GPS Tracking by Law Enforcement: Agree or Disagree

[nissangirl74]

http://www.thecarconnection.com/news/10 ... titutional


What do you think? Did the Supreme Court make the right decision?

"Antoine Jones, a nightclub owner in Washington, D.C., was sentenced to life in prison on a drug conspiracy conviction. Prosecutors built their case around police GPS tracking of Jones’ Jeep, which was followed to a residence used as a stash house for money and drugs.

Jones appealed his conviction, alleging that the police couldn’t employ GPS tracking on his vehicle without a warrant. Doing so, Jones’ attorney argued, violated his client’s Fourth Amendment rights.

The case of U.S. v Jones, 10-1259, went all the way to the Supreme Court, and the Washington Post reports that the Justices were unanimous in their decision: placement of a GPS tracking device without a warrant constitutes an illegal search.

Justice Scalia said of the decision, “By attaching the device to the Jeep, officers encroached on a protected area.”

[Jesda]

I agree with Scalia. It would be one thing to follow the guy themselves, but GPS records his data electronically and violates his privacy.

[alms24sebring]

I agree with Scalia. It would be one thing to follow the guy themselves, but GPS records his data electronically and violates his privacy.

+1

[themadscientist]

No warrant, no tracking. It's kind of like a fundamental entry, the 4th one in our constitution for crying out loud!

The continued assault on civil liberty is really disturbing.

[Dattebayo]

I don't see how it should have been considered ok to do at any time in the past... I'm actually amazed!

What happened to good old fashioned tailing? I guess the rookies don't have the skills anymore, so they have to resort to using tech instead? Lazy...

[themadscientist]

Too many Chargers were getting blown up.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWgR2vYE2_o[/youtube]

[Dattebayo]

I think I remember reading about this a while back...

The guy actually found the device on his car and removed it, called police and told them they could pick up their device in the trash... or something like that. Because at the time, I found something in the Sentra's seat that looked similar (it turned out to be the booster for a CB radio), and I remember that pic.

[PapaSmurf2k3]

Yeah what's to stop someone from taking it off and slapping it on someone else's car? What if that someone went and bought hookers and blow and the cops thought it was you?

[skydragoness]

No warrant, no tracking. It's kind of like a fundamental entry, the 4th one in our constitution for crying out loud!

The continued assault on civil liberty is really disturbing.

[BusyBadger]

Should have used USPS and sent it to LA, be nice to see the tracking logs for that. Might have even been able to use it for an alibi.

Tracking has been used with EZ Pass and other automatic toll devices to track people in the past, and there's an issue about license plate readers that's quasi-local to me.

The continued assault on civil liberty is really disturbing.

I agree completely, with TMS and the SCOTUS decsion.

[Dattebayo]

there's an issue about license plate readers that's quasi-local to me.

Interesting. Why do they save the log if it's not a hot plate?

The thing is, I know it doesn't start as a privacy issue, it starts because of laziness on the engineer's part. The cops then just use that to their advantage like they always do... fu*king vultures.

[Bubba1]

there's an issue about license plate readers that's quasi-local to me.

Interesting. Why do they save the log if it's not a hot plate?

The thing is, I know it doesn't start as a privacy issue, it starts because of laziness on the engineer's part. The cops then just use that to their advantage like they always do... fu*king vultures.

I imagine that log will get erased as they run out of storage space. As info, those license plate readers have been in use by the PPA (Philadelphia PArking Authority) to identify scofflaws to apply boots. It;s only a big issue if you have outstanding tickets.

[300ZXttZMAN]

I agree with Scalia. It would be one thing to follow the guy themselves, but GPS records his data electronically and violates his privacy.

I agree.

I wonder if the prosecuters are going to come back with a reply somewhat similar to this: "If we would have had a warrant to plant the tracker he would have found out and then simply just take another vehicle to the stash house"

I am curious to see where this ends up going.

[Dattebayo]

How would a warrant give prior notice of that? He'd have to have precognition or something for that to happen.

[ricebike]

is this almost similar to Onstar tracking?

http://thenewamerican.com/tech-mainmenu ... -to-police

not just limited to GM vehicles, but to any make/model with Onstar on it? -- subscribed to the service or not, it's still on your vehicle for them to track you???

[IBCoupe]

So, just to note, the police actually did get a warrant for it here, they were just idiots about it. The opinion states that the warrant allowed the police ten days to place the GPS tracker on the car, and they placed the tracker on the car on the 11th day. Way to go, guys. I'm pretty sure much of the litigation was simply not wanting to lose this particular conviction.

