Slashdot Mirror
Court Rules Probable-Cause Warrant Required For GPS Trackers
schwit1 tips this news from Wired:
"An appellate court has finally supplied an answer to an open question left dangling by the Supreme Court in 2012: Do law enforcement agencies need a probable-cause warrant to affix a GPS tracker to a target's vehicle? The justices said the government's statement 'wags the dog rather vigorously,' noting that the primary reason for a search cannot be to generate evidence for law enforcement purposes. They also noted that 'Generally speaking, a warrantless search is not rendered reasonable merely because probable cause existed that would have justified the issuance of a warrant.' The justices also rejected the government's argument that obtaining a warrant would impede the ability of law enforcement to investigate crimes."
Even if it would impede law enforcement's ability to investigate crimes, we must recognize that freedom is simply more important.
the primary reason for a search cannot be to generate evidence for law enforcement purposes.
So, we don't have any evidence now so we'll attach this GPS tracker to their car and then we'll have evidence that justifies tracking their car!
Law enforcement logic.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
Obtaining a warrant would impede our ability to conduct warrantless searches!
As a GPS tracker is simply a proxy for a person hiding in the car and tagging along for the ride, writing down everyplace you go, the answer to this question has always been pretty self-evident to me. You need a warrant.
...not agencies that do not need to care about the law.
Warrantless GPS data should be considered testimony for real privacy to start seeping back into the "justice" system. The same should be true for devices which track your miles traveled per trip or your cell phone location information or so-called "metadata" about who you call or where you swipe your credit card. If the cops want to see it, there must be a warrant and you must be provided with a copy of that warrant. I see no problem with this. I also think the "it makes it hard to investigate" line is ridiculous; after all, you refusing to give up your fifth amendment rights makes it hard to investigate as well, and I don't see anyone ACTIVELY trying to get rid of those. Behind the scenes when they think we aren't looking, they're working on it...
All oversight impedes the one's ability to do one's job. The whole point is that it's a trade-off against the costs of the lack of oversight. Other things that impede law enforcement:
1) Need to actually prove someone committed a crime
2) Restrictions on tasering people "because they look a bit crimey"
3) Not permitted to use seized drugs to hold a "pot brownie fundraiser"
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
(it's a rather large fly).
They now have cameras, character recognition and databases that can track you pretty much anywhere.
What we NEED is a court to rule that data-mining constitutes an ersatz search and is protected.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
Do we not have a direct analogy between this ruling and warrantless examination of Internet usage - as does the NSA & others ?
So does this mean that the NSA needs a court order before it can collect any Internet use on anyone ? Ie the end to their current ''vacuum up everything'' way of doing things ?
.... has returned to someone in the Judicial system.
It's ridiculous that the government bitches about getting a warrant. GPS is more invasive in my opinion. Because if you are a person of interest and the Govt, feels that you should be tracked, then they slap that GPS unit on your vehicle and they will step onto your property to do it in many cases. So in the event that they're not parked outside your house watching your every move, they don't always know who's driving that vehicle. So in essence, if you lent your car to someone that is NOT a person of interest the government is now tracking the wrong person and violating his/her rights.
As least with a warrant, the request is on papers and the government could back up their tracking with that warrant should the 'person not of interest' have balls big enough to go after the government.
Life takes interesting turns, but the most interest is when you're off the beaten path.
if we didnt have FISA courts with their 2% rate of warrant rejection, im sure this ruling would have serious repercussions for law enforcement agencies across the nation.
I guess this means we'd better order more ink for next year. lord knows we cant have a lack of well lubricated rubber stamps in the court leading to 'liberty' and 'freedom' again.
Good people go to bed earlier.
However, having a "Hacker" bumper sticker on your car would be considered "probable cause".
My wife loves this idea as long as she knows where I am 24\7. She supports this :)
The answer was obvious. We need a way to fast track issues like this to the SCOTUS and force them to rule on them. How many people sat in prison for years due to this crooked process while law enforcement stalled it in court?
To me, the following bits from the article really strike to the heart of the matter:
The government also argued that if officers were required to obtain a warrant and have probable cause prior to executing a GPS search, "officers could not use GPS devices to gather information to establish probable cause, which is often the most productive use of such devices."
The justices said the government's statement "wags the dog rather vigorously," noting that the primary reason for a search cannot be to generate evidence for law enforcement purposes. They also noted that "Generally speaking, a warrantless search is not rendered reasonable merely because probable cause existed that would have justified the issuance of a warrant."
That seems to cast a dark shadow on the practice of NSA intercepts being used by the DEA to establish probable cause, followed by parallel construction of that probable cause.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
Read this article. Still looks like a fishing expedition to me, regardless of what he posted. Racial profiling? http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/10/fbi-tracking-device/
That sinking feeling deep in your gut when you KNOW you screwed up bad summed up with: {head desk} {head desk}
"The justices also rejected the government's argument that obtaining a warrant would impede the ability of law enforcement to investigate crimes."
