for vary bad behavior on the part of government. There are other ways to confirm the behavior of a suspect... of course those ways are less lazy and I guess that's what we are trying to enable the government to be... is lazy... and to collect their pay checks for doing nothing... oh the irony.

Re:Disturbing...

[pr0nd3xtr]

They could have someone tail the car but tracking it does the same thing without the need to have one or more people (or some expensive UAV) following this person around. Why waste more gas and people following this asshole freeloader around?

Re:Disturbing...

[Osgeld]

you call it lazy, I call it more efficient, they were going to track the dude no matter what, and its perfectly legal to tail them, instead of having a gang of agents all on the clock driving around the city in government transportation they let a computer device do it for them

its "green" law enforcement (har har)

Re:Disturbing...

[tatman]

IMO, deducting mileage is irrelevant. If mileage deduction is sufficient to allow warrantless use of tracking, then millions of Americans can be tracked, without a warrant. To me, that's tantamount to putting a camera in every home because they deduct interest of the home from taxes.

Re:Disturbing...

[ISoldat53]

Sounds like a good case for jury nullification.

Re:Disturbing...

[Calydor]

Because people following the car around can check who is IN the car?

This is similar to identification based solely on an IP address - just as the IP at best points to a router, the GPS location only says where the CAR was, NOT where the employee in question was.

Re:Disturbing...

[DriedClexler]

But why do you have to track someone's car *at all* to know whether they're showing up at work? Can't you just, like, check the workplace for the presence of this worker?

Also, the lack of any discernable output from him should kinda clue you in without having to track where his car is.

I'm just interested how they got the point of deciding that the only way to "catch" him was to track his car. For my whole life, my bosses have known when I don't show up for work without needing to tack a GPS unit onto my ride...

Re:Disturbing...

[gl4ss]

look, they could just have had some kid wait at his office for him to show or not show up..

Re:Disturbing...

[jahudabudy]

Depends on his job, really. Maybe he travels around to various locations, so there is no way to know where he is "supposed" to be at any given time. Maybe his output is in the form of site evaluation reports that he can easily fill out in 5 minutes (assuming he isn't doing his job) and file electronically. There are several scenarios that make judging a person's attendance and even output difficult.

rule based on current precedents, not future ones

[tverbeek]

So should judges to just sit on their hands and stall until the Supreme Court has told them how to decide the cases in front of them? Or should they do their job and decide those cases promptly, based on their understanding of the existing case law? If the Supreme Court later says that their interpretation is incorrect then it gets overturned, if not then it stays in force. I hate to break it to you, but there are countless legal questions where the Supreme Court has not yet ruled on them, such as one Court of Appeals ruling one way, and another ruling differently. Until a case makes its way to the Supreme Court to settle the question, judges are supposed to continue hear and decide cases; that's their job.

Totally different

[stevegee58]

It's a state-owned car, same as a state- or company-owned computer.
Everyone knows it's legal/Constitutional for companies to eavesdrop on their own networks to snoop emails, web surfing, etc.
The company car is the same. It's not your car; it's provided for your official use with restrictions.

Re:Totally different

[X0563511]

No, it's not a state-owned car.

Re:Totally different

[Obfuscant]

It's a state-owned car, same as a state- or company-owned computer.

Uhhhh, rtfm, please. The car was registered to Robinson. It wasn't a state-owned car, except in the left-field sense that the state owns us all and we are merely wage slaves supporting the current regiem.

The Circuit courts have issued rulings on this that are applicable until the SCOTUS rules otherwise. The fine document contains the legal arguments against the claims that such tracking is a search or a siezure and thus violates the fourth amendment, both of which are quite rational and sound. Nobody has an expectation of privacy regarding the location of their vehicle when it is on the public streets, and there is no seizure.

Re:Totally different

[lgarner]

It was private, not state-owned. But the real question is, why did they have to put a GPS tracker on it to know whether he was going to work or not?

Re:Totally different

[lolococo]

Now that is the real question here. My best guess (I'm too lazy to llok it up) is that to to do it the old-fashioned way (you know, like having him watched by an agent) they would need a warrant.
Can anyone confirm?

Re:IANAL..

[MyFirstNameIsPaul]

Federal judges are appointed for life and can't be fired. So yes, he can rule any way he wants to. Also, judges are immune to the concept of 'power corrupts'; just ask them.

I call it first

[deblau]

In before GVR.

I'm no LEO, but...

[PunditGuy]

Wouldn't it have been easier and more efficacious to sit at the guy's work and see if he showed up or not? People can get to work a variety of ways, and a variety of people can use cars.

