wired.com— The Supreme Court ruled unanimously Monday the authorities need a probable-cause warrant from a judge to affix a GPS device to a vehicle and...
Jan 23, 2012View in Crawl 4
They can have a bunch of detectives follow your car around all day, monitoring you constantly, without a warrant. Using a GPS tracking device is simply cheaper, simpler, and easier. Ironically, it would also invade the person's privacy less, because they're not being physically watched.
The SCOTUS ruled that *placing* the GPS on the car was illegal, not the GPS tracking itself. It makes sense, in that respect.
Considering most new cars and all cellphones and car-phones have GPS built-in, even if there's no subscription for the service, the ruling didn't go far enough.
but I am ok with PHYSICALLY tracking me 24/7 the reason is simple.
its SELF LIMITING. there are a limited number of officers and those need to be trained rested fed and PAID
to track me 24/7 for example would require AT MINIMUM 3 officers every single day figuring an 8 hours shift watching me and that's if I stay close to home. I work 60 miles from home.
now your talking multi state multi territory interactions and cooperation and or massive drive times which would put the officer count around 6-12 officers PER DAY or 4-5 if they drove the long distances.
they have to pay them. they have to fuel those cars maintain them etc.. etc.. etc..
this is not cheap and not easy. MEANING the "tracking" candidates will be chosen FAR more selectively and require a lot more "MERIT"
I can live with that.
GPS trackers require $50 in equipment (hell I can do it with a $14 little buddy in fact I DO I have one in my car in case its stolen. battery is good for $7 and its the size of a lighter. (ebay insignia little buddy) and NO MAN POWER besides installation.
NO WONDER they love them. they can track anyone "on a whim" because the cost is virtually NILL.
I could not disagree more. With GPS tracking they could install 100 of them on "people of interest" and record the data for days/weeks/months. Then at some later point in time they can come back and mine the data to see if the person was in the vicinity of a crime. All of this with only the effort of a single installation officer. The difference being that while being tailed, you would be actively caught in the crime, with GPS they could build the suspicion from the data and then construct other evidence to convict you of a crime. This is terribly scary to me. Note, it only says that you need a warrant, which is basically a check, to make sure that it is not abused. Warrants are not that hard to get, they actually had one in this case, they just had it for the wrong county. It is all about the due process.
The other side of this though is that it can still be done with a warrant. If there is enough suspicion to justify round the clock surveillance, then there should probably be enough evidence to get a warrant to make the gps tracker legal.
I don't know that we were there yet necessarily, but the obvious danger is that eventually it could simply be a catch all to put trackers everywhere. It's a very slippery slope and requiring judicial approval of the tracking seems to make sense, particularly if the warrant for planting the tracker is relatively easy to get.
if they have VALID probable cause (and this assumes the system ie judges FUNCTION as intended) then I AM OK with them putting GPS trackers on people.
but they have to have probable cause. and the warrant can't be OK you can use GPS. they have to request SPECIFICS of what they want so they need VALID REASONS for why they need my continuous location data. not just "to see" if I go anywhere.
at least in theory. a warrant can not (lawfully) be issues on just suspicion.
it has to be valid tangible probable cause. and the warrant needs to be specific (the 4th amendment was specifically made NOT to protect your right to privacy (which is does) to to make ILLEGAL "general" warrants etc.. without specific detailed probable cause.
The police can't just say we want to see if so and so has a gun.
the can say we wish to search his residence to look for a smith and wesson whatever used in a crime that this person is related to and here is our suspected motive and this person is connected this way. etc.. etc..
that at least is how its supposed to work. the judges are SUPPOSED to be on OUR SIDE "against" the police.
alas today they are pretty much owned by police/government
but that is another problem unrelated directly to the need a warrant issues IE another topic for another discussion.
Likely the are allowing for tracking installed GPS, and so they are pretending to make a principled stand.
This Supreme court is stacked with weasels and I think they've already proven that they cannot be trusted ... you know, the Citizen's United (astro turf) case?
The SC won't redeem itself until it admits what a sold out tool it has been for at least a decade.
At least I now know that if I find a secret GPS hidden under my car, the FBI has a legal warrant for it. Just one question. What happens when the FBI finds out they've been following that same GPS device as it road around the country under an 18 wheeler?
With the recent Supreme Court decision clogging Google, this was the only reference I could find. However, a follow up article which used to be higher on google, said removing or tampering with the GPS unit was a criminal act according to the FBI.