As to the issue of warrantless GPS-tracking, I'm ambivalent on the matter. I like the Court's holding, but on the other hand, I don't see that big a difference between placing a GPS tracker on a car and placing a very talented tail on the car. Does the Constitution require a warrant for that? Some states require a warrant for a tail that travels more than a certain distance or lasts longer than a certain period of time, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the U.S. Constitution compels such rules.

I don't know for sure, and I'll be asking tomorrow night in Criminal Procedure - we were asked to read the briefs for the case for the next class, but then a day later the opinion came out, and we were asked to read that instead.

[hannibal]

As to the issue of warrantless GPS-tracking, I'm ambivalent on the matter. I like the Court's holding, but on the other hand, I don't see that big a difference between placing a GPS tracker on a car and placing a very talented tail on the car. Does the Constitution require a warrant for that? Some states require a warrant for a tail that travels more than a certain distance or lasts longer than a certain period of time, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the U.S. Constitution compels such rules.

Come on, thats a huge difference. Tailing someone isn't a search but an electronic monitoring device is.

IMO a cop noticing someone cooking meth thru an open blind is very different from him setting up a camera that captures the same activity without a warrant. Or police doing surveillance around a warehouse vs actually entering and searching the building. The first ones are investigations. The second are searches.

I'm guessing the states that require warrants for extended searches do so under the premise that tailing someone over a long period or distance is effectively a search.

[IBCoupe]

Why? The data you're collecting with a tail is the same as the data you're collecting with a global positioning device. An extensive tail should be treated the same. I'm not saying you shouldn't have a warrant for the GPS device, but whatever we decide the Constitution requires, it should require consistently.

[flohtingPoint]

Matters very little to me. Heck, I'll go one further, I wouldn't mind it if all new cars came with a mandatory GPS that you had to register with the DMV, which would chart your speed in any given location and automatically issue speeding tickets. Revenue would go through the roof (meaning less taxes for such) and the roads would become safer. You could also have telemetry that would be able to give a lot more details to accident sites to determine cause and fault.

I do not care if the government knows I'm going to Target once every two weeks to buy cat litter or that I make weekly travels to and from the airport. I'm not doing anything shady so I have nothing to hide. There is no privacy to invade because nothing I'm doing is private.

[numbnuts240]

i wonder if it's blanketed under the patriot act.

[hannibal]

In my examples, theres a thin line and in those cases, it's the perimeter of the building. In the GPS case, it's how the info was obtained.

Isnt there an amendment about right to confront your accuser and witnesses against you? Like the traffic camera cases, the right is violated by electronic monitoring. I agree about consistency. I have no idea what case law says about warrantless tailing (or what happended to the challenge against cameras).

[IBCoupe]

Matters very little to me. Heck, I'll go one further, I wouldn't mind it if all new cars came with a mandatory GPS that you had to register with the DMV, which would chart your speed in any given location and automatically issue speeding tickets. Revenue would go through the roof (meaning less taxes for such) and the roads would become safer. You could also have telemetry that would be able to give a lot more details to accident sites to determine cause and fault.

I do not care if the government knows I'm going to Target once every two weeks to buy cat litter or that I make weekly travels to and from the airport. I'm not doing anything shady so I have nothing to hide. There is no privacy to invade because nothing I'm doing is private.

Nah. Just because you're in public doesn't mean you abandon reasonable expectations of privacy.

I can imagine a government combing over DUI conviction records and tracking the movements of those with a DUI on their record. I can imagine some of those people going to AA meetings. I can imagine a city determining the location of an otherwise anonymous and unmarked AA meeting location (imagine that they like to be more clandestine than they actually are), and then publishing the names and addresses of all the people who enter that establishment at that time as "suspected alcoholics" and "potential dangers to society."

That's a violation of your right to privacy, as it relates to the First Amendment's guarantee of your freedom to peaceably assemble. The "you should have nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide" argument has never worked in this realm of Constitutional law.

[IBCoupe]

In my examples, theres a thin line and in those cases, it's the perimeter of the building. In the GPS case, it's how the info was obtained.

Isnt there an amendment about right to confront your accuser and witnesses against you? Like the traffic camera cases, the right is violated by electronic monitoring. I agree about consistency. I have no idea what case law says about warrantless tailing (or what happended to the challenge against cameras).

