High Court: Warrant Needed For GPS Tracking

High Court: Warrant Needed For GPS Tracking

www.google.com

The Supreme Court says police must get a search warrant before using GPS technology to track criminal suspects.

The court ruled in the case of Washington, D.C., nightclub owner Antoine Jones. A federal appeals court in Washington overturned his drug conspiracy conviction because police did not have a warrant when they installed a GPS device on his vehicle and then tracked his movements for a month.

The GPS device helped authorities link Jones to a suburban house used to stash money and drugs. He was sentenced to life in prison before the appeals court overturned the conviction. The Supre

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.huffingtonpost.com

Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
FBI allowed to add GPS device to cars without warrants

I wonder if this will overturn any other convictions that involved unwarranted GPS tracking. There have been several incidents in the news lately including a judge in the state of Missouri who allowed evidence gathered in unwarranted tracking by FBI agents.

I don't think anyone can overrule the supreme court so perhaps this is a small win for privacy rights in America.



www.google.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

This certainly is good news for the innocents who would have gotten GPS tagged. If you suspect you have been illegally GPSed go out and purchase one of these things:

www.jammerall.com...

Also at the same time make repeated visits to the highest LEO in the land to implicate them as well because they wont go after you if you have a GPS link to LEO lol.

reply to post by Corruption Exposed


The next thing they need to quash is this:

NYPD and Pentagon to place mobile scanners on the streets on NYC
www.abovetopsecret.com...
by Hx3_1963
started on 1/18/2012 @ 04:23 PM

Originally posted by Hx3_1963
NYPD and Pentagon to place mobile scanners on the streets on NYC

New York City’s war on freedom could be adding a new weapon to its arsenal, especially if NYPD Commissioner Ray Kelly has his say. The head of the New York Police Department is working with the Pentagon to secure body scanners to be used throughout the Big Apple.

If Kelly gets his wish, the city will be receiving a whole slew of Terahertz Imagining Detection scanners, a high-tech radiation detector that measures the energy that is emitted from a persons’ body. As CBS News reports, “It measures the energy radiating from a body up to 16 feet away, and can detect anything blocking it, like a gun.”

What it can also do, however, is allow the NYPD to conduct illegal searches by means of scanning anyone walking the streets of New York. Any object on your person could be privy to the eyes of the detector, and any suspicious screens can prompt police officers to search someone on suspicion of having a gun, or anything else under their clothes. According to Commissioner Kelly, the scanners would only be used in “reasonably suspicious circumstances,” but what constitutes “suspicious” in the eyes of the NYPD could greatly differ from what the 8 million residents of the five boroughs have in mind.

The American Civil Liberties Union has already questioned the NYPD over what they say is an unnecessary precaution that raises more issues than it solves.

...Step by step...inch by inch...

When are we going to actually get mad enough to stop this?

reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL


I'm one of those "sheep" who has a smartphone and would feel lost without it so anyone who wants to track me can if they really want to. There are other ways to track us too, but the GPS way seemed to be fairly simple while any type of cell phone monitoring would most likely require a warrant.

reply to post by this_is_who_we_are


I remember that thread, that mobile scanner thing is even worse than unwarranted tracking IMO. The people of NYC should be freaking out over this. Once it's implied in one place, you can expect it to spread everywhere else.

So they quietly use the tracker to piece a bust together and don't mention it in court. same to the end

reply to post by mikellmikell


They can't use the evidence in court if they acquired it illegally.

I was following this development and was on the fence in this particular case, but at the same time complete freedom of LEA placing GPS tags anywhere they please seemed excessive and scary. So I support the decision of the court.

reply to post by buddhasystem


The specific incident seems to have depicted a rather shady character, but overall this is a violation of privacy in my opinion. I also agree with the court ruling banning this practice.

Considering the amount of people already carrying mobile GPS units in their pockets everyday, willingly! And updated their status obsessively with photos on Facebook... Seems like a GPS tracker on a car is obsolete already.

reply to post by wonderboy2402


That's kind of what I thought too. IMO it's much easier to slap a GPS on an unsuspecting car compared to filing the paperwork for tracking someone via their phone. I don't know how all that works so my theory could be completely wrong.

I guess the moral of the story is if you don't want to be tracked you better not have a car, a cell phone, a bank card...did I forget anything?

reply to post by Corruption Exposed


Kudos for getting your thread in before mine.