The article above is a good read though and was on the front page of digg a month or so ago.
Yes it is very strange with the conservative controlled supreme court. This hasn't happened since it was mostly liberal. Maybe some day we can have that again.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Of course he does. He is the president. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. They all want this kind of power. This is human nature. I am not surprised and if you are then you are very naive.
The problem before, because the Supreme Court was perceived as too hard on corporations and too soft on citizens, was that it was too liberal. Reagan, Clinton, and Bush loaded it with conservatives.
Yes, Clinton did appoint Ginsberg who is a known conservative. Understand that congress, Gingrich, really pushed Clinton to appoint someone who wasn't "liberal".
Why the f*ck do you think that Citizen United went the way it did. Right along part lines but please make sh*t up, it's the only way your position can be justified.
I was wondering what made them NOT make some fascist decision.
In the back of their minds, Scalia and Thomas were probably imagining those trips to Vegas or to the home of a benefactor and realized that ANY law enforcement not under a tight reign by the establishment or a judge could suddenly start doing POLICE WORK on them.
>> Yeah, without a court order means that CEOs and Judges could actually get caught and that would be VERY destabilizing for the Status Quo....
... sometimes you forget that these people have SELF INTERESTS that drive them when they aren't just being assh**es.
So they can't put something on your car with out a Warrant but can they use unmanned drones to follow me around? Video Tape Me? capture my WiFi and Cell signals? Oh they can still do that. ok we're cool
I would think (and that could be my problem) that the police would want a warrant to add a strong layer of legitimacy to their actions. Mainly just to ensure a case does not get thrown out on a technicality.
The real problem with this is that the government is using technology to spy on us...to track us. They have to have a good reason hence the need for a warrant but this won't stop the process of spying on US citizens.
They will place the tracker without warrant, see you went somewhere and arrest you, then doctor the paperwork to say they were following you and not using GPS.
This requires we trust the police, which (unfortunately) is becoming less and less palatable. Also, if you have watched the latest season of 'Breaking Bad' then you will see another way to skirt the law.
Some won't, but now if they get caught doing it, the evidence obtained because of that tracking will be thrown out. I'm wondering how many convictions will be overturned.
Of course defense attorneys will likely have to get a data forensics expert to go over the data to make sure the dates on warrants match up with the GPS data info and make sure the data hasn't been tampered with.
They didn't actually rule definitively in this case. Basically, the punted. They said tracking over a long time would require a warrant. Our Supreme Court is as gutless as Congress.
With only one defection each way conservative, strict Constitutionalist judges go for warrants, while "live Constitution interpreted as we wish" liberal judges go for tracking without a warrant... Pure numbers showing who is protecting our rights and who is just BSing.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
The only problem with your statement is that this decision is a 9-0 decision of the supreme court. There were no dissenters, and no dissenting opinions. There was no liberal vs conservative, just a uniform decision.
You're mostly right (dugg), it was 9-0, but I would not characterize it as a "uniform decision". There was a 5-4 split on what exactly made it unconstitutional.
I agree with your criticisms of my comment (dugg). In actuality, the supreme court really punted on this issue. By arguing that Katz didn't supersede the physical trespass doctrine and instead augmented it, is a cheap way of settling this issue.
Since this is a very limited ruling by the supreme court, we can expect that this issue will be revisited when cops start using the GPS in your iPhone to track your movements. When that happens I'm sure the outcome will be the same, but the supreme court will not be able to punt on the issue.
This sounds like more 'my team is righteous and your is evil' banter. Both Conservative and Democrat judges have shown a willingness to 'interpret' the constitution broadly depending on which way an issue leans. What concerns me is how broadly the courts are interpreting 'No Knock Warrants'. Check out some of those cases. In one case, the police broke in to the wrong home and obtained drug evidence. The court upheld this evidence. In another case, there was the 'odor' of marijuana in a home. The court upheld an opinion that it was reasonable to 'enter' in an attempt to stop the destruction of said drug. The broad latitude here concerns me. On this particular issue, I actually expected more 'conservative judges' to be in favor of warrant-less GPS monitoring. I'm pleasantly surprised.
If you're talking about the two separate opinions that were written (both by Conservatives Scalia and Alito), neither opinion stated weather a warrant was necessary, only that a search had taken place. The difference was in whether the length of time of the search was a factor. The fact that a search occurred required that a warrant was necessary in the opinion of all nine justices.
crom99Jan 23, 2012
Seems like a no-brainer. Thankfully common sense prevailed.
sloppyjoes7Jan 23, 2012
It's not clear cut.
