Cops don't need a warrant to put a GPS device on your car.

[Steely Dan]

Link

 

Court allows agents to secretly put GPS trackers on cars

By Dugald McConnell, CNN

August 27, 2010 9:26 a.m. EDT

 

 

 

...The ruling likely won't be the end of the matter. A federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., arrived at a different conclusion in similar case, saying officers who attached a GPS to the car of a suspected drug dealer should have sought a warrant.

 

Experts say the issue could eventually reach the U.S. Supreme Court.

 

One of the dissenting judges in Pineda-Moreno's case, Chief Judge Alex Kozinski, said the defendant's driveway was private and that the decision would allow police to use tactics he called "creepy" and "underhanded."

 

"The vast majority of the 60 million people living in the Ninth Circuit will see their privacy materially diminished by the panel's ruling," Kozinksi wrote in his dissent.

 

"I think it is Orwellian," said Marc Rotenberg, executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, which advocates for privacy rights.

 

"If the courts allow the police to gather up this information without a warrant," he said, "the police could place a tracking device on any individual's car -- without having to ever justify the reason they did that."...

 

I am not a fan of this ruling. It is very easy to get a warrant for this kind of thing for a legitimate suspect. If they can't get a warrant for one then they shouldn't be putting one on someone's car anyway. JMO

[drnykterstein]

I was wondering if anyone else on these forums paid attention to this kind of thing. I think this is one of the most outrageous and aggravating turn of events.

 

My personal theory is that when citizen privacy goes out the window, the totalitarian in your government starts to creep in.

[Nanker]

Blame Obama. It happened under his watch.

[drnykterstein]

  On 8/29/2010 at 2:13 AM, Nanker said:

Blame Obama. It happened under his watch.

While I know you say such things out of a purely partisan motivation, and not a desire to better this country... it is worth considering how much blame Obama should receive for such things. Also worth considering is if a Republican presidency would have changes anything in this. Overall though, this is a court ruling, and likely out of the hands and reach of any president.

[Wacka]

  On 8/29/2010 at 2:18 AM, conner said:

While I know you say such things out of a purely partisan motivation, and not a desire to better this country... it is worth considering how much blame Obama should receive for such things. Also worth considering is if a Republican presidency would have changes anything in this. Overall though, this is a court ruling, and likely out of the hands and reach of any president.

Don't worry, it's the Ninth Circus (West Coast) and they are the most overturned of any of the Circuit Courts.

[....lybob]

  On 8/29/2010 at 2:13 AM, Nanker said:

Blame Obama. It happened under his watch.

 

I do blame Obama, because while this issue isn't his fault directly, he has done nothing to reverse,halt or even slow down the destruction of our right to privacy, and other Constitutional protections- and has done nothing to reverse the crazy increase of executive power or to increase government transparency. Of course having fear and loathing of 99.9% of Republicans (except Paul) and utter contempt for all but a handful of the Democrats makes it hard for me to get excited about politics in general- the great choice of the lesser of two evils vote, the third party throw away vote, or the non-vote vote.

[/dev/null]

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

-Ben Franklin

[Magox]

  On 8/29/2010 at 2:18 AM, conner said:

While I know you say such things out of a purely partisan motivation, and not a desire to better this country...

Now that's rich...

[Nanker]

  On 8/29/2010 at 10:29 AM, Magox said:

Now that's rich...

 

No one has ever accused Conner of having an irony deficiency, and likely they never will.

[Steely Dan]

  On 8/29/2010 at 4:57 AM, ....lybob said:

I do blame Obama, because while this issue isn't his fault directly, he has done nothing to reverse,halt or even slow down the destruction of our right to privacy, and other Constitutional protections- and has done nothing to reverse the crazy increase of executive power or to increase government transparency. Of course having fear and loathing of 99.9% of Republicans (except Paul) and utter contempt for all but a handful of the Democrats makes it hard for me to get excited about politics in general- the great choice of the lesser of two evils vote, the third party throw away vote, or the non-vote vote.

 

Even though this ruling is compliments of the ninth circuit it's a very conservative ruling. The conservatives don't like the rules in place to protect constitutional freedoms. Just look at Bush's refusal to get warrants for the invasion of privacy of Americans. This ruling would have made Bush very happy. JMO

[DC Tom]

  On 8/29/2010 at 2:00 AM, conner said:

I was wondering if anyone else on these forums paid attention to this kind of thing. I think this is one of the most outrageous and aggravating turn of events.

 

My personal theory is that when citizen privacy goes out the window, the totalitarian in your government starts to creep in.

 

Actually, you don't think, that's the problem. The police can ALREADY track your car without your permission or a warrant. It's called "following you around when you're driving". That's never been considered a privacy violation, nor is it materially different from using GPS tracking.

[drnykterstein]

  On 8/29/2010 at 3:41 PM, DC Tom said:

Actually, you don't think, that's the problem. The police can ALREADY track your car without your permission or a warrant. It's called "following you around when you're driving". That's never been considered a privacy violation, nor is it materially different from using GPS tracking.

There you go, being dumb again. There is a difference between the two, and I know you are smart enough to see it.

[....lybob]

  On 8/29/2010 at 3:41 PM, DC Tom said:

Actually, you don't think, that's the problem. The police can ALREADY track your car without your permission or a warrant. It's called "following you around when you're driving". That's never been considered a privacy violation, nor is it materially different from using GPS tracking.