Clear argument

[Anonymous Coward]

From the ruling:

A person travelling in an automobile on public thoroughfares
has no reasonable expectation of privacy in his movements from
one place to another. When [the co-conspirator] travelled
over the public streets he voluntarily conveyed to anyone who
wanted to look the fact that he was travelling over particular
roads in a particular direction, the fact of whatever stops he
made, and the fact of his final destination when he exited
from public roads onto private property.

I hate the idea of GPS tracking, but the judge makes an excellent point.

Re:Clear argument

[urulokion]

No that's isn't reasonable. A person does have some expectation of privacy from the government. It's abhorrent to think that the government can have casual access to my location over long periods of time. Note: I use the term casual. Using a lot of manpower to keep a a 24 hour surveillance on me isn't casual. Having to go before a judge to request a search warrant to install a GPS tracker isn't casual. Those are sufficient deterrent from letting the government go Big Brother on the population 24x7.

Also from the article, they has a reasonable suspicion the guy was committing fraud. That's a slam dunk for getting a search warrant. It would not have taken that much effort for an agent to full out the paperwork and submit it to the Court.. I do hope the SCOTUS slaps the government silly when it hands down it's ruling in the GPS case. The Feds in general try sqeeze an extra light year when you give 'em an inch. That trends needs to stop.

Re:Clear argument

[currently_awake]

What about on private property? Yes a cop can follow you in public, but a tracker allows them to follow you in places where you DO have a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Re:Clear argument

[bws111]

Read the ruling (page 15). It only revealed public locations.

By that logic...

[GodfatherofSoul]

The government can plant devices in public places (e.g. a listening device with double-sided tape on the seat of your chair) that can then be transported by you (and not the government) into a private place.

A dangerous time has begun

[assemblerex]

Where people in power no longer feel the letter of the law needs to be obeyed,
people are no longer entitled to a lawyer or trial and can be held indefinitely.

Re:A dangerous time has begun

[lgarner]

Welcome to 500 years ago. Fixed it.

Seems complicated

[PCM2]

From the linked story, there are two issues before the Supreme Court:

1. Does using a GPS device to follow you around without a warrant violate your Fourth Amendment rights? There's extra language in there, too: A key point seems to be that when they're following you around, they're doing so on the public streets. The argument could be made that following your car is different from a wiretap in this respect, in that you have a reasonable expectation of privacy when you're talking on the phone at home, but you have no such expectation when you leave the house and go out in public. Is following you via GPS really any different than tailing your car visually?

2. Does planting the GPS device without a warrant, in and of itself, violate your Fourth Amendment rights? Maybe -- but one could argue that by planting the device, they have no more "searched" you than they would have had they driven past your house and seen the car in the driveway. They haven't done much more than a parking cop does when he puts chalk on the tire of your car. And they've haven't "seized" anything -- in fact, you now have something that you didn't have before.

These seem like complicated issues and I'm interested to hear what the Supremes think about them.

Re:Seems complicated

[CanHasDIY]

From the linked story, there are two issues before the Supreme Court:

1. Does using a GPS device to follow you around without a warrant violate your Fourth Amendment rights? There's extra language in there, too: A key point seems to be that when they're following you around, they're doing so on the public streets. The argument could be made that following your car is different from a wiretap in this respect, in that you have a reasonable expectation of privacy when you're talking on the phone at home, but you have no such expectation when you leave the house and go out in public. Is following you via GPS really any different than tailing your car visually?

2. Does planting the GPS device without a warrant, in and of itself, violate your Fourth Amendment rights? Maybe -- but one could argue that by planting the device, they have no more "searched" you than they would have had they driven past your house and seen the car in the driveway. They haven't done much more than a parking cop does when he puts chalk on the tire of your car. And they've haven't "seized" anything -- in fact, you now have something that you didn't have before.

These seem like complicated issues and I'm interested to hear what the Supremes think about them.

Some problems with that argument:

1) Nowhere does the Fourth Amendment contain a caveat that implies our right to be free from search and seizure without warrant does not apply in public places; in fact, I would contend that ensuring the populace is able to travel freely is a big part of why that particular right is enumerated. Had the British Empire been able to track the movements of General Washington with such precision, you can bet there would be no such thing as the United States of America.

2) Even though it is often operated on "public streets," my vehicle is still private property and subject to applicable laws; placing a GPS device on my vehicle without permission or warrant, for the purpose of conducting surveillance, is no different than searching the interior of said vehicle without permission or warrant.

3) Can't speak for anywhere else, but I know in Missouri it is illegal for an officer to follow a vehicle for more than a proscribed distance without a warrant, else the officer can be prosecuted for harassment. So, unless the cops are pulling me over and removing/reattaching the device every few miles, or they have a warrant, this practice would be in flagrant violation of Missouri statute.