The Sixth Amendment hasn't been incorporated to the States - the challenges against cameras would only work if they were federal red light cameras, which they're not, unless you're in Washington, D.C. And then, I imagine if the camera data was reviewed by a real person prior to the issuance of a ticket, we'd be in safe Constitutional territory.

Please note, though, that I've done literally no research on the subject and I'm just extrapolating based on my limited understanding of this particular Constitutional Amendment. Ask me again in May, and I might have a better answer.

[Dattebayo]

I'm not doing anything shady so I have nothing to hide. There is no privacy to invade because nothing I'm doing is private.

That is the most retarded thing I have ever heard.

[flohtingPoint]

Matters very little to me. Heck, I'll go one further, I wouldn't mind it if all new cars came with a mandatory GPS that you had to register with the DMV, which would chart your speed in any given location and automatically issue speeding tickets. Revenue would go through the roof (meaning less taxes for such) and the roads would become safer. You could also have telemetry that would be able to give a lot more details to accident sites to determine cause and fault.

I do not care if the government knows I'm going to Target once every two weeks to buy cat litter or that I make weekly travels to and from the airport. I'm not doing anything shady so I have nothing to hide. There is no privacy to invade because nothing I'm doing is private.

Nah. Just because you're in public doesn't mean you abandon reasonable expectations of privacy.

I can imagine a government combing over DUI conviction records and tracking the movements of those with a DUI on their record. I can imagine some of those people going to AA meetings. I can imagine a city determining the location of an otherwise anonymous and unmarked AA meeting location (imagine that they like to be more clandestine than they actually are), and then publishing the names and addresses of all the people who enter that establishment at that time as "suspected alcoholics" and "potential dangers to society."

That's a violation of your right to privacy, as it relates to the First Amendment's guarantee of your freedom to peaceably assemble. The "you should have nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide" argument has never worked in this realm of Constitutional law.

Your DUI tangent is interesting but this would take far too many man hours for something that wouldn't yield much. Nobody is gaining anything from smearing AA by publishing the names of the folks, if anything it would just come off looking bad on the DoJ as AA is a nationally respected program geared towards assisting folks with a disease. What would they do with that info anyway? Harass these folks? The Police hardly have the manpower to be on site within a reasonable amount of time on a 911 call, they definitely do not have time to follow some no-name person with no real endgame in site.

Now, what you propose, aside from the AA portion, is fairly intriguing. I'd be all for them flagging folks with felony records of drugs, hate crimes, sex offenders, and doing trending on their movements, more so the first. There is A LOT they could do to assist the fight of drug trafficking if they were able to mass trend prior offenders by region.

Dont like it? Dont f*** up. Dont give the government a reason to get into your business. If you have a felony record, you've earned it. It all boils down to the old cliche; These are public roads, driving is not a right, its a privilege. Yes, it's tired, but it's true.

I'm not doing anything shady so I have nothing to hide. There is no privacy to invade because nothing I'm doing is private.

That is the most retarded thing I have ever heard.

Way to add nothing constructive. There is a whole section for idiot, one line troll posts, feel free to head back to 240Gen. The big kids are having a talk here.

[Rev_D21]

Sorry but strangers need to earn their way into my private world. It's not about the fact I if I have anything to hide or not, I just don't care to have to world know when I am crapping and whether it's solid or not by using a camera. Diarrhea is not a crime. If nothing you do is private why don't you live in a park?

[Dattebayo]

Way to add nothing constructive. There is a whole section for idiot, one line troll posts, feel free to head back to 240Gen. The big kids are having a talk here.

No, that's how I feel, you'll just have to settle with that. Sounds like you're good at that anyway.

[flohtingPoint]

Sorry but strangers need to earn their way into my private world. It's not about the fact I if I have anything to hide or not, I just don't care to have to world know when I am crapping and whether it's solid or not by using a camera. Diarrhea is not a crime. If nothing you do is private why don't you live in a park?

On public roads, it's not "your" private world, hence the name "public roads". Nobody is talking about crapping or living space, we're talking about things within the confines of tracking folks using vehicles. The comparison you're trying to make doesn't work in the slightest.

They already track air traffic/passengers heavily, this isn't any different, it's just more granular.

[Rev_D21]

Search warrants plain and simple. Not everyone is a suspect.

[flohtingPoint]

Search warrants plain and simple. Not everyone is a suspect.

You get searched when you go through any Airport. You have to go through a metal detector in a lot of schools in America. There are hundreds of examples of safety for the masses outweighing what you THINK you're entitled to in a public place.