Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
11/20/2019 5:07:11 PM
Posted: 10/24/2013 5:39:21 PM EST
A court has ruled that the secret placement of a global positioning system (GPS) device on a suspect’s car constitutes a search under the 4th Amendment, and that law enforcement cannot track suspects in such a manner without first obtaining a warrant based on probable cause.

On Tuesday, the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled, in a 2-1 opinion, that police cannot simply walk up to an unattended vehicle and plant a hidden GPS to be indiscriminately monitored for an unspecified period of time, with the anticipation that the vehicle will eventually be used in the commission of a crime.

Rather, the court found mobile GPS tracking to be a "vastly broader endeavor” than other forms of 4th Amendment searches — one that law enforcement cannot exploit through open-ended, warrantless surveillance of suspects who they assume will eventually do something illegal.

http://personalliberty.com/2013/10/24/win-for-4th-amendment-court-rules-police-cant-use-gps-to-track-cars-without-probable-cause/
View Quote

Refreshing. - TS
Link Posted: 10/24/2013 5:45:50 PM EST
What's fucked up is that something like this actually has to go to court first before it can be deemed illegal.

Constitution means nothing to many people who are paid by the public.
Link Posted: 10/24/2013 5:49:24 PM EST
So my car is safe from warrantless GPS surveillance, but what about my emails, telephone calls, and web browsing?

Link Posted: 10/24/2013 5:50:50 PM EST
So now they need a rubber stamp to place GPS trackers on suspect's cars?

That is refreshing...
Link Posted: 10/24/2013 5:53:22 PM EST
So the Third Circuit says, but will that stand at the SCOTUS level, if necessary? For that matter - what is the state of the issue in other parts of the country?

And in any case, heaven knows that once they get that warrant for you - and they will - it will be ordered sealed, so you won't know you're being tracked while thinking to yourself, "Thank goodness for the 3rd Circuit decision!"
Link Posted: 10/24/2013 5:55:02 PM EST
FPNI I came here to say just that
Link Posted: 10/24/2013 5:55:22 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/24/2013 5:56:11 PM EST by Baker556]
Welcome to 2 years ago...

It has already been decided in the USSC. US vs Jones.
Link Posted: 10/24/2013 5:55:59 PM EST
Small town LE guy here who is just fine with this ruling.

If it were to be protected then I wouldnt have a problem with an entrepreneur type making a business out of tracking cops and making it public. Public safety and all that in letting the public know where the closest cop is at all times.

Yeah, the first time a cop goes off duty to go home and the data logging is used to disclose his home address, let the shit hit the fan.

I like my privacy, i like that I do not have a take home patrol car advertising my house to everyone in the world be they good or bad.

I feel if cops are gonna do detective/investigative things then they can do it the hard way by either doing tales/undercover or by doing warrants.

Running around slapping things on cars claiming they are in a public area and free game is bullshit. Ordinary folk shouldnt be able to casually slap tracking devices on the property of another person and police shouldnt have any special privilege either.
Link Posted: 10/24/2013 5:56:15 PM EST
Hmmm need warrant for GPS, but totally kewl for them to monitor you using your onboard GPS and/or cell phone.
nice.
Link Posted: 10/24/2013 5:57:25 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Baker556:
Welcome to 2 years ago...

It has already been decided in the USSC. US vs Jones.
View Quote


Yep.

DUPE
Link Posted: 10/24/2013 5:57:58 PM EST
Welcome to several years ago.
Link Posted: 10/24/2013 6:04:01 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Baker556:
Welcome to 2 years ago...

It has already been decided in the USSC. US vs Jones.
View Quote

If you follow it to the ACLU site they say that the Supreme Court only ruled that it was a search, they didn't say what the level of scrutiny required was.
Link Posted: 10/24/2013 6:08:31 PM EST
A search warrant isn't hard to write, and as others have said, this was settled a few years ago.
Link Posted: 10/24/2013 6:11:20 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By SmilingBandit:

If you follow it to the ACLU site they say that the Supreme Court only ruled that it was a search, they didn't say what the level of scrutiny required was.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By SmilingBandit:
Originally Posted By Baker556:
Welcome to 2 years ago...

It has already been decided in the USSC. US vs Jones.

If you follow it to the ACLU site they say that the Supreme Court only ruled that it was a search, they didn't say what the level of scrutiny required was.


Some places were using court orders to place devices. SCOTUS said it is a search and a warrant is required. Seems pretty clear what is needed for a warrant.
Link Posted: 10/24/2013 6:11:26 PM EST
Link Posted: 10/24/2013 6:11:58 PM EST
Good.
Link Posted: 10/24/2013 6:23:11 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/24/2013 6:23:18 PM EST by LuckyDucky]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By John_Wayne777:
...now if they'd just do something about all these seizure abuses.
View Quote


Your old avatar was better
Link Posted: 10/24/2013 6:25:54 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By RANGER_556:
Welcome to several years ago.
View Quote


Lol
Link Posted: 10/24/2013 7:10:50 PM EST
Do you really believe that anyone in Justice, in the FBI, any state police agency, any municipal agency, the NSA, the NRO, the CIA, or Homeland really gives a fuck what the courts say?
Link Posted: 10/24/2013 7:17:29 PM EST
When was the last time that a local, state or federal law enforcement type was actually punished for conducting an illegal search in violation of the 4th Amendment?

I don't mean unable to use the evidence in court. I mean suspended without pay, demoted, fined, fired or jailed. Punished.
Link Posted: 10/24/2013 7:19:45 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Jarhead_22:
When was the last time that a local, state or federal law enforcement type was actually punished for conducting an illegal search in violation of the 4th Amendment?

I don't mean unable to use the evidence in court. I mean suspended without pay, demoted, fined, fired or jailed. Punished.
View Quote


All the time.
Link Posted: 10/24/2013 7:22:24 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Baker556:


All the time.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Baker556:
Originally Posted By Jarhead_22:
When was the last time that a local, state or federal law enforcement type was actually punished for conducting an illegal search in violation of the 4th Amendment?

I don't mean unable to use the evidence in court. I mean suspended without pay, demoted, fined, fired or jailed. Punished.


All the time.

So you must have an example to cite, right? An anecdote about some guy, your cousin's brother-in-law's nephew maybe, who is a deputy in South Dakota and got rapped across the knuckles for rooting through a guy's car without RS, PC or consent?
Link Posted: 10/25/2013 4:38:27 AM EST
I could name several at my dept.
Link Posted: 10/25/2013 4:50:23 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Baker556:
I could name several at my dept.
View Quote


Then finding news articles should be easy.
Link Posted: 10/25/2013 4:55:09 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By DragoMuseveni:
So my car is safe from warrantless GPS surveillance, but what about my emails, telephone calls, and web browsing?

View Quote


Ever notice all the new cop cars with plate readers on the trunk? Or the EZ Pass receivers mounted under bridges along the interstate? In a few years, they won't need to stick a box under your car to track it.
Link Posted: 10/25/2013 4:57:26 AM EST
FPNI like the hammer of Thor.
Link Posted: 10/25/2013 5:19:18 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Baker556:
Welcome to 2 years ago...

It has already been decided in the USSC. US vs Jones.
View Quote

Link Posted: 10/26/2013 10:18:15 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Baker556:
I could name several at my dept.
View Quote

Would you care to describe one instance in general terms? I have never heard of it happening and even one instance would be reassuring in some small measure.
Top Top