4) I don't know about you, but I park my car in my private garage, which is an enclosed structure on private property; Meaning, when I come home and park at the end of the day, the police have effectively placed a piece of surveillance equipment in my home without my permission or a lawful warrant.

Basically, my stance on this and all related issues is thus: If law enforcement has such a hard time obeying the Constitution by obtaining a lawful warrant, perhaps it's time we find them something more productive for them to do, or start culling the herd.

Re:Seems complicated

[Obfuscant]

1) Nowhere does the Fourth Amendment contain a caveat that implies our right to be free from search and seizure without warrant does not apply in public places;

This argument is irrelevant. Of course the fourth amendment applies in public places. The question is, is it either a search or a seizure to which the fourth amendment applies?

placing a GPS device on my vehicle without permission or warrant, for the purpose of conducting surveillance, is no different than searching the interior of said vehicle without permission or warrant.

Oh, but it is quite different. You even implicitely admit that by the terms you choose to use to refer to the actions. "Placing" vs. "searching". I can place a penny on the hood of your car without anyone beginning to think that by doing so I've conducted a search of any kind, other than the requisite search of my own pocket to locate a penny.

It is hard to call an act that involves nothing other than seeing what is plainly visible a "search", and in fact, "in plain sight" is a clear exception to the requirements to get a warrant. If you've left your bag of dope laying on the coffee table and you allow a cop to enter your house, when he sees that dope he can arrest you without having conducted a search or needing a warrant. If you stand in a public place and wave about what appears to be a bag of dope, the "plain sight" exception still applies, even though it is a public place.

And, I'll point out, your claim that placing the device is a search is a matter of opinion, and perhaps the crux of the SCOTUS case. The Circuit courts disagree with you.

...this practice would be in flagrant violation of Missouri statute.

MIssouri law is not federal law and applies nowhere except Missouri. In addition, one would have to consider what the actual law says, whether it says "illegal to follow a vehicle" or "illegal to monitor the actions of a vehicle", because attaching a GPS tracker is not "following". It is "monitoring". In other words, does the law prohibit an act of harassment or an act of tracking? How can you be harassed by something you don't know is taking place? A marked police vehicle following someone is clearly a visible act, and doing so for an extended period of time could reasonably be considered harassment. If I were to tape a penny to the underside of your vehicle and you didn't know it was there, am I harassing you?

I don't know about you, but I park my car in my private garage, which is an enclosed structure on private property; Meaning,

Meaning this is outside the scope of the case being discussed. And meaning that they would need a warrant to enter your premises to attach the device or remove it.

Would you argue that a parking ticket is unconstitutional, based on the hypothetical instance of you coming home and park at the end of the day, the police have effectively placed something on your vehicle that has arrived in a private place without your permission or warrant?

Basically, my stance on this and all related issues is thus: If law enforcement has such a hard time obeying the Constitution by obtaining a lawful warrant,

And the stance of the court is, quite properly, to decide if a warrant is indeed required for certain actions, not to pretend that the police need a warrant to do everything. Trying to argue that the cops need a warrant to do things that the constitition doesn't demand that they have a warrant to do is a losing battle.

Re:Seems complicated

[CanHasDIY]

1) Nowhere does the Fourth Amendment contain a caveat that implies our right to be free from search and seizure without warrant does not apply in public places;

This argument is irrelevant. Of course the fourth amendment applies in public places. The question is, is it either a search or a seizure to which the fourth amendment applies?

placing a GPS device on my vehicle without permission or warrant, for the purpose of conducting surveillance, is no different than searching the interior of said vehicle without permission or warrant.

Oh, but it is quite different. You even implicitely admit that by the terms you choose to use to refer to the actions. "Placing" vs. "searching". I can place a penny on the hood of your car without anyone beginning to think that by doing so I've conducted a search of any kind, other than the requisite search of my own pocket to locate a penny.

It is hard to call an act that involves nothing other than seeing what is plainly visible a "search", and in fact, "in plain sight" is a clear exception to the requirements to get a warrant. If you've left your bag of dope laying on the coffee table and you allow a cop to enter your house, when he sees that dope he can arrest you without having conducted a search or needing a warrant. If you stand in a public place and wave about what appears to be a bag of dope, the "plain sight" exception still applies, even though it is a public place.

And, I'll point out, your claim that placing the device is a search is a matter of opinion, and perhaps the crux of the SCOTUS case. The Circuit courts disagree with you.

From: Using electronic devices to keep surveillance over a person may implicate the investigated individual's Fourth Amendment rights... Courts have held that this practice constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment, which protects an individual's privacy rights for situations in which the person has a legitimate expectation of privacy.