They can have a bunch of detectives follow your car around all day, monitoring you constantly, without a warrant. Using a GPS tracking device is simply cheaper, simpler, and easier. Ironically, it would also invade the person's privacy less, because they're not being physically watched.
The SCOTUS ruled that *placing* the GPS on the car was illegal, not the GPS tracking itself. It makes sense, in that respect.
crom99Jan 23, 2012
Sometimes the "right" thing is also the more difficult or more expensive thing.
Ouzel7Jan 23, 2012
Yeah... but who are these guys following me around?
breadfredJan 24, 2012
Ah, that would be me. Sorry.
Donuts4UJan 23, 2012
Considering most new cars and all cellphones and car-phones have GPS built-in, even if there's no subscription for the service, the ruling didn't go far enough.
nerysJan 24, 2012
but I am ok with PHYSICALLY tracking me 24/7 the reason is simple.
its SELF LIMITING. there are a limited number of officers and those need to be trained rested fed and PAID
to track me 24/7 for example would require AT MINIMUM 3 officers every single day figuring an 8 hours shift watching me and that's if I stay close to home. I work 60 miles from home.
now your talking multi state multi territory interactions and cooperation and or massive drive times which would put the officer count around 6-12 officers PER DAY or 4-5 if they drove the long distances.
they have to pay them. they have to fuel those cars maintain them etc.. etc.. etc..
this is not cheap and not easy. MEANING the "tracking" candidates will be chosen FAR more selectively and require a lot more "MERIT"
I can live with that.
GPS trackers require $50 in equipment (hell I can do it with a $14 little buddy in fact I DO I have one in my car in case its stolen. battery is good for $7 and its the size of a lighter. (ebay insignia little buddy) and NO MAN POWER besides installation.
NO WONDER they love them. they can track anyone "on a whim" because the cost is virtually NILL.
that is SCARY.
sloppyjoes7Jan 24, 2012
I hate inefficiency.
mvaJan 24, 2012
I could not disagree more. With GPS tracking they could install 100 of them on "people of interest" and record the data for days/weeks/months. Then at some later point in time they can come back and mine the data to see if the person was in the vicinity of a crime. All of this with only the effort of a single installation officer. The difference being that while being tailed, you would be actively caught in the crime, with GPS they could build the suspicion from the data and then construct other evidence to convict you of a crime. This is terribly scary to me. Note, it only says that you need a warrant, which is basically a check, to make sure that it is not abused. Warrants are not that hard to get, they actually had one in this case, they just had it for the wrong county. It is all about the due process.
ajh16Jan 24, 2012
The other side of this though is that it can still be done with a warrant. If there is enough suspicion to justify round the clock surveillance, then there should probably be enough evidence to get a warrant to make the gps tracker legal.
I don't know that we were there yet necessarily, but the obvious danger is that eventually it could simply be a catch all to put trackers everywhere. It's a very slippery slope and requiring judicial approval of the tracking seems to make sense, particularly if the warrant for planting the tracker is relatively easy to get.
nerysJan 24, 2012
if they have VALID probable cause (and this assumes the system ie judges FUNCTION as intended) then I AM OK with them putting GPS trackers on people.
but they have to have probable cause. and the warrant can't be OK you can use GPS. they have to request SPECIFICS of what they want so they need VALID REASONS for why they need my continuous location data. not just "to see" if I go anywhere.
at least in theory. a warrant can not (lawfully) be issues on just suspicion.
it has to be valid tangible probable cause. and the warrant needs to be specific (the 4th amendment was specifically made NOT to protect your right to privacy (which is does) to to make ILLEGAL "general" warrants etc.. without specific detailed probable cause.
The police can't just say we want to see if so and so has a gun.
the can say we wish to search his residence to look for a smith and wesson whatever used in a crime that this person is related to and here is our suspected motive and this person is connected this way. etc.. etc..
that at least is how its supposed to work. the judges are SUPPOSED to be on OUR SIDE "against" the police.
alas today they are pretty much owned by police/government
but that is another problem unrelated directly to the need a warrant issues IE another topic for another discussion.
vitriolandangstJan 24, 2012
Likely the are allowing for tracking installed GPS, and so they are pretending to make a principled stand.
This Supreme court is stacked with weasels and I think they've already proven that they cannot be trusted ... you know, the Citizen's United (astro turf) case?
