Video: Should law enforcement be able to track vehicles without a warrant?

posted at 10:30 am on July 3, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

They certainly can now, but the Supreme Court has agreed to decide whether law enforcement should place tracking transmitters on the vehicles of suspects without first seeking a warrant.  The test case will come from an appellate court that threw out a drug-distribution conviction and life sentence, ruling that the failure to get a warrant for the device violated the Fourth Amendment rights of Antoine Jones, a nightclub owner in Washington DC.  As MSNBC reports, though, Jones was not the only suspect to have unknowingly carried an FBI tracking device:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

I’m surprised that this hasn’t happened before. With most vehicles requiring an oil change every 3,000 miles, cars get racked on a regular basis. Perhaps other law enforcement agencies do a better job of hiding the transmitter that they did with Afifi. The report doesn’t indicate what the FBI’s interest was in surreptitiously tracking the American-born college student, but they didn’t mind making their presence known to get the transmitter back.

Maybe they were tracking Afifi for a study on a federal mileage tax, eh?

The Jones case involved the police, not the FBI:

The appeals court threw out the conviction and the life-in-prison sentence for Antoine Jones, a nightclub owner in Washington, D.C., for conspiracy to distribute cocaine.

Police put the GPS device on Jones’ vehicle and tracked his movements for a month during their investigation. Evidence obtained as a result of using the GPS device played a key role in his conviction.

The appeals court said prolonged electronic monitoring of Jones’ vehicle amounted to an unreasonable search.

The argument that law enforcement needs no warrant to track vehicles on public roads doesn’t make a lot of sense. They can’t search the vehicles themselves without permission, a search warrant, or probable cause (which strongly suggests an emergent situation as opposed to a chronic issue) even if the vehicle is on a public road at the time.  Why, then, can police or FBI use tracking devices without the same restrictions, especially for long periods of time?

Drivers might not have a right to privacy in the act of driving on public roads, but that applies mainly in the moment.  For instance, if police observe someone smoking a joint or drinking Jack Daniels while driving, they have the jurisdiction to pull the car over and arrest the driver, and few if any would dispute that.  That’s a far cry from the government at any level compiling a list of travels and destinations over any period of time, which really does fall into Big Brother territory.  If the government has probable cause to collect that kind of information, then law enforcement has enough information to get the search warrant to start collecting that kind of data.

What do you think? Take the poll:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

I’m curious as to whether the GPS was attached while the vehicle was driving down the highway, or if the police trespassed onto private property to attach it.

munseym on July 3, 2011 at 5:31 PM

The GPS is the same as a surveillance. There is no right to privacy protecting a person from the police following the person while the person is driving around town.

Likewise, there is no right to privacy having a GPS tracking device placed on the outside of the vehicle.

4th Amendment issues arise only when the police stop a vehicle, search the vehicle, etc.

slp on July 3, 2011 at 5:56 PM

Government needs to get a warrant EVERY time. The warrant and the requirements to obtain one makes the search reasonable. No exceptions.

Woody

woodcdi on July 3, 2011 at 6:01 PM

I’m convinced we’ll have to have a transponder of some type on our vehicles for a mileage tax, so this will be a moot point.

It’s odd-with every new leap in technology we manage to give up more of our privacy and Liberty.

Huh.

Dr. ZhivBlago on July 3, 2011 at 6:50 PM

NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO
NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO
NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO
NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO
WAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

profitsbeard on July 3, 2011 at 6:59 PM

Invest in a bug sweeper. Problem solved.

SirGawain on July 3, 2011 at 7:45 PM

Hizz to the Lll to tha no!

I don’t know if that’s right, but I say no way on tracking my peeps.

madmonkphotog on July 3, 2011 at 8:32 PM

Mere observation is not the same as a search or seizure.

Many large cities have a network of traffic cameras installed at all intersections to facilitate the flow of traffic during rush hour. There is a central control center where the feed of all of the cameras can be viewed and each individual camera controlled.

Theoretically, it would be possible for a single police officer to sit in the command center and track the subject from one location to the next by use of these cameras.

Should the police have to get a warrant for that?