...this practice would be in flagrant violation of Missouri statute.

MIssouri law is not federal law and applies nowhere except Missouri. In addition, one would have to consider what the actual law says, whether it says "illegal to follow a vehicle" or "illegal to monitor the actions of a vehicle", because attaching a GPS tracker is not "following". It is "monitoring". In other words, does the law prohibit an act of harassment or an act of tracking? How can you be harassed by something you don't know is taking place? A marked police vehicle following someone is clearly a visible act, and doing so for an extended period of time could reasonably be considered harassment. If I were to tape a penny to the underside of your vehicle and you didn't know it was there, am I harassing you?

RTFA; the incident and court in question are both in Missouri, and while federal laws supersedes state, state laws are still applicable unless contradicted.

I refuse to get into a semantics game; try cracking a thesaurus sometime, you will probably be surprised to discover that "following" and "monitoring" are synonyms.

A coin is not a surveillance device, and therefore is a nonsense analogy.

I don't know about you, but I park my car in my private garage, which is an enclosed structure on private property; Meaning,

Meaning this is outside the scope of the case being discussed. And meaning that they would need a warrant to enter your premises to attach the device or remove it.

How is that "outside the scope of the case?" They attached a surveillance device to a person's privately owned vehicle, which A) is private property, no matter where it is operated, and B) very well may be parked in a private, enclosed garage. While yo

Re:Seems complicated

[Vitriol Angst]

Your comment sounds really thoughtful.... ... which is why the Supreme court will consider none of this.

They will look at case law, previous misinterpretations, and situations where a hypothetical GPS device would avert Nuclear war to come down fairly on the side of whatever keeps the population under control.

Unless someone from OWS can hire Clarence Thomas' wife as a consultant, it's going to be a 5 to 4 ruling to allow GPS without a warrant.

The decision will be ghost written and handed in as if it were actually the opinion of the court, from a Law Firm recommended by the US Chamber of Commerce.

>> I think we all need to update how this Legal stuff works ... you were obviously hindered by some education in law.

Re:Seems complicated

[Vitriol Angst]

Wow, kudos sir on some of the most elegant Weasel Words I've seen to use the letter of the law to defeat the spirit of the law.

If he Cops don't need a warrant to place a GPS on your car, then the cops don't need a warrant to secretly "place" a GPS pill in your hamburger and have you swallow it. I mean, I can place a Penny on the hood of your car -- but if you swallow that GPS/penny -- you've basically interacted with it and chosen to participate in this voluntary measure. Since the GPS device is LEGAL -- and you are ignorant of it -- ignorance of the law is no excuse. Ipso Facto; cops don't need a law to tag and release you.

I'm actually sure that you will go far with this sort of logic, because Weasels are in high demand.

>> IF you ignore intent - then there isn't ANYTHING you cannot justify if you phrase things in the right way. Which is why your comment is so scary.

Re:Seems complicated

[Obfuscant]

From: Using electronic devices to keep surveillance over a person may implicate the investigated individual's Fourth Amendment rights... Courts have held that this practice constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment, which protects an individual's privacy rights for situations in which the person has a legitimate expectation of privacy.

You are being dishonest by eliding the specific antecedant to the phrase "this practice" (which I highlighted) in the material you quoted. What is the example that "this practice" refers to? The sentence you removed: "One form of electronic surveillance is attaching a "bug" to a person's telephone line or to a phone booth and recording the phone conversation." There was no recording of any phone conversation involved, there was only the record of location of a vehicle while it was being operated on public streets and in public view. Any person seeing the vehicle could have made such a record. There is no expectation of privacy here, where there would be when someone is holding a conversation on a private telephone. You have taken a statement regarding a telephone conversation and the bugging thereof and tried to apply it to a very different action.

The 8th, 7th, and 9th Circuits have already ruled that attaching a GPS tracking device to a vehicle while it is parked in a public place does not require a warrant. Please do go read the report linked to in the original article. On page 14:

The Eighth Circuitâ(TM)s holding in Marquez is consistent with those circuits that have addressed the issue. See United States v. Hernandez, 647 F.3d 216, 220 n.4 (5th Cir. 2011) (âoePlacing the GPS device under the car was not a search because a carâ(TM)s undercarriage is thrust into the public eye, and thus to examine it does not constitute a search.â (citation omitted)); United States v. Cuevas-Perez, 640 F.3d 272, 273 (7th Cir. 2011) (holding the installation and use of a GPS tracker device were not Fourth Amendment searches); United States v. McIver, 186 F.3d 1119, 1226-27 (9th Cir. 1999) (holding the installation of the GPS tracker device was not a Fourth Amendment search because the defendant did not intend to shield the undercarriage of his vehicle from inspection by others and because the officers did not pry into a hidden or enclosed area when installing the GPS tracker device). These holdings are consistent with Supreme Court precedent. See New York v. Class, 475 U.S. 106, 114 (1986) (âoeThe exterior of a car, of course, is thrust into the public eye, and thus to examine it does not constitute a âsearch.â(TM)â); United States v. Karo, 468 U.S. 705, 712 (1984) (holding the installation of a beeper hidden in a can was not a search because the beeper itself, while âoecreat[ing] the potential for an invasion of privacy,â actually âoeconveyed no information that [the defendant] wished to keep private, for it conveyed no information at allâ).

Here, installation of the GPS tracker device onto defendant Robinsonâ(TM)s Cavalier was not a âoesearchâ because defendant Robinson did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the exterior of his Cavalier.

The Circuit courts seem quite clear on the fact that it isn't a search. Your opinion and the interest of SCOTUS in the matter do not change that fact.

RTFA; the incident and court in question are both in Missouri, and while federal laws supersedes state, state laws are still applicable unless contradicted.

Do you have a cite for the law you claim prohibits police from following someone for more than a certain period of time? I can find no reference to it in the Mo. Revised Statutes. And something other than your claim that "following" and "monitoring" are synonymous in the eyes of the law to back up your claim that monitoring for more than a certain period of time violates Mo. state law?

I refuse to get into a

Re:Seems complicated

[Obfuscant]

Vitriol is right.

Wow, kudos sir on some of the most elegant Weasel Words I've seen to use the letter of the law to defeat the spirit of the law.

Do you know the spirit of the fourth amendment? Was the spirit "of the law" to prevent police from observing things that are in plain sight, or was it to prevent them from intruding into private spaces and confiscating private property without legal justification? I.e., "search" and "seizure"?

In this case, there was neither an intrusion into private spaces nor a confiscation of property. There was no search. There was no seizure.

Now, if you want to argue that this violates a "right to privacy", then you need to find in the Constitution where it actually has this right listed. Yes, you might claim that the amendment that says that other rights exist but doesn't list "privacy" as one of them actually refers to that, but you could claim anything you want as a right under that provision. I don't think the spirit of the founders was that anything anyone wants to take as a right would become a right just because they say so.

... then the cops don't need a warrant to secretly "place" a GPS pill in your hamburger and have you swallow it.

The obvious difference that you are skipping over to try to make your point, is that the interior of your body is a private space and not "in plain sight". Nor is the introduction of an adulterant to your food something that would have no effect upon you. It may, in fact, cause you great physical harm.

Your claim that by eating it you have chosen to participate is just lunacy.

Re:rule based on current precedents, not future on

[Dunbal]

So should judges to just sit on their hands and stall until the Supreme Court has told them how to decide the cases in front of them

No, judges should have a brain and not create laws where they don't exist. Government needs to be specifically allowed by law to do anything. If there is no law to specifically support an action, the government is barred from doing it. On the other hand people are allowed by birth to do anything provided there is no law to disallow it. A judge who doesn't understand this basic concept of FREEDOM should not be anywhere near a bench. Of course the above only applies to civilized countries. In the US however the government seems to be able to do whatever it wants, and if it gets in trouble it just creates laws for itself after the fact.

Re:It's the FBI

[NatasRevol]

Also, it's a federal government car. So pretty sure they can trace their own car, legally, without asking the driver(s).

The SC cannot decide this for all cases either

[jackspenn]

Truth, thankfully, is that a warrant is required to do a search, if a judge has a hard time understanding this, you can always go to a jury trial.

Just...

[stevenh2]

Put it in the employee contract that they can be tracked by GPS.

Re:Not relevant anyway

[Osgeld]

ok have fun watching your family members commit suicide for the chance to own a iPhone

So let me get this straight..

[SuperCharlie]

Property ownership does not include the right to control what happens to that property. Is that what I am hearing this judge say? TFA does not specifically say it is or isn't a govt vehicle but I suspect it would say so if it were. What in the Hell have we become...

Re:So let me get this straight..

[OhHellWithIt]

I went into it feeling the same way, but reading the judge's reasoning in the PDF (linked to in the original post, but also here for your convenience -- search for "tracking" to get to the relevant section), I can see that he gave it serious and fair consideration, including citing similar cases that predate GPS. I still feel that the way I'd deal with such a tracking device, should I ever find one, would be to attach it to another vehicle -- preferably a boat trailer or a garbage truck.

Re:So let me get this straight..

[Obfuscant]

Property ownership does not include the right to control what happens to that property. Is that what I am hearing this judge say?