GPS Tracking Device found in Civilian car
Do Police Need Warrants For GPS Tracking Devices?
Caught Spying on Student, FBI Demands GPS Tracker Back

The three threads above were discussing this very topic a long time ago.

Glad that the Supreme Court handed down the decision it did.

Your thread deserves props but so do those three for discussing it prior to this news.

reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas


Thanks for stopping by, it's very important news indeed

I have actually read each of those threads you provided, they were also very interesting reads. I do thank you for taking the time to contribute them to the thread though, it will certainly help people who are interested about learning what led up to this decision.

It's surprising to see a judgement actually go in the people's favor for once, even though it was for an alleged crack dealer

Either way they are now unable to use GPS trackers on cars without a warrant so even if it's a small win, it's a win nonetheless.

Cheers.

This is good news, but I have one question..

Everyone carries around an iPad, or other such device with a GPS. With this new "SOPA-esque" law trying to make it through, wouldn't it mean peoples iPad information would be retained for 18 months? From those records, could law enforcement then not track you using your own device, by simply asking for the data?

As much of a win as this may be, it could be short lived if my suspicions are correct.

reply to post by Dreamer99


I agree with your suspicions, they can still track us with other methods, but I'm guessing most of the other methods would require a warrant. Hopefully someone can stop by and clarify that for us. I'm unaware of the process LEO's use to get permission to track people.

Originally posted by Corruption Exposed
reply to post by wonderboy2402

 

That's kind of what I thought too. IMO it's much easier to slap a GPS on an unsuspecting car compared to filing the paperwork for tracking someone via their phone. I don't know how all that works so my theory could be completely wrong.

I guess the moral of the story is if you don't want to be tracked you better not have a car, a cell phone, a bank card...did I forget anything?

Don't forget passports and anything else that can be RFID'd !!

Some think that even a vaccination can have nano-technology gps organisms !!

Originally posted by Corruption Exposed
reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas

 

Thanks for stopping by, it's very important news indeed

I have actually read each of those threads you provided, they were also very interesting reads. I do thank you for taking the time to contribute them to the thread though, it will certainly help people who are interested about learning what led up to this decision.

It's surprising to see a judgement actually go in the people's favor for once, even though it was for an alleged crack dealer

Either way they are now unable to use GPS trackers on cars without a warrant so even if it's a small win, it's a win nonetheless.

Cheers.

edit on 23-1-2012 by Corruption Exposed because: (no reason given)

Agreed.

Doing things by the book should be how Law Enforcement does things.

Otherwise a case will fall through later on when they prosecute.

I contributed on several of those threads.

Legally speaking, Law Enforcement did not have a leg to stand on, and the Supreme Court backed us.

People so often mistake me as anti-Government which is wholly untrue.

I am anti-corruption within Government.

Government is nothing more than a functionary unit meant to serve a purpose.

A Government itself cannot be corrupt.

It is the people within it that make it so.

In this instance, Law Enforcement was acting in a corrupt manner, outside the law.

A warrant is a means for them to cover their ass that they are doing their job correctly.

And they should look at it exactly as that and not as a means to impede their investigation.

reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas


Judges from around the U.S. better be prepared for a major spike in warrants.

Hopefully there won't be a backlog for these requests or too much of a delay in deserving situations, it would be a shame if this law ended up causing harm to people in desperate need of some help. I'm not a supporter of the police state but I do want the honest law abiding LEO's to be able to do their job, even though I don't agree with a lot of the laws they enforce they do help some people out from time to time.

Originally posted by Corruption Exposed
reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas

 

Judges from around the U.S. better be prepared for a major spike in warrants.

Hopefully there won't be a backlog for these requests or too much of a delay in deserving situations, it would be a shame if this law ended up causing harm to people in desperate need of some help. I'm not a supporter of the police state but I do want the honest law abiding LEO's to be able to do their job, even though I don't agree with a lot of the laws they enforce they do help some people out from time to time.

I'm not worried about a spike in warrant requests.

What concerns me is the abuse of terrorism laws to sidestep warrants altogether.

Do not mistake my prior statement as being in favor of a "Police State" either.

I do not favor either of the two-part system nonsense either.

I am in favor of forcing those two parties to back off and allow others to be represented.

Myself, I am a registered Independent, and this "lesser of two evil's" nonsense is just that.

Nonsense.

A lesser of two evil's is still evil.

I will not elect a lesser evil in favor of keeping the greater evil at bay.

I am in favor of eliminating both evil's in favor of a greater good for all concerned.

By elimination I mean tighter restrictions and oversight into election policies by citizens.