Let’s take it one step further: Instead of having the officer sit in the command center, the city routes the feed and the ability to manipulate the cameras to the officer’s desk or to his patrol car via his MDC.

Should they have to get a warrant then?

Let’s take it another step further: Instead of detailing an officer (or series of officers) to sit at the command center and monitor the suspect’s movements 24/7, in order to save overtime costs the city records all the footage and the investigators look at it later during their normal duty hours.

Should they have to get a warrant then?

The genie is out of the bottle when it comes to monitoring the movements of anyone while they are in public.

Dukeboy01 on July 3, 2011 at 9:42 PM

Duke that is not the same as placing a device on someone else’s car.

CW on July 3, 2011 at 10:30 PM

You should see the shiny new Obamacare shock collars which activate within 100 feet of donut shops, steak houses and burger joints.

viking01 on July 3, 2011 at 10:31 PM

Wow truly scary and interesting that some cannot see the difference between physically putting a devise on a vehicle and watching said vehicle. I am not sure what is more scary the fact that people are willing to give up their rights or
the basic lack of logical thinking as those same people cannot tell the difference. There is obviously a lack of basic education and Constitutional education.

CW on July 3, 2011 at 10:33 PM

Follow the link for remedial reading on 4th Amendment rulings, particularly the vehicle exception.

Dukeboy01 on July 3, 2011 at 3:16 PM

So they are searching the vehicle with this device. Does it use Xray or magic?

CW on July 3, 2011 at 10:36 PM

If you are not doing anything wrong why worry about it?

Kind of like the question posed to people who raise concerns about profiling. Since they don’t tend to look like the people being profiled it is all good.

Bradky on July 3, 2011 at 3:01 PM

Not even close to the same thing . What do I look like btw?

You obviously don’t know how profiling works. If you think it is just about looks you’re nuttier than I thought.

CW on July 3, 2011 at 10:43 PM

CW on July 3, 2011 at 10:43 PM

Well if the shoe don’t fit you shouldn’t wear it. But if you are not Hispanic, Black or Arab the odds are you are not being profiled.

Doesn’t it bother you in the least that only 17% of the 4000+ arrests due to wiretaps led to convictions? Carnival midway games offer better odds than what the police are using with their wiretaps.

Bradky on July 3, 2011 at 10:49 PM

Well if the shoe don’t fit you shouldn’t wear it. But if you are not Hispanic, Black or Arab the odds are you are not being profiled.

Bradky on July 3, 2011 at 10:49 PM

You base that on what?

You really don’t know how it works.

Again how do you know my color?

So what is your fix to your wiretap issue? If they go to a judge and request a warrant with good reason then that is simply how it is but if the judges are not doing their jobs in ferreting out those that are simply grasping then we need to put some new rules in place.

CW on July 3, 2011 at 10:56 PM

CW on July 3, 2011 at 10:56 PM

It is based on stats. I don’t care what your skin color is.

Bradky on July 3, 2011 at 11:09 PM

I don’t care what your skin color is.

Bradky on July 3, 2011 at 11:09 PM

Kind of like the question posed to people who raise concerns about profiling. Since they don’t tend to look like the people being profiled it is all good.

Bradky on July 3, 2011 at 3:01 PM

heh.

It is based on stats. I don’t care what your skin color is.

Bradky on July 3, 2011 at 11:09 PM

CW on July 3, 2011 at 11:12 PM

I don’t care what your skin color is.

Bradky on July 3, 2011 at 11:09 PM

Kind of like the question posed to people who raise concerns about profiling. Since they don’t tend to look like the people being profiled it is all good.

Bradky on July 3, 2011 at 3:01 PM

heh.

It is based on stats.
Bradky on July 3, 2011 at 11:09 PM

There you did it.You convinced me./

The studies are iffy at best. You still don’t know how profiling works.

CW on July 3, 2011 at 11:13 PM

CW on July 3, 2011 at 11:13 PM

You keep saying that but offer nothing to show that I don’t know how they work.

But keep on deluding yourself.

Bradky on July 3, 2011 at 11:21 PM

You keep saying that but offer nothing to show that I don’t know how they work.

But keep on deluding yourself.

