Commentary
Comment
samraine100
If there is no suspicion and no warrant, I think it might be wrong to do phone ...
DutchUncle
If he's a suspect, not randomly selected, then the police should be able to show ...
GPS an unreasonable search?
Janine Love
6/27/2011 9:39 PM EDT
Today the AP reported that the US Supreme Court will take up the case to decide whether the use of GPS devices violates the fourth amendment to the Constitution's ban on unreasonable searches. Apparently, the police secretly installed a GPS device in a man's car and he was subsequently convicted for operating a cocaine distribution ring. The conviction was overturned on appeal, and the US Justice Dept. has now appealed to the US Supreme Court. What do you think? If you are from a country outside of the US, do you know what's legal there?
|
|
|
|
|
Navigate to related information
elPresidente
6/27/2011 11:46 PM EDT
No suspicion, no warrant, no evidence. Same goes for cellphone tracking.
Sign in to Reply
kdboyce
6/28/2011 1:33 AM EDT
GPS tracking should be treated as requiring a warrant, i.e. sufficient info that would persuade a court to issue the warrant, similar to what is supposed to happen with legal phone taps.
Sign in to Reply
hm
6/28/2011 5:06 AM EDT
It is similar to installing surveillance Camera or other monitoring techniques. It should be legal and should not require warrant for authority.
Sign in to Reply
clematis
6/28/2011 9:13 AM EDT
I believe that it should also be required that when surveillance cameras are installed that the area should also be clearly marked with signage stating that the area is under surveillance. After all, we have laws controlling the use of hidden microphones and sound recording devices. Whats the difference between spying on someone with a micorphone or with a hidden camera?
Sign in to Reply
CliffT
6/28/2011 12:07 PM EDT
A warrant *is* required to install a surveillance camera or microphone ("bug") on someone's personal property, whether that be their home, car, or private business facility. This is simply investigating the use of tracking devices in the same matters, which I believe falls under the intention of our Fourth Amendment as a "search" -- the founding fathers could never have predicted such a tracking device.
It is perfectly legal to install surveillance equipment in a public place as long as it is not intended to infringe on privacy (e.g. pointing it into a neighbor's window). If the police want to stick GPS devices on the sides of public buildings, I'm OK with that. Less jokingly, if they want to place tracking devices on public transit, I think that's acceptable, too. If they want to place them on my property, though, they had better have probable cause and a warrant.
Sign in to Reply
DutchUncle
7/5/2011 8:54 AM EDT
General surveillance over a public area is like posting a policeman there; surveillance over a private area (like a store) by the area's own owners is the owner's own business (though areas like bathrooms or changing rooms tilt the expectation of "privacy" back away from the owner to the visitor); but specific individual surveillance by government for no particular reason is exactly the kind of "unreasonable search" envisioned. It's not about warning the suspect, because a warrant for surveillance or wiretapping is still kept confidential. It's about having a process in place to ensure that the questionable things we allow security authorities to do in the interest of general safety are not misused to become oppressive.
Sign in to Reply
ReneCardenas
6/28/2011 2:10 PM EDT
When there is probable cause, why should police have to fight the drug war with hands tied behind their back? As long as there is a reasonable justification, I am all for monitoring those individuals that profit from poisoning our youth! Even at the cost of losing some civil liberties, in the general sense, but my view is that most people that fall in the category of good citizens, we have nothing to worry about.
Sign in to Reply
richyoungatmotorola
6/29/2011 7:48 AM EDT
this is a case of law, not drug war. the law is a probable cause and a warrant is needed for searching. tracking with a GPS is searching in my opinion. the drug war is a waste of time and money (and lives) and should be dealt with separately.
Sign in to Reply
DutchUncle
7/5/2011 9:02 AM EDT
If there is probable cause, then a court will issue a warrant, and it will be kept secret until the case is brought. You say "good citizens have nothing to worry about". Well, if an armed man is permitted to stop and search me just because he happens to be in the mood - or stop my attractive wife or even more attractive niece - I'm worried. I wouldn't want arbitrary strangers to have that power over us, and being a policeman doesn't make someone a saint.
To anyone quoting the usual "innocent people have nothing to hide", I ask: When you go to the bathroom, do you close the door? Even if there's nobody else home? If so - and I'm betting you do - what are you hiding?
Sign in to Reply
R0ckstar
6/28/2011 3:18 PM EDT
A tracker on a private vehicle driving on private property would definitely require a search warrant. But the same vehicle traveling on public roadways would be considered a grey area by many. My opinion is that the accumulation of any meaningful amount of data from a tracker does in fact constitute a search. At one time, I agreed with Rene. Let the cops do their jobs. But since 9/11, I have since changed my mind. Every piece of legislation that gets passed, every ruling against civil liberties, is just another chip away from the freedoms and privacy we once enjoyed. Today, people can and have been arrested and thrown in jail for nothing more than sleeping in the back seat of their own vehicle parked on their own property. Another ruling against privacy protection would just be a continuation of this trend. The bottom line is that if this guy really is the scumbag they say he is, they would have no trouble obtaining a warrant for the tracker in the first place. It's not "tying their hands", It's part of their job. A certain element of danger & unpredictability is inherent in a free society. The "safer" you make it, the closer you get to a police state.
Sign in to Reply
Work to Ride, RIde to Work
6/28/2011 4:01 PM EDT
But the police can monitor your movements by air, tailing you in a chase vehicle, electronic tolling records, . . . . . Monitoring the location of your vehicle does not amount to a search. I predict the SCOTUS will uphold the use of GPS devices. But then again, I never thought New London would have prevailed over Kelo.
Sign in to Reply
Mike1234567
6/28/2011 4:41 PM EDT
Without a warrant where does it stop? You open the path to automatic speed limit violations and
selective enforcement. Ever watched Fifth Element?
Everyone with OnStar can tracked and provide
automatic surveillance and ticketing. With
GPS they can also issue automatic parking
violations.
Sign in to Reply
ndancer
6/28/2011 4:45 PM EDT
Let me turn it around. If somebody spots one of these stuck on their car, is it legal to remove it? Is it then legal to take it apart, sell it, destroy it, or stick it to somebody elses car?
Sign in to Reply
slomobile
6/29/2011 7:38 AM EDT
In spirit at least, I feel this practice violates the third amendment. "No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law." At the time this was written soldiers were the primary agents of government in contact with the public, now supplanted by police domestically. I read the 3rd amendment as "Government, stay out of my private life unless you are invited or have a damn good urgent reason and have followed proper procedure(probable cause, warrant, properly served)" The amendment was passed during a time when people feared that a strong central government, while trying to protect the people from tyrants, would become tyrannical itself. The same fear pervades today, only the agency and methods are different.
Sign in to Reply
prabhakar_deosthali
6/29/2011 11:53 AM EDT
In such cases there is a very thin line between what can be termed as legal and what is illegal. When you have the CCTVs installed in say shops, the activities of any person can be tracked from the CCTV coverage. But a shop owner will be normally discarding all the coverage except the one where he suspects that something is being stolen. If the purpose of installing GPs was to collect evidence how would the police get the required permission beforehand if they do not have the evidence in hand?
Sign in to Reply
WKetel
6/30/2011 6:40 PM EDT
The GPS tracking device in question was used on a suspect, not on a randomly selected person. The fact is that the court has become very liberal and can't seem to understand that some actions are parts of crimes. Consider: would it have been legal for a detective to follow that person? IF the police see a possible crime about to be done, is it legal for them to watch? Does the supreme court have any common sense left?
Sign in to Reply
DutchUncle
7/5/2011 9:05 AM EDT
If he's a suspect, not randomly selected, then the police should be able to show a court WHY he's a suspect. It's a step along the path from innocent until proven guilty.
Sign in to Reply
goafrit
6/30/2011 8:24 PM EDT
In my country, we do not have GPS. So it does not matter here. But for US, they should not bother. Very soon, you do not need GPS, all you need is simply a chip in your skin.
Sign in to Reply
caitlinbestler
7/1/2011 12:07 PM EDT
The idea that this does not require a warrant seems to be based on the rather specious argument that anyone could attach a GPS tracker to a suspect's car, therefore the suspect had no reasonable expectation of privacy.
This is nonsense. I guarantee you that if I were to attach GPS trackers to the cars of the Supreme Court Justices that they would have the police arrest me.
If it is illegal for an ordinary citizen to watch you with a given technology then police need to obtain a warrant to do the same search.
Sign in to Reply
NevadaDave
7/1/2011 1:02 PM EDT
I tend to agree with the "warrant" side. OTOH, the point about using a detective to follow a suspect has some merit, also. In the end, it seems that it comes down to whether or not the police have a reasonable suspicion that a person is a criminal. This has to be based upon some kind of evidence that a judge could examine and, based upon that evidence, issue a warrant for wiretapping, GPS tracking, or whatever is necessary. What has happened is that technology has made it so much easier to observe/track people that we end up with these kinds of questions.
BTW - if you started following a Supreme Court justice everywhere he/she went, I would expect that you would get a visit from the police. We (unfortunately, in many cases) entrust a certain authority to government agencies, on the idea that if the observe/follow/wiretap a person that there is a good reason for it. A private citizen does not enjoy that kind of status, and is therefore under some restriction as to what they can do, compared to law enforcement officials. This whole issue has a LOT of grey in it!
Sign in to Reply
samraine100
3/22/2012 10:11 PM EDT
If there is no suspicion and no warrant, I think it might be wrong to do phone taps or instal gps tracking devices. However, when people's lives are at stake, is there a need for so much paper work? What about installing cctv? In a way, it is infringing on privacies as well. Would those be banned as well?
Sam - http://www.cctvdirect.co.uk
Sign in to Reply