We can't answer that. Only you can tell us what you "hear".

Can you elaborate on your first statment for us? In what way does attaching a GPS unit to a stationary vehicle parked on a public street control the property to which the tracker is attached? How does the existance of that tracker change in any way the use of the device to which it is attached (without the owner's knowledge?)

Re:So let me get this straight..

[SuperCharlie]

Property ownership should include the right to control what is and is not done to your property. It is not that difficult of a concept to grasp. No one should have the right, without a warrant, to have any interest or action upon someone else's possessions without the explicit consent of the owner. This is a basic right here.

Re:So let me get this straight..

[CanHasDIY]

In what way does attaching a GPS unit to a stationary vehicle parked on a public street control the property to which the tracker is attached? How does the existance of that tracker change in any way the use of the device to which it is attached (without the owner's knowledge?)

According to Missouri Statute 569.080, a person is guilty of 1st degree tampering ( a Class C Felony, FYI) if "He or she knowingly receives, possesses, sells, alters, defaces, destroys or unlawfully operates an automobile, airplane, motorcycle, motorboat or other motor-propelled vehicle without the consent of the owner thereof."

Note the emphasis.

YMMV depending on your state's laws regarding tampering.

Re:So let me get this straight..

[Obfuscant]

According to Missouri Statute 569.080, a person is guilty of 1st degree tampering ( a Class C Felony, FYI) if "He or she knowingly receives, possesses, sells, alters, defaces, destroys or unlawfully operates an automobile, airplane, motorcycle, motorboat or other motor-propelled vehicle without the consent of the owner thereof."

So the answer to my question is "it doesn't control or change the use of the vehicle in any way". Ok. Does it "alter" the vehicle? Well, does putting a traffic ticket under the windshield wiper "alter" the vehicle? Does putting an advertising flyer alter it? Both are examples of actions that "attach" something to a vehicle in an non-permanent manner, that leave the vehicle in the original state when removed, and are easily removed. Have you tried getting a meter maid arrested for violation of this statute?

A more relevant example would be, does the attachment of a tow-notice (large orange sticker saying "move this car or it will be towed") "alter" the car? It's a more permanent attachment. How about the attachment of a "boot"? There is no warrant required for that, only a certain number of unpaid parking tickets. Clearly, in both of these example, there are warrantless "alterations" that can be made by police to a vehicle without the owner's permission.

Notice that the law you cited (thank you for citing it, BTW) says nothing about tracking or the function of the "alteration", so the argument that the GPS "alteration" is a tracker and the advertising flying isn't isn't relevant to this alleged violation. The law deals only with the "alteration" itself.

On a different issue, I'd like a cite for the "prohibited from following" law so I can see exactly what it says.

Re:So let me get this straight..

[SuperCharlie]

I contend that owning something means you have the exclusive right to do with it as you please and no one else without warrant has this right. What they do with it, how it effects it or any other issue is irrelevant. In other words, it does not matter who does what with your possessions. They have no right to them. Period.

New business model!

[Anonymous Psychopath]

1) Court rules it legal to install GPS trackers on cars you don't own, as long as they're publicly accessible.
2) Install 3G-connected GPS trackers on any unattended police cruisers.
3) Incorporate current live location of police vehicles into iPhone/Android app.
4) Profit!

Re:New business model!

[OhHellWithIt]

You forgot:

. . .

Re:New business model!

[NatasRevol]

Speaking as someone who had 4 speeding tickets last year, I'd pay for that.

Re:New business model!

[Anonymous Coward]

Or you could maybe just calm down and follow the speed limit?

Re:New business model!

[evil_aaronm]

What if the national speed limit was set to something ridiculously low, like 15 mph? You could argue the safety factor - heck, wouldn't we all be safer, from a traffic accident perspective, if we all just avoided driving? - but, realistically, driving any decent distance at 15 mph would SUCK. In contrast, I typically average about 75 mph when I travel across New York state every week to and from work. I've been doing this for over 3 years and have had no accidents - and no speeding tickets, either, thanks to my radar detector. Sure, I'm pushing my luck at a higher speed, but any time I get on the road, I'm pushing my luck. I save about two hours round trip over the state speed limit of 65 mph. To me, that extra time with my family is worth the increased risk.

Speeding tickets are one of those "victimless crimes" that are an affront to any real American. When I cause an accident, throw the book at me. Until then, get out of my way.

Re:New business model!

[TemporalBeing]

You can usually go about 10 over safely and without police bothering you. Anything higher than that tends to be pushing it.