Bradky on July 3, 2011 at 11:21 PM

I am to prove a negative? Gotcha.

Really I have seen you on these threads for the last couple of years. You are one of the ugliest and most ignorant posters. Your comments are lame and simplistic as you have proven tonight. Later.

CW on July 3, 2011 at 11:46 PM

The police (and everyone else) have the right to follow you any time they want.

Observation on July 4, 2011 at 12:00 AM

You are one of the ugliest and most ignorant posters. Your comments are lame and simplistic as you have proven tonight. Later.

CW on July 3, 2011 at 11:46 PM

Next time I’ll dumb them down a bit more so that even you can understand them….

Bradky on July 4, 2011 at 12:02 AM

Police state anyone?

sDs61678 on July 4, 2011 at 12:31 AM

No and no a million times NOOOOO!!!

SouthernGent on July 4, 2011 at 12:48 AM

The police (and everyone else) have the right to follow you any time they want.

Observation on July 4, 2011 at 12:00 AM

Not while I’m driving around on my own property they certainly don’t.

Ronnie on July 4, 2011 at 12:48 AM

The police (and everyone else) have the right to follow you any time they want.

Observation on July 4, 2011 at 12:00 AM

It becomes stalking and harassment if done for no justifiable reason.

Thus the warrant.

And restraining orders.

profitsbeard on July 4, 2011 at 2:03 AM

I’m surprised they even bothered with a separate tracking device. Why not just track off of the Tire Pressure Monitoring System (TPMS) in the tires? Gotta love the fact that more and more of the things we own actively send out RF that could be identified and tracked (credit cards, cell phones, TPMS, etc, etc).

Laserjock on July 4, 2011 at 8:53 AM

nvest in a bug sweeper. Problem solved.

SirGawain

There is currently no commercially available device to detect a GPS tracker, especcially a recording vs. a transmitting GPS device.

E9RET on July 4, 2011 at 10:10 AM

There has got to be at least 101 counter-productive things to do that a finder of one of these devices could choose from.

If I find one one my car, I will choose carefully and wisely.

TimBuk3 on July 4, 2011 at 10:13 AM

Or more to the point, can Law Enforcement, you know like, enforce the basic laws???

In my 30 minute drive to work I can count 100 cars doing 20mph OVER the 70mph limit. I can see about 20 serious moving violations, I can see 5 cars with no tags, and 5 to 10 cars with grievous safety issues, like shattered windshields, no bumpers, no lights, etc.

You see a lot as a motorcyclist.

Besides, judges are about to empty the jails anyways, so WTF do we need LEO for ???

I see a huge future in Private Security Operations.

orbitalair on July 4, 2011 at 10:39 AM

slp on July 3, 2011 at 5:56 PM

Interesting. Do you also believe then that they can put devices on your vehicle to merely track your mileage?

hawkdriver on July 4, 2011 at 10:46 AM

Putting a GPS bug on a car isn’t a search, it is a form of surveillance. Surveillance, in and of itself, does not require a warrant.

But this form of surveillance is both highly intrusive and requires interference with property rights.

The Fourth Amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Putting a GPS bug on a car is a clear interference with a person’s property rights in the vehicle. The vehicle is being used by the police without the owner’s permission. That action is a tort, trespass to chattel. The Fourth Amendment requires a warrant issued on probable cause before officials can lawfully interfere with a person’s property.

As a practical matter, the technology is opening a can of worms. There is nothing to prevent police from illegally bugging a car, gathering information, removing the bug, and then using the information gathered. All they need do is deny the illegal bug and generate an alternate narrative regarding how they discovered the evidence.

novaculus on July 4, 2011 at 11:17 AM

It’s a good start but I’d strongly advise Mr. Afifi to avoid any prostate exams.

Mason on July 4, 2011 at 12:12 PM

If they can follow a suspect without a warrant and use tools like binoculars and cameras, I don’t see why they can’t also use other “tools” like this. They aren’t searching the car, or recording any audio/video. Just saving a lot of time and gas by not having to sit on the perp and follow him everywhere.

Onus on July 4, 2011 at 12:55 PM

GPS.

ATF.

HSA.

