Supreme Court Ruling: GPS Tracking Requires Warrant

Status
Not open for further replies.

nebun

Distinguished
Oct 20, 2008
1,160
0
19,240
3
[citation][nom]aftcomet[/nom]Just speed up the process of getting a warrant.[/citation]
i am a little confused by your statement
 

Parrdacc

Distinguished
Jun 30, 2008
391
0
18,930
0
Yeah! Just when I was thinking the law and government was completely out of sync. Too bad it came about because of a drug dealer, but then again I suppose it had to be some sort of criminal. After all the rights we have are for all Americans even if they happen to be criminals, cause if they don't work to protect the lowest then we know they won't work for the rest of us.
 

sunflier

Distinguished
Jul 16, 2009
245
0
18,830
0
The [Obama] administration even said that it could attach a GPS device to all nine members of the Supreme Court without a warrant.
I can't imagine for the life of me why the Supreme Court would rule against unwarranted GPS tracking.
 

alidan

Distinguished
Aug 5, 2009
1,681
0
19,730
0
[citation][nom]Parrdacc[/nom]Yeah! Just when I was thinking the law and government was completely out of sync. Too bad it came about because of a drug dealer, but then again I suppose it had to be some sort of criminal. After all the rights we have are for all Americans even if they happen to be criminals, cause if they don't work to protect the lowest then we know they won't work for the rest of us.[/citation]

makes me sick that he got out on this...

it should have been a lawsuit case, like the guy who was related to an important islam religious leader who got tracked for a while, took the bug out of his car, and had to give it back. that should have been the case, not against someone who is a real criminal.

all that said, i dont think all drugs should be illegal, but because he got a life for it, im assumeing its that harder stuff like cocaine, and not pot or lsd.
 

NuclearShadow

Distinguished
Sep 20, 2007
670
0
18,940
2
Thank goodness for the Supreme Court doing the right thing on this one. The police are not allowed to touch your vehicle in any manner unless they have a warrant. Just like if you get pulled over you have the right to tell them no if they wish to search your vehicle and unless they have a strong probable cause they cannot do so. (denying them the search is also not a justified reason)

With this unwarranted GPS tracking, not only is this a unjustified search but it likely can criminal within itself. It certainly could be a invasion of privacy and likely other charges.

Obama administration's position which claims that attaching a GPS device to a vehicle was not a search. The administration even said that it could attach a GPS device to all nine members og the Supreme Court without a warrant.
And guess who isn't getting my vote next election? Obama has proven time and time again that he cares nothing about human rights not even fellow Americans.
 

warezme

Distinguished
Dec 18, 2006
426
0
18,940
3
it doesn't say they can't track people with GPS anymore just that the police and federal government need probably cause and a warrant. They can't just arbitrarily decide to GPS anyone for any reason. Before, the government tried to say GPS tracking was not a search and did not require warrant. The courts decision makes obvious sense and I am for one glad to see they have ruled it as such. The police and federal agencies will object but it shouldn't effect how they do business if they are truly doing their jobs and just targeting the people doing the crimes.
 

Goldengoose

Distinguished
Jul 12, 2011
119
0
18,640
3
[citation][nom]sunflier[/nom]I can't imagine for the life of me why the Supreme Court would rule against unwarranted GPS tracking.[/citation]
Well we all moan about not wanting to be tracked by the government, want our own privacy and basically not wanting to be china - then you disagree with something that rules in privacy's favour.
 

ctbaars

Distinguished
Dec 16, 2007
33
0
18,580
0
[citation][nom]Goldengoose[/nom]Well we all moan about not wanting to be tracked by the government, want our own privacy and basically not wanting to be china - then you disagree with something that rules in privacy's favour.[/citation]
..re-read the quote that was attached to that statement and you'll get the sarcasm ;)
 

Onus

Distinguished
Moderator
Jan 27, 2006
724
0
19,210
64
[citation][nom]NuclearShadow[/nom]...0bama has proven time and time again that he cares nothing about human rights not even Americans.[/citation]
Fixed for you. Citizen or not, the man has no frapping clue about the American Experience.
 

jsrudd

Distinguished
Jan 16, 2009
61
0
18,590
7
A small correction is that the Court held that this specific GPS tracking was unconstitutional because it involved a trespass. This leaves open the possibility that attaching a GPS tracker to a car parked in a public place would be allowed.
 

HEXiT

Distinguished
Mar 13, 2011
342
0
19,010
39
lols you think obama is bad, just wait till the right wing get in... they introduced most of todays current legislation that steals your rights.
the tea party will have you burning books and banning rock and roll...

the supreme court should have acted on this a lot sooner, same with mobile gps or any other kind of tracking... they also need to catch up on Internet also and stop this mining of ip addresses attached to trackers thus proving you are all pirates. even if your not you are... or so sopa would have you believe.

seriously guys, wake up, your civil rights are under attack from government and big business...
its time to stand up for them, coz if you dont you will have none soon enough, regardless of the supreme court as you have already seen with Guantanamo... that aint legal but its still open and taking more prisoners every day...
 

efffive

Distinguished
Jan 24, 2012
1
0
18,510
0
[citation][nom]jsrudd[/nom]A small correction is that the Court held that this specific GPS tracking was unconstitutional because it involved a trespass. This leaves open the possibility that attaching a GPS tracker to a car parked in a public place would be allowed.[/citation]

Hmm well yes and no. From the Opinion on the court page 2.

On the 11th day, and not in the District of Columbia but
in Maryland, agents installed a GPS tracking device on
the undercarriage of the Jeep while it was parked in a
public parking lot
So there was no trespass having to do with where the Jeep was parked. However it was indeed unconstitutional trespass because the government trespassed against Jones' effects. They clarify that the Jeep is the effect that is being trespassed in the decision.

The Fourth Amendment provides in relevant part that "[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated." It is beyond dispute that a vehicle is an "effect" as that term is used in the Amendment


 

wiyosaya

Distinguished
Apr 12, 2006
396
0
18,930
0
[citation][nom]NuclearShadow[/nom]And guess who isn't getting my vote next election? Obama has proven time and time again that he cares nothing about human rights not even fellow Americans.[/citation]The current administration defending this is something that every "current administration" does. Do a bit of searching, I'm sure you will find it is true. If McCain had won, his administration would have defended this, but that is something that we would expect from McCain.
 

wiyosaya

Distinguished
Apr 12, 2006
396
0
18,930
0
[citation][nom]HEXiT[/nom]lols you think obama is bad, just wait till the right wing get in... they introduced most of todays current legislation that steals your rights.the tea party will have you burning books and banning rock and roll...the supreme court should have acted on this a lot sooner, same with mobile gps or any other kind of tracking... they also need to catch up on Internet also and stop this mining of ip addresses attached to trackers thus proving you are all pirates. even if your not you are... or so sopa would have you believe.seriously guys, wake up, your civil rights are under attack from government and big business...its time to stand up for them, coz if you dont you will have none soon enough, regardless of the supreme court as you have already seen with Guantanamo... that aint legal but its still open and taking more prisoners every day...[/citation]
This ruling may indeed lead to cases where IP mining without a warrant is deemed inadmissible in court.

IMHO, however, the ruling means little. If the FBI had sought the warrant, it seems that they probably would have gotten a warrant in this case. So, all this has done is given law enforcement a mandate that they cannot track a perp using GPS technology attached to that perp's vehicle without a warrant. In truly criminal cases, I doubt that it will be difficult to get a warrant.

As in this case, it is when law enforcement goes outside of the bounds established by the constitution that civil rights are violated.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
jpishgar Windows Phone 0
G Windows Phone 7

ASK THE COMMUNITY