The SC won't redeem itself until it admits what a sold out tool it has been for at least a decade.
superkendallJan 24, 2012
CU was the RIGHT choice. I don't want to live in a society that restricts speech in any way.
The fact that the SC makes good choices is shown here. This was a UNANIMOUS vote.
dsmeek36Jan 23, 2012
looks like they finally sat down and read the Constitution again; good deal!
vbdonJan 23, 2012
At least I now know that if I find a secret GPS hidden under my car, the FBI has a legal warrant for it. Just one question. What happens when the FBI finds out they've been following that same GPS device as it road around the country under an 18 wheeler?
Donuts4UJan 23, 2012
You get charged with tampering with government property unfortunately. It's already been done.
barackalypseJan 24, 2012
Do you have a citation? I can't believe removing a foreign bit of electronics from your own vehicle is an offense.
Donuts4UJan 24, 2012
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/11/gps-tracker-times-two/all/1
With the recent Supreme Court decision clogging Google, this was the only reference I could find. However, a follow up article which used to be higher on google, said removing or tampering with the GPS unit was a criminal act according to the FBI.
The article above is a good read though and was on the front page of digg a month or so ago.
nerysJan 24, 2012
I would tell them to f**k off. on my car its my property and I would stand on that to my death without fail.
Donuts4UJan 24, 2012
Death by cop leaves an expensive cleaning bill for your kids. <shrug>
nerysJan 24, 2012
so be it. I don't care. they are not getting it back and I would resist any attempt to arrest me for tampering with it.
on my car its my property. End of Discussion NO NEGOTIATION PERIOD.
They are terrorists and we do not negotiate with terrorists.
jodtsJan 23, 2012Submitter
So refreshing to see a defense of our civil rights after a decade of erosion.
barackalypseJan 23, 2012
Holy crap, mark the calendar, due process and the Constitution get a unanimous victory.
icwydJan 23, 2012
Yes it is very strange with the conservative controlled supreme court. This hasn't happened since it was mostly liberal. Maybe some day we can have that again.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
kingnovaJan 23, 2012
Uh, you do realize Obama's admin was trying to get this through, right?
And you look like an idiot making this a "liberal" thing?
Okay then...
icwydJan 24, 2012
Of course he does. He is the president. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. They all want this kind of power. This is human nature. I am not surprised and if you are then you are very naive.
The problem before, because the Supreme Court was perceived as too hard on corporations and too soft on citizens, was that it was too liberal. Reagan, Clinton, and Bush loaded it with conservatives.
Yes, Clinton did appoint Ginsberg who is a known conservative. Understand that congress, Gingrich, really pushed Clinton to appoint someone who wasn't "liberal".
Why the f*ck do you think that Citizen United went the way it did. Right along part lines but please make sh*t up, it's the only way your position can be justified.
WHERE ARE THE JOBS, BONER?
Hey, DPs, why has olddogg been pussyfied?
kingnovaJan 23, 2012
AGAINST the Obama justice department's wishes.
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/04/scotus-gps-monitoring/
vitriolandangstJan 24, 2012
Mark the calendar and COUNT the days until someone PAYS ENOUGH for the deciding vote.
Occasionally, this SC does the right thing -- just to throw you off.
nerysJan 24, 2012
I think the claim that they could put one on any of the justices cars without a warrant is what sealed their fate.
Self Preservation. sadly nothing to do with what is morally right. just coincidence.
vitriolandangstJan 24, 2012
Damn, good point.
I was wondering what made them NOT make some fascist decision.
In the back of their minds, Scalia and Thomas were probably imagining those trips to Vegas or to the home of a benefactor and realized that ANY law enforcement not under a tight reign by the establishment or a judge could suddenly start doing POLICE WORK on them.
>> Yeah, without a court order means that CEOs and Judges could actually get caught and that would be VERY destabilizing for the Status Quo....
... sometimes you forget that these people have SELF INTERESTS that drive them when they aren't just being assh**es.
vitriolandangstJan 24, 2012
I suspect that SOMETHING in this ruling allows for Fat Cats to be hurt -- or else Clarence is holding out for another "consulting job" for his wife.
yvipoJan 23, 2012
So they can't put something on your car with out a Warrant but can they use unmanned drones to follow me around? Video Tape Me? capture my WiFi and Cell signals? Oh they can still do that. ok we're cool
greatsunjesterJan 23, 2012
I would think (and that could be my problem) that the police would want a warrant to add a strong layer of legitimacy to their actions. Mainly just to ensure a case does not get thrown out on a technicality.