HHS.

DPS.

CIA.

DEA.

NEA.

Whatever.

I don’t see any problems there.

The more acronyms, the better.. Makes for fun acronym trivia games in the Sunday paper…..

I miss them already.

Mcguyver on July 4, 2011 at 1:01 PM

The GPS is the same as a surveillance. There is no right to privacy protecting a person from the police following the person while the person is driving around town.

I’m okay with them putting a GPS in their surveillance vehicle, but mine? So there’s no right to privacy if they put a minder in my back seat that I have to drive him around all day?

Likewise, there is no right to privacy having a GPS tracking device placed on the outside of the vehicle.

If they can put one on my car, can they also put one in my watch, shoes, cell phone or under my skin. What’s the logical/legal difference between all these?

4th Amendment issues arise only when the police stop a vehicle, search the vehicle, etc.

slp on July 3, 2011 at 5:56 PM

So then the 4th amendment doesn’t protect us from having chips implanted in us? I think this is a case where the intent of the Constitution needs be respected above the literal text in order to account for the technology. The intent was to protect us from invasive inspection that went beyond just observing. There was no inspection possible beyond that in the 18th century. Now that there is, the 4th amendment should be understood to protect us from every invasive form of surveillance without cause that is not both completely passive such as wire taps, GPS monitoring, and implants. Anything less just opens the door for abuse.

elfman on July 4, 2011 at 4:09 PM

This could open a whole new market for hand-held EMP tools to permanently disable ‘bugs’.

landlines on July 4, 2011 at 5:20 PM

This could open a whole new market for hand-held EMP tools to permanently disable ‘bugs’.

landlines on July 4, 2011 at 5:20 PM

A few RF detectors, Duct Tape, and tinfoil would do the job without physically damaging the device. Just find it… and prevent it from sending signals: the device is effectively neutralized. No damage = no vandalism: if it’s a no warrant case, then the cops have to explain what it was doing there in order to formally arrest you for it. If they don’t want to arrest you then they still have an effectively useless bug to deal with (they won’t be able to confront you before breaking the law).

If it is a warrant case, then you get your day in court… but you’re probably hosed because you did something to warrant the warrant in the first place.

Chaz706 on July 4, 2011 at 8:23 PM

Let’s take it another step further: Instead of detailing an officer (or series of officers) to sit at the command center and monitor the suspect’s movements 24/7, in order to save overtime costs the city records all the footage and the investigators look at it later during their normal duty hours.

Should they have to get a warrant then?

The genie is out of the bottle when it comes to monitoring the movements of anyone while they are in public.

Dukeboy01 on July 3, 2011 at 9:42 PM

Interesting point.

I am aware of the investigation of a murder case a couple years ago where the police gathered videotapes of the defendent taking a large trunk from his apartment, down the elevator, to his car in the parking lot, through the city streets, on the freeway, off the freeway, down some more streets, to the last camera which was only a couple miles from where his wife’s body was found in the woods.

The defendent had no right to privacy for what he did out in the open.

Another point,

So then the 4th amendment doesn’t protect us from having chips implanted in us?
elfman on July 4, 2011 at 4:09 PM

What are you talking about? I do not think that a judge could not order that. Its a Fourth Amendment violation.

However, you might want to review the case law on body cavity searches. Cutting the skin is different from a body cavity search.

Search and seizure case law is very complex and many times concerns exceptions to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement. The lawfulness of the search depends on the time, place, and scope of the search. There are big differences in what is lawful in your home, in a prison, and at the international border, for example.

slp on July 4, 2011 at 8:48 PM

So then the 4th amendment doesn’t protect us from having chips implanted in us?
elfman on July 4, 2011 at 4:09 PM

What are you talking about? I do not think that a judge could not order that. Its a Fourth Amendment violation.

However, you might want to review the case law on body cavity searches. Cutting the skin is different from a body cavity search.

slp on July 4, 2011 at 8:48 PM

So, you’re aying that the Government could order us to shove a GPS up our asses?

My answer to that is for them to shove this fascist B.S. up theirs.

profitsbeard on July 4, 2011 at 9:19 PM

So, you’re saying that the Government could order us to shove a GPS up our asses?

profitsbeard on July 4, 2011 at 9:19 PM

No.