This is probably one of the dumbest arguments I ever heard. If someone intends to commit a crime, and doesn't want to get caught they are going to pre-plan with the obvious intent to get rid of the evidence. And for those that do not, its not like the police wear bright green uniforms and make it blatantly obvious they are watching you. All though they are dumb enough to arrest someone that is a suspect with nothing, and then when they find something it is to late.
To what your saying, this no different then the police entering your car or home with probable-cause for something and then finding something else unrelated IE, finding a stash of weed sitting on the table, or evidence of something else illegal. When they were there for a fire, gas leak, ect. or you did something that they find "worthy" of a search, "life/death" .
Then they go out and get a warrant for those items, in order to remove them from the property. To me this is entrapment and no court should be giving warrants out for something unrelated to the probable-cause. Or if they find "probable-cause" to enter a home, car ect..
You raise an interesting point: I've always been of the opinion that there should be a concept of 'blinders' for crime not related to the immediate emergency situation.
ie: If you call the police to report someone invading your home with a gun, you should not be afraid that when the police enter your home they will discover that you were involved in some other crime and charge you with that. The rationale behind my opinion is that I feel it is more important that people not be afraid to call the police than it is for every minor crime to be prosecuted.
Kind of like a prostitute hesitating to call the police when she gets beaten up by a client because she is afraid of being arrested for prostitution. I feel it is more important that the violent person be arrested.
Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
This is precisely why some argue that prostitution and recreational drugs should be legalized. When conflicts arise surrounding these relatively innocuous, yet illegal activities, there is no legal recourse for the parties involved. Only black-market resolutions are available (usually violence).
Only black-market resolutions are available (usually violence).
and breakdancing!
Which antediluvian regime is intended, where prostitution still illegal? Most places just outlaw "living off the avails" or some such term for pimping.
Oh, I'm sorry sir, I thought you were referring to me, Mr. Wensleydale.
The Third Circuit Court of Appeals gave a resounding yes to that question today in a 2 to 1 decision.
I wonder what the arguments were on the other side. Especially in light of this:
the Supreme Court justices ruled in January 2012 that law enforcement’s installation of a GPS device on a target’s vehicle constituted a search under the Fourth Amendment. The justices declined to rule at the time, however, on whether such a search was unreasonable and therefore required a warrant.
I suppose one justice thought that even though it was a search, it was not unreasonable.
So there is still wiggle room here for the police. Perhaps other jurisdictions will decide differently. Or perhaps, the search is reasonable in some cases but not others.
So now, instead of getting a pesky GPS warrant on your car, they'll just ask the phone companies for the metadata (via subpoena) for your GPS location of your cell phone, which you're probably carrying, as this is just business data and you have no right to the expectation of privacy for it.
Most of the US. In every state but Nevada, prostitution itself is illegal. It's usually a misdemeanor, and a relatively low police priority vs. pimping, but still illegal.
They are doing this now because soon there will be well enough established drone networks that will make attaching something to the vehicle irrelevant.
No need for a search warrant if your movements are in plain sight in public. They don't need a warrant to follow you in a car either.
With good cameras, and some good processing, they'll be able to spot, track, and follow many vehicles at once with an automated system. Parts of it will be on the ground with plate readers and cameras, and parts of it will be in the air.
And it'll be in real time constant basis, without the large or minor lag time issues (for periodic checking of the data or dial-in process).
It doesn't "impede law enforcement's ability to investigate crimes". If a crime has been committed the police can obtain a warrant and legally have a GPS device attached.
Instead, what is does is impede is law enforcement's investigations when no known crime has been committed.
I think you were trying for this.
I come here for the love
can we get that stuff turned off as well?
Including that committed by law enforcement.
It's been rulled that way before, but others keep ignoring it.
The rationale behind my opinion is that I feel it is more important that people not be afraid to call the police than it is for every minor crime to be prosecuted.
This is exactly the argument many police departments use to justify why they won't enforce immigration law. They don't want people to be so afraid of being deported that they won't talk to the police about shootings etc
This is precisely why some argue that prostitution and recreational drugs should be legalized. When conflicts arise surrounding these relatively innocuous, yet illegal activities, there is no legal recourse for the parties involved. Only black-market resolutions are available (usually violence).
I remember reading that someone called the police because someone stole his illegal drugs. The police _did_ arrest the thief. They also arrested the guy who called the police...
I remember reading that someone called the police because someone stole his illegal drugs. The police _did_ arrest the thief. They also arrested the guy who called the police...
In the classic/maudlin/blackhumor fashion, the title of the article for that encounter should have been:
"And what did we learn..."
Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj