Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Court Rules Probable-Cause Warrant Required For GPS Trackers

Posted by Soulskill on from the didn't-help-with-heisenberg dept.

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."

6 of 116 comments (clear)

  1. More importantly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Even if it would impede law enforcement's ability to investigate crimes, we must recognize that freedom is simply more important.

  2. Let's see if I got this by HangingChad · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:Let's see if I got this by gstoddart · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes, that's exactly what they've been saying.

      "If we can't monitor you to prove you're doing something bad, we'll never be able to know".

      Law enforcement and governments have decided it's too inconvenient to follow the procedural rules which have been established, and more or less started trying to make the case for just bypassing them out of convenience.

      And, sadly, some of the courts seem stacked with people inclined to just say "well, if you're law enforcement, go ahead".

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    2. Re:Let's see if I got this by Somebody+Is+Using+My · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And - as importantly - let's hope NSA and the other Three-Letter-Agencies actually obey these laws.

      Unfortunately, because they so often operate in secret, it's very hard to monitor their compliance. And as we've seen repeatedly throughout the last century, they are quite willing to bend or break the law to achieve their goals.

      So while it's great that a judge has smacked down local police's ability to tag innocent civilians with warrentless-GPS trackers (whose activities have to be revealed in court), it likely does little or nothing to stop the Federal agencies from continuing to do the same.

  3. Can you climb into the backseat and hide? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  4. "impede the ability of law enforcement" by Sockatume · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?