A body cavity search is a search.

Shoving a GPS up your ass is not a search.

Like I said, one needs to read the case law to understand when a body cavity search is lawful.

Here are couple of summaries:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_cavity_search

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_search_exception

slp on July 4, 2011 at 10:09 PM

Del Dolemonte on July 3, 2011 at 11:16 AM

That’s an entirely different thing than tracking my car, Del.

dogsoldier on July 5, 2011 at 1:27 AM

No.

A body cavity search is a search.

Shoving a GPS up your ass is not a search.

Like I said, one needs to read the case law to understand when a body cavity search is lawful.

slp on July 4, 2011 at 10:09 PM

But, technically, they could insert it secretly and say it was for “surveillance”, instead, getting around the “search” provision?

If your property (auto = “effects”) is not protected, how is your body (“person”) then any more protected?

“Persons and effects”?

profitsbeard on July 5, 2011 at 2:09 AM

But, technically, they could insert it secretly and say it was for “surveillance”, instead, getting around the “search” provision?

If your property (auto = “effects”) is not protected, how is your body (“person”) then any more protected?

“Persons and effects”?

profitsbeard on July 5, 2011 at 2:09 AM

Naah, that’s not how you do it… then the person watched knows you’re doing it. You don’t tell them you’re planting the GPS on their car either. You have it done when they take the car in for maintenance.

Now if you were in for heart surgery and they had a GPS added to your pacemaker; that’s ok now I guess.

They’re not cutting you, bugging you, or doing anything “illegal” are they? I mean they’re tampering with your property (the pacemaker) but that’s allowed to add a GPS device… so I guess that would be allowed and permitted now.

Heck the pacemaker is just “effects” isn’t it? I mean before implanted it wasn’t part of your body, just something you purchased. How is it different than your car?

Once GPS devices are cheap enough I’d expect all pacemakers or medical devices to have them; why not? The information might be useful, it’s perfectly legal (I guess?), and there is no need of any suspicion at all to allow it.

gekkobear on July 5, 2011 at 3:44 AM

Heck the pacemaker is just “effects” isn’t it? I mean before implanted it wasn’t part of your body, just something you purchased. How is it different than your car?

Once GPS devices are cheap enough I’d expect all pacemakers or medical devices to have them; why not? The information might be useful, it’s perfectly legal (I guess?), and there is no need of any suspicion at all to allow it.

gekkobear on July 5, 2011 at 3:44 AM

Is it even your effects when the government pays for it under Obamacare? If they’re footing the bill, it’s their property and they can track it for any reason they want, right? Nay, they absolutely SHOULD track it so nobody gets buried with one that could easily be given to someone else who needs one. Reuse is one of the three Rs, after all.

James on July 5, 2011 at 6:00 AM

NO, NO, NO, and H3LL NO!!!!!

roy_batty on July 5, 2011 at 9:06 AM

Should we even have to ask? America used to be a place where the government left you alone until you did something wrong.

I wonder how supporters of TSA gropes feel about warrantless tracking? To me they’re all of a kind. Government “needs these tools” to stop bad guys, right?

hawksruleva on July 5, 2011 at 9:22 AM

GPS devices don’t turn themselves off when you enter private property. And you can’t follow someone around on private property without permission or a warrant. That’s why we call it “private property”. Now, if the cops want to devote resources to following someone around on public roads, flying a helicopter after them, correlating traffic cams, or some other passive surveillance method then that’s fine. It’s a cost/benefit analysis that the police force must make, and we’re not obligated to re-make society into something more convenient for law enforcement.

If they want to bug someone’s car, or track a vehicle via other active means, like via a GPS unit with a transmitter, then they should be required to get a warrant before they do so. Is it too much trouble to get a warrant, rather than simply assign a car to follow someone? Fine, I guess it wasn’t that important.

Oh, and all police cars should be tracked. With mandatory location data and dashcam feeds available in real-time over the Internet. Privacy? You chose the wrong career, officer.