Namely because that first 0-10mph over is typically just a warning unless its a repeat offender with multiple pull-overs and other issues are involved. So it's not worth it; plus they recognize there needs to be some leeway for differences between vehicle and detectors, vehicular movements due to terrain, and how easy it is for people to pay that close of attention to their speed.

Re:New business model!

[Rich0]

Yup. On longer trips I suspect that the slight risk from higher speed is offset by the reduced risk of exhaustion due to making a trip 12 hours instead of 16 hours, or whatever.

Fundamental Misunderstanding of the Law

[sampson7]

The summary of this article is just wrong. The Supreme Court has not said that the issue is unclear - it has merely agreed to hear a case about whether a specific decision made by the U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Columbia conflicts with existing Supreme Court precedent.

To the extent that you can infer anything from the Supreme Court's grant of certiorari, it is equally likely to conclude that they took the case in order to slap down the D.C. Circuit's novel approach to the 4th Amendment.

The existing precedent, by the way, is that we have no reasonable expectation of privacy in our cars. As a result, it is not an "unreasonable" search or seizure to attach beepers or other devices to our cars in order to monitor our movements.

In fact, the judge in this case does an excellent job summarizing and applying the relevant case law. He points to a case from the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals (which is the relevant circuit for St. Louis) clearly stating that putting a tracker on a car and then later retreiving it is not a constitutionally prohibited search or seizure.

Agree or disagree on whether we have a reasonable expectation of privacy in our cars - the judge in this case acted properly. It would have violated another constitutional right - the one to a speedy trial - if he had simply delayed the issuance of his opinion until after the Supreme Court issues its (entirely discretionary) opinion.

What a silly article.

Re:Fundamental Misunderstanding of the Law

[rahvin112]

I'd wager they agreed to hear the case not because they think the Columbia district ruling disagrees with the constitution, but more likely because there is a disagreement between the district courts. Several have ruled it's ok, and a couple have ruled it's not. Currently it's legal in some districts and illegal in others, that makes an issue ripe for review by the Supreme court to level the playing field.

Personally I think it should be illegal or that you should own it if you find it attached to your car. We can't have a bullshit world where it's legal for them to attach it, and illegal for you to remove it and throw it away.

Re:Fundamental Misunderstanding of the Law

[mbkennel]

"The existing precedent, by the way, is that we have no reasonable expectation of privacy in our cars."

OK. That means it's OK to take pictures of people on public roads.

"As a result, it is not an "unreasonable" search or seizure to attach beepers or other devices to our cars in order to monitor our movements."

Actually it is unreasonable to do something to somebody's car. I can have no expectation of privacy when I'm walking in a shopping mall from people looking at me, but I do have a reasonable expectation that sombebody's not going to shove a tracker down my backside or even in my backpack. Normally people look at each other but they don't mess with people's stuff. This is the "secure in ones possessions" part.

Re:rule based on current precedents, not future on

[p0p0]

From what I understand, the common action is to wait until te decision is made, so that as another /.'er said, the case doesn't have to be reviewed or appealed wasting even more time and money.

Turnabout Is Fair Play?

[PatDev]

Slashdot has so many comments boiling down to "Judges don't understand technology, and they look foolish when they rule on it anyways."

Then we have this article and it's responses, which basically boil down to "A bunch of technologists don't understand the law and the mechanism of precedence, and they look foolish when they comment anyways."

Missing data

[ToasterTester]

Was the vehicle a government car or personal?

I'm believe in privacy, but being supplied a company car, it is owned by the complainant they should be able to okay a tracker being attached.

If a personal vehicle and used for transportation to and from work then a court order should be required.

The gray area to me would be if a personal vehicle that employee is being compensated to use for work.

Re:It's the FBI

[neurophil12]

I know it's common to comment without RTFA, but to make a statement of fact regarding the article without reading it is something else entirely.

"Issue: (1) Whether the warrantless use of a tracking device on respondent's vehicle to monitor its movements on public streets violated the Fourth Amendment; and (2) whether the government violated respondent's Fourth Amendment rights by installing the GPS tracking device on his vehicle without a valid warrant and without his consent."

Public Transportation?

[chrismcb]

So "I was using public transportation" is no longer a valid defense?

What's up with needing to GPS the car?

[mbkennel]

Why not
a) ask X, "Are you going to work? If so where? Who is your supervisor?"
b) ask supervisor, "Has X been into work the last M days?"
c) ask accounting, "Has X been getting paid?"

the car doesn't matter.

Have You Not Seen Above the Law?

[dontgetshocked]

Go ahead,make my day!

Well then

[wiedzmin]

I suggest putting a GPS tracker on St. Louis judge's car and posting any questionable locations he frequents for the world to see. Think he would care then?

Oh, wait, AC above just suggested the same thing... oh well, I already typed this up.

Ron Paul will fix them!

[NunyerB]

VOTE: Ron Paul!!! he will set them all straight

Re:Ron Paul will fix them!

[Bob the Super Hamste]

Truthfully he wouldn't be able to directly do anything about it but if he were elected he would probably get to nominate 2 possibly 3 people to the supreme court and they would be able to do something about it. Not to mention all of the lower court appointments he would make while in office. Even if Ron Paul were to be elected its not like the IRS would disappear, the EPA would end, and all drugs would become legal. The areas where the president would be able to act are actually the areas where someone like Ron Paul would do the most good. I don't believe that he would go and get us fighting any more wars and he would end the ones we are currently in. He would submit a budget to congress that would be balanced but then congress would go and do its thing. He would probably veto a lot of legislation. He would also probably appoint fairly libertarian/constitutionalists judges to the courts.

RTFA

[ZombieBraintrust]

The Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause applies only to state governments. For the judicial system your looking at the due process clause in the Fifth Amendement. Having each circuit have its own limited common law doesn't violate due process. You still have a process that is formalized and the same across the country.

Re:RTFA

[icebike]

The Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause WORDING applies only to state governments, but the REQUIREMENT of equal protection has been read to apply to the federal government as a component of Fifth Amendment due process. The executive branch is held to this standard, and can not tax you more for living in California as opposed to living in Rhode Island. The Judiciary seems to exempt itself from this provision, unwisely IMHO.

You can't claim due process is met everywhere when The Fourth Amendment means different things in different places.

Related case from NZ

[Old Wolf]

An undercover policeman was installing a covert GPS tracker on the car of a suspected criminal; the suspect saw him doing it and shot him dead.

The legal status of this is unclear here too, it hasn't either been ruled legal or illegal.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10669854

Re:Related case from NZ

[jroysdon]

As I read the story, the undercover cop ran as soon as the motion-sensitive floodlights detected him. The suspect chased him down and shot him dead.

Unnecessary force and vigilante actions of taking the law (meeting out death for what should have been perceived as auto-theft) - uhm, yeah, do not collect $200, go straight to jail.

The proper response would have been to hold the undercover cops until law enforcement arrived.

Re:Related case from NZ

[Old Wolf]

Agree that the murderer should be jailed; however the situation shouldn't even have arisen in the first place.

Equal Protection

[Oxford_Comma_Lover]

Actually, you can claim due process is met everywhere--it's just that what it means varies somewhat from place to place. While on the one hand this does seem facially to be a violation of equal protection, it does have significant advantages in that it allows the Supreme Court, when it considers what law should be for the whole country, to see what other intelligent courts have done in the same situation and what the consequences of that have been. (Sort of an analog to the "States as laboratories" argument). The alternative is to divide the circuits according to jurisprudence. That has some advantages (which is why they do it with the Federal Circuit), but it also has major disadvantages (positions become more ideologically and precedentially entrenched, judges have more power, and SCOTUS no longer has the benefit of looking to see how different legal standards have worked before it makes a decision about what policy should be for the country as a whole).

It is also worth noting that true equal protection is impossible without massive cross-subsidization and radical policy change throughout government. But the ideals of equal protection as conceived in the Fourteenth Amendment are far exceeded today.

Common Law

[harperska]

The United States is a Common Law country. That means simply that precedent is in fact law. If you don't like the idea of courts establishing law through precedent, then move to a Statutory Law country.

Re:Common Law

[sexconker]

The United States is a Common Law country. That means simply that precedent is in fact law. If you don't like the idea of courts establishing law through precedent, then move to a Statutory Law country.

This is just 100% incorrect. The only body that can create laws is Congress.
Precedence is a tool for consistency and expedience. Any judge can choose to ignore precedent - it is not law.

Where's the surprise factor?

[gavron]

Federal Judges are IDIOTS. This one is no exception. He COULD wait for a precedent (he didn't). He could AUTHOR ONE (he's too stupid to do that). Or he could WRITE a decision that doesn't take anything into account like the asshat that he is (he did). What? US Federal Judge is an asshat? Yeah. This one also. Am I calling him a moron? NO, I think he's a total asshat chickenshit idiot.

Re:Main problem

[ryanov]

Then why not illegally obtain all evidence and just say "oops, we probably shouldn't take this as seriously."

The system works, as well as it does anyhow, precisely because one must legally obtain evidence for it to be admissible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruit_of_the_poisonous_tree

I agree with the judge

[mcgrew]

It wasn't the guy's own car, it was a government car. Don't you have the right to track your own property?

If it were the guy's own car it would be different, and I'd bet that in that case the judge would have waited for the SCOTUS to act.