SCOTUS to decide GPS warrant case.

http://beta.news.yahoo.com/supreme-court-decide-police-gps-tracking-case-161123411.html

My take, YES ABSO-FUCKING-LUTELY the police need a warrant to stick a GPS on your damn car. WTF?!?!

This to me feels like it should be similar to laws regarding wiretapping. Maybe. I'm not 100% sure if that comparison holds, though, so I'm open to hearing why it would or wouldn't.

Here's the problem (as I see it): since it's legal for the police to follow and observe someone in public, tracking them with a GPS seems like it could be fair game. But I think NOT for the following reasons:

1. The GPS device still has to be attached to the person's car. This is an action against the person's property without their knowledge or consent.

2. There is no guarantee that a person will stay on public roads while being tracked by the GPS.

3. If a warrant (meaning good cause) is not required, what would stop the police from tracking everyone and therefore inferring great quantities of data on people's schedules, associations, etc.? This kind of broad "data mining" would not be possible if the police face manpower limitations.

I say: get a warrant.

Yep. It shouldn't even be open to question.

If using modern technology is all it takes to get around the Constitution, why not read your e-mail, tap your cell-phone, and install webcams in your house? Any information (including sound waves and visual sightings) that you make public is public; they can follow you around, listen to your house from across the street with a directional mike, spy on you by satellite, and so on. But as soon as they are installing some kind of electronic device on your personal possessions, there should be no question as to whether or not a warrant is needed.

I also think it's good that this test case is going to end up (if the decision goes the right way) with a guy escaping conviction for a drug offense. It would be a shame if the guy had committed a murder or a rape and the conviction got thrown out over the use of improper evidence.

I agree with you. I also think that some correlation could be drawn between this and other surveillance methods. Police could follow someone and take pictures, but they couldn't enter property without a warrant. Should they have the right to GPS pinpoint a car in a closed garage that they couldn't photograph? Of course not.

Aye. You nicely followed up, but it should be pointed out that being on private property doesn't guarantee privacy. However, the government should be held to a higher standard and what applies to citizens shouldn't also apply to government.

This case is huge, exactly for that reason. The most dangerous thing here isn't proper conclusions that could be drawn, but improper conclusions. "Guilt by location" should not alone be enough to convict a person!

And I: agree.

Yep. Get a warrant, baby.

"I'm gonna need to see a warrant."
"I don't need a stinkin' warrant!" *Shoots dog, homeowner*

Here is the thing. If the police have good cause to use such a device then they should not have any problem getting a warrant and obeying the law. Here again its the police who do not want to obey or respect the laws or any rights or there would not even be a case here.

Bullshit. A warrant should be issued prior to any action such as this.

They have to have a warrant to get information from say OnStar or LoJack, don't they?
I see this as no different. I'm glad thay're pushing this up through the ranks and hope it gets shot down but they'll just hide it under HS like they do with wiretaps if they do.

This is a slippery slope if they say "no warrant necessary." They can just tag our cars, and at the end of a workweek, we all have to blow a chunk of our paychecks on speeding that the cops didn't visually catch.

Sorta like hacking into someone's private facebook for information or GOD FORBID pictures of them drinking beer, to get rid of them where you work, so you can move up to their spot. Either way, warrant, please. Technology is not a blank check that they can use to weasel around the Bill of Rights.

I'm worried SCOTUS will rule the wrong way on this. They've had quite a few craptastic rulings in the past few years.

I swear there's already a case on homing devices on cars by the USSC....must find.

Oh, not quite... I'm thinking of Karo:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Karo

And also of help, Kyllo, a 2001 case holding thermal imaging of house w/o warrant violates the 4th Amendment. Though this is in opposite as houses have traditionally been granted far more protection than vehicles.

I would expect the court to rule GPS is legal as a car is visible from anywhere and can be observed without a GPS. Thus, GPS obtains no information that couldn't legally be obtained otherwise (visual surveillance).

Not if the car is off public roads.

Helicopter.

So the act of physically attaching an object to your property changes nothing in your opinion?

I'm sure I've asked this before, but what would be the penalty for finding and removing a tracking device from your vehicle? I'm always crawling all over mine. They might not get a week of tracking before I found it.

There was a guy in the news who did just that. He went to the mechanic for something, and the mechanic found the thing attached to the car. The dude I think tried to ebay the GPS tracker and the FBI went uncorked on his ass.

The best part is that they had no valid reason to track the dude in the first place. he was totally clean.

Lemme see if I can pull up the details.

EDIT:
Ok I got some of it wrong, but here's an article with the details.

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/10/fbi-tracking-device/

I wouldn't try to sell it. I'd just stick it on a Greyhound bus or something.

I'd find a cop car to put it on.

FBI: Hmm, this guy we're tracking sure likes this donut shop...

I'm thinking the police wouldn't have much of a sense of humor about catching you tampering with one of their cruisers.

You know, if you're not supposed to know about the thing, you could always claim you didn't know.

"Tracking device? I don't know anything about a tracking device. You got some paperwork on that?"

It can be done.

Visible from anywhere? You obviously don't live around here.

"I found this thing stuck to my car. Since I didn't think I needed it, I took it off and beat it flat with a hammer..."

Yep, there's your need for a warrant.

Probably not.

What about jurisdiction issues?

If you threw it out they'd probably add some trumped up charge of damage to government property and get you that way.

Like if they tracked him out of the county? I've never seen that factor into a 4th amendment analysis.