Court Rules Probable-Cause Warrant Required For GPS Trackers

Posted by Soulskill on Wednesday October 23, 2013 @12:12AM 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."

1 of 116 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Re:More importantly... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-23 00:39 · Score: 5, Interesting

Astonishing isn't it? Warrantless searches are, themselves crimes. LEO are saying that they need to commit crimes in order to investigate crimes. I hate Law Enforcement Officers. I respect Police Officers. There is a fundamental difference between the two. One who identifies as a Police Officer recognizes that they are to serve the public by helping to keep the peace. One who identifies as a Law Enforcement Officers proclaims himself to be a tool of the state, to enforce any dictate of the state, no matter how offensive to the concept of a free people. Law Enforcement Officers (I'm Law Enforcement, we need to get Law Enforcement here, don't defend yourself - wait for Law Enforcement) need to be publicly shamed.