 

Not one of your better thought out arguments - like saying a pea shooter and a machine gun are not materially different because they both shoot a projectile, the very fact that tailing a suspect uses a lot of resources constrains abuse.

[DC Tom]

  On 8/29/2010 at 4:33 PM, conner said:

There you go, being dumb again. There is a difference between the two, and I know you are smart enough to see it.

 

No, there's not really a difference. The police are allowed to follow my whereabouts in public without a warrant. Technology has ****-all to do with that.

 

If you knew something about the subject, you might understand that. You don't have a right to privacy in public. Legally, you don't even have that right inside your own car - try having a phone conversation in your car in DC if you don't believe me.

[Tux of Borg]

I don't know anybody in Law Enforcement that uses GPS devices to track vehicles. It's easier to fax a search warrant to your cell phone provider and get your whereabouts from them.

[EasternOHBillsFan]

  On 8/29/2010 at 4:57 AM, ....lybob said:

I do blame Obama, because while this issue isn't his fault directly, he has done nothing to reverse,halt or even slow down the destruction of our right to privacy, and other Constitutional protections- and has done nothing to reverse the crazy increase of executive power or to increase government transparency. Of course having fear and loathing of 99.9% of Republicans (except Paul) and utter contempt for all but a handful of the Democrats makes it hard for me to get excited about politics in general- the great choice of the lesser of two evils vote, the third party throw away vote, or the non-vote vote.

 

The whole two party system in a media happy modern society has come to this, and it is an utter joke. The substantial increase of executive power that was ramped up under the administrations of FDR, Nixon, Reagan, and Bush has now plopped into Obama's lap and you are right- he has done little to stop it, and I'm a Democrat.

 

We are faced with two choices, either Obama again (which I am VERY unhappy with him- see offshore drilling lift, slamming Arizona's immigration law, out of control spending through the poor Democratic leadership) or the uber conservative, ugly Republican candidate which will basically never reduce the deficit and cut spending while giving out tax breaks like candy. This is COMPLETELY UNACCEPTABLE and has gone on for far too long. I am appalled at the total lack of choices we have today, and where we are heading as a society. We should NEVER be allowed to have to choose between two extremes and call it democracy... revolting.

Edited August 30, 2010 by BmoreBills

[BB27]

  On 8/30/2010 at 2:55 AM, Ghost of a Smurf said:

I don't know anybody in Law Enforcement that uses GPS devices to track vehicles. It's easier to fax a search warrant to your cell phone provider and get your whereabouts from them.

We use them all the time, I'm a fed. No warrant for GPS tracker that is just placed on your vehicle (battery powered), warrant if I need to access your car to install it, or I want to hardwire it to your vehicle (limitless power supply).

 

Awesome tool in investigations. If you don't know anybody in LE who uses one, you probably don't know anyone in LE.

 

  On 8/28/2010 at 3:10 PM, Steely Dan said:

Link

 

Court allows agents to secretly put GPS trackers on cars

By Dugald McConnell, CNN

August 27, 2010 9:26 a.m. EDT

 

 

 

...The ruling likely won't be the end of the matter. A federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., arrived at a different conclusion in similar case, saying officers who attached a GPS to the car of a suspected drug dealer should have sought a warrant.

 

Experts say the issue could eventually reach the U.S. Supreme Court.

 

One of the dissenting judges in Pineda-Moreno's case, Chief Judge Alex Kozinski, said the defendant's driveway was private and that the decision would allow police to use tactics he called "creepy" and "underhanded."

 

"The vast majority of the 60 million people living in the Ninth Circuit will see their privacy materially diminished by the panel's ruling," Kozinksi wrote in his dissent.

 

"I think it is Orwellian," said Marc Rotenberg, executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, which advocates for privacy rights.

 

"If the courts allow the police to gather up this information without a warrant," he said, "the police could place a tracking device on any individual's car -- without having to ever justify the reason they did that."...

 

I am not a fan of this ruling. It is very easy to get a warrant for this kind of thing for a legitimate suspect. If they can't get a warrant for one then they shouldn't be putting one on someone's car anyway. JMO

If you don't want LE putting a tracker on your vehicle without a warrant then don't park or leave your vehicle anywhere PUBLIC. Simple as that. I still would need a warrant to hardwire it to your car.

[DC Tom]

  On 8/30/2010 at 5:51 PM, BB27 said:

If you don't want LE putting a tracker on your vehicle without a warrant then don't park or leave your vehicle anywhere PUBLIC. Simple as that. I still would need a warrant to hardwire it to your car.

 

The one thing that REALLY pissed me off in the original article was the implication that my driveway is public, and if my car's parked there you can freely step on to my property and place a tracker. Uh...it's called PRIVATE property, last I checked.

[BB27]

  On 8/30/2010 at 6:07 PM, DC Tom said:

The one thing that REALLY pissed me off in the original article was the implication that my driveway is public, and if my car's parked there you can freely step on to my property and place a tracker. Uh...it's called PRIVATE property, last I checked.

The driveway issue is a grey one at best. Is your entire driveway private? The first 10 feet are really owned by the town/municipality. Is your yard and driveway fenced? Can I be on the sidewalk and touch your car which is parked in your driveway?

 

Lots of questions to be answered. Generally I would not go onto your property to place a GPS device, but there are exceptions.

[Chef Jim]

  On 8/30/2010 at 6:14 PM, BB27 said:

Generally I would not go onto your property to place a GPS device

 

Why would you ever want to, he never goes anyplace exciting.