General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsNo Warrant Needed for GPS Monitoring, Judge Rules - Wired
No Warrant Needed for GPS Monitoring, Judge RulesBy David Kravets - Wired
January 3, 2012 | 3:35 pm
<snip>
A Missouri federal judge ruled the FBI did not need a warrant to secretly attach a GPS monitoring device to a suspects car to track his public movements for two months. The ruling, upholding federal theft and other charges, is one in a string of decisions nationwide supporting warrantless GPS surveillance. Last weeks decision comes as the Supreme Court is expected to rule on the issue within months in an unrelated case.
The ruling from Magistrate David Noce mirrored the Obama administration position before the Supreme Court during oral arguments on the topic in November. In short, defendant Fred Robinson, who was suspected of fudging his time sheets for his treasurers office job for the city of St. Louis, had no reasonable expectation of privacy in his public movements, Magistrate Noce said.
Noce ruled: ( http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2012/01/gpsruling.pdf)
Installation of the GPS tracker device was non-invasive; a magnetic component of the GPS tracker device allowed it to be affixed to the exterior of the Cavalier without the use of screws and without causing any damage to the exterior of the Cavalier. The GPS tracker device was installed when the Cavalier was on a public street near defendants residence. Installation of the GPS tracker device revealed no information to the agents other than the public location of the vehicle. Under these circumstances, installation of the GPS tracker device was not a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.
<snip>
More: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/01/warrantless-gps-monitoring/
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Machiavelli said to never leave your opponent in a position where they have nothing to lose. The 1% is getting very close.
msongs
(67,199 posts)Robb
(39,665 posts)I wonder if anyone's ever attacked this under the requirement to carry ID -- or rather the lack thereof? It's essentially imposing an ID on the person traveling.
PETRUS
(3,678 posts)PuffedMica
(1,061 posts)BadgerKid
(4,541 posts)The information in question is deduced from sensors of some kind, not from human witnesses.
BadgerKid
(4,541 posts)in the name of public accountability.
lonestarnot
(77,097 posts)cthulu2016
(10,960 posts)What they are doing here is equating electronic surveillance with a theoretical super-cop. The underlying idea is that since a perfect cop could tail you -- follow you around all day and thus know where your car is. So what difference does it make if it's some technology following you around?
You do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy as to the location of your car because people can see you driving around... out and about.
The counter argument is emotionally immediate but hard to form. But there has to be a technological cut-off somewhere... at some point the difference in degree must become a difference in kind.
Does a person have a reasonable expectation of privacy as to their medical state? Is throwing out a popsicle stick with saliva traces that a lab can analyze really the same as standing up in front of the same trash can in the park and telling everyone what medications you are on?
Gotta be a limit somewhere.