No Warrant Needed For GPS Tracking By Police

[Gunslinger]

Originally posted by JB88
The writ is "the fundamental instrument for safeguarding individual freedom against arbitrary and lawless state action."

Bold and Regressive Steps to Violate Civil Liberties in the Wake of September 11

    * Pressured Congress to hurriedly enact his legislation, the USA Patriot Act, which gave astonishing powers to federal agencies:
          o The Act dramatically increases the government’s surveillance, search-and-seizure and wiretapping authority.

            The Act greatly expanded government policing powers, even in cases unrelated to terrorism.


            The Act allows for the sharing of secret information on American citizens among federal agencies.
    * During Congressional testimony, asserted that anyone who raised concerns about his actions would “aid terrorists” and “give ammunition to America’s enemies,” statements which are antithetical to the spirit of the First Amendment right to dissent.
    * Authorized DOJ officials to monitor the discussions that attorneys have with clients who are in federal custody, including those detained, but not charged with a criminal offense in violation of the First, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendments.
    * Rounded up and imprisoned over 1200 men of Middle Eastern descent based largely on pretextual immigration violations and refused to disclose their identity and location and the reason for their detention. The detainees have been denied fundamental due process rights.
    * Sought to question roughly 8,000 men of Middle Eastern descent, who are legal residents of the U.S., a flagrant form of racial profiling.
    * Imposed a policy of selectively enforcing deportation orders against men from Middle Eastern countries.
    * Formed regulations that deny federal compensation to the partners and non-biological children of lesbian, gay and bisexual victims of September 11.
    * Helped draft the presidential order creating secret military tribunals which bypasses the U.S. court system and contains significant due process violations. Allows for the imposition of the death penalty.
    * Reversed the presumption of openness that is an underpinning the Freedom of Information Act by supporting agency decisions to withhold information if there is a sound legal basis for doing so, thereby rejecting the Reno position that information ought to be released under FOIA unless such release would be harmful.
    * Indicated that he is considering relaxing domestic guidelines that prohibit the federal law enforcement agencies from spying on First Amendment-protected activities.
    * Has called for the use of local police for enforcement of immigration laws.
    * Has asked Neighborhood Watch groups to work with the federal government to identify terrorists.
    * Has asked local law enforcement to submit proposals seeking federal funds to expand their capacity to identify and spy on suspected terrorists in local communities.
    * Initiated a project in August of 2002 called Operation TIPS (Terrorist Information and Prevention System) that would recruit and train 1 million volunteers (including postal workers, utility personnel and the like) in 10 cities who would be encouraged to report suspicious terrorist activity.  
    * Directed all federal prosecutors not to agree to judges’ downward departures from the federal sentencing guidelines except in rare cases.  In addition, Ashcroft requires that prosecutors, within 14 days, report when a judge imposes a downward departure from the guidelines.
    * Continues to misrepresent and misled the American public about the scope and impact of the USA Patriot Act, through his Patriot Act Tour.  Ashcroft will visit 16 states and 18 cities for three weeks during his Patriot Act Tour to shore up support for the legislation that was passed in October 2001 as well as laying the groundwork for the introduction of the Victory Act.
    * Encouraged the 93 US Attorneys to lobby members of Congress who voted for an amendment that would prohibit DOJ funds to be used to enforcement “sneak and peak” warrants.  The US Attorneys were also asked to turn out law enforcement officers and the citizens to community meetings around the country as well as write op-eds in local papers in support of the USA Patriot Act.  This request was made to coincide with Ashcroft’s Patriot Act Tour.
    * Further restricted DOJ’s centralized control over plea-bargaining of cases by federal prosecutors.

from http://www.aclu.org

that's great an all JB88 considering you don't have an alternative and would like to go back to the pre 911 way of doing business but my question wasnt about the patriot act it was who is being held without habeus corpus?

[Mini D]

Originally posted by Sox62
Remember when Acme Car Rental tracked  and fined a guy for speeding in his rental car?They used GPS to nail him.

A judge ruled it illegal,and ordered restitution paid to over two dozen customers Acme fined via GPS.

I'm no legal expert,so I don't know if there's any relevance or not.


http://news.com.com/2100-1040-269388.html?legacy=cnet

There's no real relation between the two.  The courts ruled that the rental agency had no authority to fine people for exceding the speed limit.  There wasn't any real issue with "invasion of privacy".  If the drivers had taken the car somewhere the rental agency had deemed off limits, they would have been correct in fining them.

[JB88]

a good question.

i was simply defining the danger.

[Fishu]

Rental agencies has the GPS installed into the car already. I suppose it is also mentioned somewhere on the contract paper.

...but cops installing a tracking device on your car? thats same as bugging your phone or installing surveillance equiptment in your house.
The house is private from inside and nobody has the right to put the bug on your window or keep watching through the window everything what you do. The area outside can be public. Same thing with the car - it just moves.

[Mini D]

The car is not just like a house.  If you don't believe me, try putting your house on public property.

This bug did not evesdrop on conversation.  It did nothing to invade the privacy inside of the vehicle... it simply tracked the vehicle.  As a rule, there is not a warant needed to watch where someone is driving their car.

It does seem like something I'd like to see a warrant for.  I don't like the idea of the police installing these on cars at will.

Basically, I can see how the a warrant isn't required, but I'm not a bit supportive of it.

[Fishu]

Originally posted by Mini D
The car is not just like a house.  If you don't believe me, try putting your house on public property.

This bug did not evesdrop on conversation.  It did nothing to invade the privacy inside of the vehicle... it simply tracked the vehicle.  As a rule, there is not a warant needed to watch where someone is driving their car.

It does seem like something I'd like to see a warrant for.  I don't like the idea of the police installing these on cars at will.

Basically, I can see how the a warrant isn't required, but I'm not a bit supportive of it.

Warrant isn't either needed to overhear discussion, but it is needed to bug the phone.
Warrant isn't needed to watch a car or look inside through the window, but it is needed if you search the car without having seen anything inside which would give a reason to search without a warrant.
Therefore in my opinion a warrant should be required when installing devices on someones property without the owners knowledge.

I don't know how it is done in USA, but in Finland a warrant of some kind is needed to locate someones cellphone from the phone company. I have a reason to believe it is the same also in USA...?
All the time they can be sitting at a public place.

Therefore I can't really see any reasons supportive to the unwarranted GPS tracking of cars, especially by planting bugs on the car which weren't already installed by the owner.