Tracking Your car? Cops Need a Warrant, Says Judge

[jayfish]

Source: Ars Technica

Police cannot surreptitiously stick a GPS unit on your car and track your movements without a warrant, the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia has ruled. In an opinion published Friday, the court said that police use of GPS evidence to convict two individuals was a violation of the Fourth Amendment, and that people have a reasonable expectation of privacy when it comes to their movements over an extended period of time.

Read more: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/08/warrantless-gps-tracking-takes-another-blow-from-dc-court.ars

---

Good news for a change. Chalk one up for the good guys.

FSH

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

1. Can they use Onstar to track your movements w/out a warrant?

Just wondering.

[Lucian]

2. This is why I refused Onstar on my new car.

I had a feeling it could be abused, and I'm sure it has.

[FiveGoodMen]

3. What I've read is: not only can Onstar track you, they can listen in without your knowing it

(don't have the link, it was a while ago)

[dencol]

5. Just about any device can be listened in to.

Cell phones, and computers with mics as well, although it is probably a little more difficult than with a proprietary system such as Onstar.

[Dawson Leery]

10. Yes they can. Pull either the fuse for OnStar or pull out the

microphone and don't use OnStar. Better yet, don't buy GM cars.

[saigon68]

13. Don't buy anything made by GM

[jayfish]

4. I Believe They Can.

As with the whole telco bru-ha; they get around the warrant by asking GM nicely for the data. If GM acquiesces, yer screwn. I'm not sure this has been tested in court though. Seems to me the same law/logic that keeps a landlord from searching your house anytime he wants would apply if it was tested.

FSH

[valerief]

6. I wonder what they need to tase you. nt

[FiveGoodMen]

7. A taser

Based on numerous articles, it's obvious that they don't need anything else.

Just a weapon and a victim.

[valerief]

9. America, Land of the Freaks, Home of the Tased. nt

[boppers]

8. Scott Peterson was tracked like this, wasn't he?

I wonder if there was a warrant in that case...

[No Elephants]

11. Irrelevant to a Constitutional issue.

[No Elephants]

12. I don't know about this reasoning Cops (or anyone) can tail your car for as long as anyone cares to

I think people may well have a reasonable expectation that government won't attach any snooping device to their personal property without either their consent or a warrant, though.

[Ricochet21]

14. I agree

I agree

[NYC Liberal]

16. But a tracking device requires that they

tamper with private property.

[No Elephants]

17. Hence the second sentence of my post.

[Bragi]

15. How quaint

A judge who believes in the notion of privacy. Good thing he's an appeals court judge, and doesn't depend on electors. Voters would probably sack him for foolishly clinging to obsolete so-called civil liberties.

[skepticscott]

18. Well, there are certainly privacy issues here

especially, as was pointed out above, with the police attaching a tracking device to a private vehicle. But as was also pointed out, the same information can in theory be gained by trailing someone in a car or on foot for 24 hours a day, which is not illegal and needs no warrant. The real question is, does this violate the 4th Amendment? Does tracking someone's movement like this qualify as either a "search" or a "seizure" under any reasonable interpretation of the Constitution, or is this a case where technology has moved faster than the law and where something that may feel like it should be illegal in fact just isn't covered by any existing law.