Ruling on GPS Tracking Devices

djembe2k writes "Score one for civil liberties. The NY Times is carrying a wire story (free reg. required, yadda) reporting that the Supreme Court of Washington state ruled today that a warrant is required by police to use GPS tracking devices to track suspects. A warrant actually was obtained in the case at hand, but the prosecutors argued that they hadn't really needed one, and they lost on this point. Here's the full text of the ruling."

Registration NOT required

[gatesh8r]

Look here [boston.com].

No Reg Links

[Anonymous Coward]

Honestly people, why keep linking to the "reg required" links?

NYTimes Story [nytimes.com]
Alternate story [charleston.net]

Obviously committed a crime?

[n0nsensical]

It's not the job of the police to determine whether someone is guilty of a crime; that's what juries are for.

Re:Obviously committed a crime?

[n0nsensical]

Even so, there's a difference between obviously having committed a crime and being suspected of having committed a crime.

I guess she would rather waste tax payers money

[Anonymous Coward]

"The devices in this case were in place for approximately 2-1/2 weeks," Madsen wrote. "It is unlikely that the sheriff's department could have successfully maintained uninterrupted 24-hour surveillance throughout this time by following Jackson."

The only thing preventing the police from following someone 24 hours a day for 2 1/2 weeks is the cost. It would be quite expensive to allocate a group of officers for 2 1/2 weeks. Could it be done, sure why not. Its not like its hard to follow a large metal object.

So, instead the police decide to attach an inexpensive gps tracking device to his car which a single officer can review from time to time and have other officers follow up on. If anything this is LESS intrusive since the police are not watching the suspect's moves 24hours a day, they are simply watching where his car goes.

gg judge

Not about them using it

[stratjakt]

It's really about the tracking data obtained being admissible in court.

So there's a murder, a body dumped in the woods. The cop finds out through a GPS device on your car that your vehicle drove from the victims apartment to the woods right after the murder.

Without a warrant to obtain that data, the judge throws this evidence out. Otherwise it would be a violation of your rights. There's very little a cop can do to you without a warrant, they can't step onto your property, peer through your windows to see whats going on.

A more extreme example you'd see on "Law and Order", I suppose.

Potheads who grow their own are paranoid about cops patrolling the neighbourhoods with heat-sensing cameras, looking for the "hot" houses - which would be a tip that there's some lamps running in there. Or watching power bills for extra usage. They can't - they've tried and judges have thrown it out. You need a warrant first. Public property is fair game, though, and they can go through your trash once it hits the public curve.

Anyhow, that's getting off topic. Point is, this is no shock. Without a warrant a cop is limited to what he sees in public property, he can't go onto your property or through your car without permission.

With exceptions (that they love to exploit) like they can search a trunk of a car if there's a safety concern. They like to pull over suspected dealers, play "hey now I think your exhaust might be leaking, we need to look in the trunk for your safety!"... Though a good lawyer chews such actions up in court.

By and large, Judges are very pro-citizen and very anti-cop. They were all attorneys or DAs and know the games they play, and aren't impressed.

What are we talking about again? Oh yeah. GPS. Dont worry about the local LEOs slipping one into your pocket and watching you. Thats federal black helicopter shit (and if you get the feds on your case all bets are off)

Ruling only applies to Washington State

[Derling Whirvish]

This ruling was by the Washington State Supreme Court and only applies to warrants issued in the State of Washington. "There is no controlling legal authority" (as Gore once said) in the other 49 states -- so be aware (that is if you are doing anything that might cause the police to want to track you).

Re:Hmm

[David Price]

The opinion addresses your question:

[Note: the Court of Appeals is the lower court being overruled here]

The Court of Appeals also held that use of the GPS devices was merely sense augmenting, revealing information that Jackson exposed to public view. The court noted that law enforcement officers could legally follow Jackson on his travels to the ministorage compartment and the two gravesites. We do not agree that use of the GPS devices to monitor Mr. Jackson's travels merely equates to following him on public roads where he has voluntarily exposed himself to public view.

It is true that an officer standing at a distance in a lawful place may use binoculars to bring into closer view what he sees, or an officer may use a flashlight at night to see what is plainly there to be seen by day. However, when a GPS device is attached to a vehicle, law enforcement officers do not in fact follow the vehicle. Thus, unlike binoculars or a flashlight, the GPS device does not merely augment the officers' senses, but rather provides a technological substitute for traditional visual tracking. Further, the devices in this case were in place for approximately two and one-half weeks. It is unlikely that the sheriff's department could have successfully maintained uninterrupted 24-hour surveillance throughout this time by following Jackson. Even longer tracking periods might be undertaken, depending upon the circumstances of a case. We perceive a difference between the kind of uninterrupted, 24-hour a day surveillance possible through use of a GPS device, which does not depend upon whether an officer could in fact have maintained visual contact over the tracking period, and an officer's use of binoculars or a flashlight to augment his or her senses.

Re:Hmm

[afidel]

Actually it was the Supreme Court of the United States in Kyllo V. U.S. that the majority stated:

"Thus, obtaining by sense-enhancing technology any information regarding the home's interior that could not otherwise have been obtained without physical intrusion into a constitutionally protected area constitutes a search"

This can be logically extended to cover any activity not occouring in full public view and to any technological augmentation of the police's natural abilities. That case was arguably the most important one heard by this supreme court because they basically decided that advancement of technology does not give the police an unlimited liscense to observe the populace.

UK doesn't get it, alas

[IIH]

They even "get it" , that if a warrant isn't required here it isn't required at all, meaning that the government is completely free to put a GPS device on you and everyone else for the purpose of tracking everything you and they do.

It's a pity that the UK doesn't get it. Here the government have reintroduced the Snoopers charter [bbc.co.uk] so your mobile phone location (as well as your email, telephone, website logs) can all be accessed automatically (i.e. without a warrent) not only by the police, but also by departments like the fire service, local council, etc.

In true 1984 double speak, allowing more departments access to this information has been described as "imposing further restrictions" on the use of existing powers.