SkepticalSerfJan 23, 2012
Will GPS info will be a requirement and tracked in the government's requirements for the vehicular black box?
professorpeakJan 23, 2012
The real problem with this is that the government is using technology to spy on us...to track us. They have to have a good reason hence the need for a warrant but this won't stop the process of spying on US citizens.
Closed AccountJan 23, 2012
are the cops gonna listen? i don't think so.
sheopleherderJan 23, 2012
They will when people push it to the supreme court and their case is deemed inadmissible.
MrFrogyJan 23, 2012
They will place the tracker without warrant, see you went somewhere and arrest you, then doctor the paperwork to say they were following you and not using GPS.
This requires we trust the police, which (unfortunately) is becoming less and less palatable. Also, if you have watched the latest season of 'Breaking Bad' then you will see another way to skirt the law.
beerhoundJan 23, 2012
Some won't, but now if they get caught doing it, the evidence obtained because of that tracking will be thrown out. I'm wondering how many convictions will be overturned.
breadfredJan 24, 2012
They will still use it and use the data obtained for further investigation.
norman619Jan 23, 2012
Of course defense attorneys will likely have to get a data forensics expert to go over the data to make sure the dates on warrants match up with the GPS data info and make sure the data hasn't been tampered with.
Closed AccountJan 23, 2012
im sure most cops will listen but im sure some will not and try to get a headstart on tracking by putting gps on before the warrant is approved.
kingnovaJan 23, 2012
Great news.
A great big f**k YOU to the Obama Administration for supporting warrant-less GPS tracking.
rixar13Jan 26, 2012
There are Rogue Cops out there and I'm not just a kidding. wink ;-)
j_carcinogenJan 24, 2012
Important to note that this only applies to devices the cops put on a car not tracking a cell phone without a warrant.
visionarypeopleJan 24, 2012
Interesting to learn! Great decision.. Thanks for sharing
farb1Jan 24, 2012
Hello and Shalom,
I would like to get to know you.
leogodin217Jan 24, 2012
They didn't actually rule definitively in this case. Basically, the punted. They said tracking over a long time would require a warrant. Our Supreme Court is as gutless as Congress.
gkiltzJan 24, 2012
Better late than never.
dusanmalJan 23, 2012
With only one defection each way conservative, strict Constitutionalist judges go for warrants, while "live Constitution interpreted as we wish" liberal judges go for tracking without a warrant... Pure numbers showing who is protecting our rights and who is just BSing.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
feralplatypusJan 23, 2012
The only problem with your statement is that this decision is a 9-0 decision of the supreme court. There were no dissenters, and no dissenting opinions. There was no liberal vs conservative, just a uniform decision.
apokalyps2547Jan 23, 2012
You're mostly right (dugg), it was 9-0, but I would not characterize it as a "uniform decision". There was a 5-4 split on what exactly made it unconstitutional.
Of course, dusanmal is still quite wrong.
feralplatypusJan 24, 2012
I agree with your criticisms of my comment (dugg). In actuality, the supreme court really punted on this issue. By arguing that Katz didn't supersede the physical trespass doctrine and instead augmented it, is a cheap way of settling this issue.
Since this is a very limited ruling by the supreme court, we can expect that this issue will be revisited when cops start using the GPS in your iPhone to track your movements. When that happens I'm sure the outcome will be the same, but the supreme court will not be able to punt on the issue.
JustSayNoPartyJan 23, 2012
This sounds like more 'my team is righteous and your is evil' banter. Both Conservative and Democrat judges have shown a willingness to 'interpret' the constitution broadly depending on which way an issue leans. What concerns me is how broadly the courts are interpreting 'No Knock Warrants'. Check out some of those cases. In one case, the police broke in to the wrong home and obtained drug evidence. The court upheld this evidence. In another case, there was the 'odor' of marijuana in a home. The court upheld an opinion that it was reasonable to 'enter' in an attempt to stop the destruction of said drug. The broad latitude here concerns me. On this particular issue, I actually expected more 'conservative judges' to be in favor of warrant-less GPS monitoring. I'm pleasantly surprised.
jhbarrJan 23, 2012
If you're talking about the two separate opinions that were written (both by Conservatives Scalia and Alito), neither opinion stated weather a warrant was necessary, only that a search had taken place. The difference was in whether the length of time of the search was a factor. The fact that a search occurred required that a warrant was necessary in the opinion of all nine justices.