Cactusboy Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 Hell to the YEAH on the GPS tracking ruling. THis is crystal clear to me, but I was part of a debate on this w/ a cop that said putting a GPS device on someone's car wasn't any sort of violotion of that person's rights. I'm sure they have good ententions, but there is no excuse for not having to get a warrant for this. and I'm pretty sure just like w/ other things...in an emergency they can get the warrant w/in a short time frame after putting it on...IF they don't have time to get the warrant first. Supreme Court rules on GPS tracking, but punts on larger issues By Bob Sullivan Monday’s Supreme Court ruling invalidating a conviction based on evidence gained by GPS tracking of a suspect's car might seem like a victory for privacy advocates. But on the critical issues of privacy and Fourth Amendment rights, the majority of the court actually punted. The unanimous opinion issued Monday morning is among the first in which the Supreme Court has decided a case at the thorny 21st-Century intersection of law, technology and privacy. Police in Washington, D.C., had tracked a suspect by placing a tiny GPS device on his car, then tracking his movements for about a month. While the trial court held that evidence obtained through the GPS amounted to surveillance of the suspect's movements through public spaces, an appeals court ruled that it constituted an illegal search and seizure and a violation of Fourth Amendment rights. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision. There was a remarkable amount of disagreement, however, in this unanimous decision. The court issued perhaps the narrowest ruling possible -- essentially that placement of the GPS on the car constituted a violation of property and effects rights, akin to trespassing, therefore spoiling any evidence garnered through the process. Left undecided: What rights do citizens have when law enforcement uses other technological methods to track their whereabouts? Rest of arrticle on link. http://redtape.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/01/23/10217642-supreme-court-rules-on-gps-tracking-but-punts-on-larger-issues Link to comment
Cactusboy Posted January 23, 2012 Author Share Posted January 23, 2012 snip "With increasing regularity, the government will be capable of duplicating the monitoring undertaken in this case by enlisting factory- or owner-installed vehicle tracking devices or GPS-enabled smartphones. In cases of electronic or other novel modes of surveillance that do not depend upon a physical invasion on property, the majority opinion’s trespassory test may provide little guidance," she wrote. Electronic law expert Mark Rasch, former head of the Justice Department's Computer Crime unit, said the opinion has "almost given carte blanche to law enforcement to go ahead and try to find their way around" the ruling, such as enlisting the help of cell phone providers to track citizens in their cars. Link to comment
strigori Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 I was shocked that it was a unanimous decision. Now granted they split on why it was unconstitutional, but they all agreed that it was. Link to comment
strigori Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 snip "With increasing regularity, the government will be capable of duplicating the monitoring undertaken in this case by enlisting factory- or owner-installed vehicle tracking devices or GPS-enabled smartphones. In cases of electronic or other novel modes of surveillance that do not depend upon a physical invasion on property, the majority opinion’s trespassory test may provide little guidance," she wrote. Electronic law expert Mark Rasch, former head of the Justice Department's Computer Crime unit, said the opinion has "almost given carte blanche to law enforcement to go ahead and try to find their way around" the ruling, such as enlisting the help of cell phone providers to track citizens in their cars. Cell companies usually require court orders to give any info away, let alone track people. For the moment anyway.. Link to comment
Foppa Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 What if it leads to a missing person who has been abducted? Does the kidnapper get to keep the person because police didn't follow protocol? Link to comment
Cactusboy Posted January 23, 2012 Author Share Posted January 23, 2012 What if it leads to a missing person who has been abducted? Does the kidnapper get to keep the person because police didn't follow protocol? Yes Link to comment
Sub-Husker Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 What if it leads to a missing person who has been abducted? Does the kidnapper get to keep the person because police didn't follow protocol? How many times has that happened? Link to comment
VectorVictor Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 What if it leads to a missing person who has been abducted? Does the kidnapper get to keep the person because police didn't follow protocol? Yes [Chief Wiggum]"Alright alleged "kidnapper", since we didn't do this by the book, you're free to go. Here's your wallet, watch, oh, and the woman you kidnapped--we tied her back up for you. Would you like us to put her back in your trunk?" [/Chief Wiggum] Link to comment
knapplc Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 How is this different from cops following a car? Is that illegal, too? Where's BRI when we need him? Link to comment
Cactusboy Posted January 24, 2012 Author Share Posted January 24, 2012 How is this different from cops following a car? Is that illegal, too? Where's BRI when we need him? Following a car you're not physically placing something on someone's property. Link to comment
knapplc Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 How is this different from cops following a car? Is that illegal, too? Where's BRI when we need him? Following a car you're not physically placing something on someone's property. So it's a private property issue? And that's where the warrant comes in, as in, the police can't simply force their way into your home without a warrant? That makes sense. Link to comment
rawhide Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 And the flatfoot has eyes on; perfect to make a PC stop if necessary. It's not after the fact as in GPS: perp#1 went here, here and here. He's guilty just sayin' I can see where placing a GPS indiscriminately on cars at a local bar; hangout, etc could be an invasion of privacy unless they have PC and get a Judge to okay dokay it. PC is the cornerstone of a majority of police work; in my nursing opinion GBR Link to comment
Hingle McCringleberry Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 How is this different from cops following a car? Is that illegal, too? Where's BRI when we need him? Following a car you're not physically placing something on someone's property. So it's a private property issue? And that's where the warrant comes in, as in, the police can't simply force their way into your home without a warrant? That makes sense. Thats right. SCOTUS said using those devices violates your 4th ammendment rights. Scalia wrote that even a small trespass, if committed in "an attempt to find something or to obtain information," consituted a "search" under the fourth Amendment. I find it interseting they left open the door for third party search ie getting GPS locations from your smartphone via the company willing igvieng it out. Although I wold find it hard to belive theywould just hand that over with out some legal backing or a warrent. Link to comment
VectorVictor Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 A question--could the police have obtained a warrant *after* they placed the tracker on the car? Link to comment
carlfense Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 A question--could the police have obtained a warrant *after* they placed the tracker on the car? In general . . . no. They have to have the warrant first. Link to comment
Recommended Posts