GalosGann on July 5, 2011 at 10:04 AM

So there’s no right to privacy if they put a minder in my back seat that I have to drive him around all day?

Likewise, there is no right to privacy having a GPS tracking device placed on the outside of the vehicle.

If they can put one on my car, can they also put one in my watch, shoes, cell phone or under my skin. What’s the logical/legal difference between all these?

4th Amendment issues arise only when the police stop a vehicle, search the vehicle, etc.

slp on July 3, 2011 at 5:56 PM

So then the 4th amendment doesn’t protect us from having chips implanted in us? I think this is a case where the intent of the Constitution needs be respected above the literal text in order to account for the technology. 4thThe intent was to protect us from invasive inspection that went beyond just observing. There was no inspection possible beyond that in the 18th century. Now that there is, the amendment should be understood to protect us from every invasive form of surveillance without cause that is not both completely passive such as wire taps, GPS monitoring, and implants. Anything less just opens the door for abuse.

elfman on July 4, 2011 at 4:09 PM

Privacy is a factor, but the only right to privacy comes from Griswold V. Commecticutt. Are you sure you want to go there?

Expectations of privacy are a factor in the balancing tests that courts often use to determine if a specific search or seizure is or was lawful.

No one has any expectation of privacy in where they go on public roads or walk on public streets. The average person in even a smaller town is likely to be on someone’s security video every day they leave their home. In a city it could be literally hundreds of times per day.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects…

Putting a GPS bug surreptitiously in a car is interference with the right to be secure in effects (property). Putting a GPS bug surreptitiously in a person’s body interferes with the right to be secure in their person. Obviously expectations of security in your person are higher than expectations of security in property, but the principle is the same. It is just the balancing equation is different.

As a practical matter, these bugs will become smaller and smaller and harder and harder to detect. Soon they will be able to slip one into your food and you will never know.

If the police collect evidence illegally, they usually can’t use it in court. (There are some exceptions.) The problem is the temptation will be to bug illegally, gather information, and then fabricate a different story about how the evidence was discovered legally.

The Supreme Court will have to sort these issues out eventually.

novaculus on July 5, 2011 at 10:51 AM

IF the person they want to track is NOT a US citizen hell yea do what you want to him/her, IF that person is a US citizen HELL NO . Get a warrent or STFU and sit down.

ColdWarrior57 on July 5, 2011 at 11:21 AM

Local LEO’s wanting to attach a GPs to anyones vehicle be they American citizens or no, I say, Not without a search warrant. If the FBI or NSA for ecample want to track the movements of s citizen, they have to go through the court first. For non-citizens too I think.

Now, if I’m fumbing around under my car or truck and I find one of these things, I’m pulling, and slapping it on someone elses car when I go to the grocery store. Let the bastages trail the wrong person.

I would also make it a religion to check for bugs after that.

44Magnum on July 5, 2011 at 11:43 AM

novaculus on July 5, 2011 at 10:51 AM

Good clarification. Thanks!

elfman on July 5, 2011 at 2:25 PM

For example; A police officer doesn’t need a warrant to enter a home if he sees an assault taking place through a window.

In the case being discussed in this thread would anyone dispute the propriety of police following a suspect’s car? So, if they can legally follow the vehicle, why can’t a tracking device be used?

walkingboss on July 3, 2011 at 1:35 PM

Please explain your analogy. Just what “assault” is being observed by watching a vehicle sit in a driveway that would cause you to violate private property rights to attach a tracking bug without a warrant?

dominigan on July 5, 2011 at 3:11 PM

I find this entire conversation ludicrous. Of course a search warrant should be required to bug and track the private property of an individual.

And consider… I don’t see how GPS data is anything other than circumstantial without an observation that a particular individual was the driver of the vehicle. Thus, observation must already be used for the data to be admissible in court.

dominigan on July 5, 2011 at 3:15 PM

novaculus on July 5, 2011 at 10:51 AM

EXCELLENT!

dominigan on July 5, 2011 at 3:16 PM

eh *shrugs* drop a few words like ‘national security’ and ‘terrorism’ and everyone will be fine with it.

..

..right?

Reaps on July 6, 2011 at 10:21 PM

Comment pages: 1 2