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."

5 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.

    1. Re:More importantly... by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

  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 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.