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
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.
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?
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
.... 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.
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
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).