Police Secretly Planting GPS Devices On Cars 609
bfwebster writes "The Washington Post has a long investigative article on how more and more police departments are secretly planting GPS tracking devices on the cars of people they are investigating — usually without a warrant. After-the-fact court challenges on this technique have largely upheld such use of a GPS device, though the Washington State Supreme Court has ruled that a warrant is required."
Do the police... (Score:5, Insightful)
Do the police require a warrant if they want to follow me around for the day? If yes then I believe this should require a warrant. Else, what's the diff except it costs much less and is more discrete.
Grump
Nothing to see here... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Do the police... (Score:5, Insightful)
This is ok, but with a warrant, IMHO.
Re:Do the police... (Score:5, Insightful)
Else, what's the diff except it costs much less and is more discrete.
Good argument. Then you'd also agree that I can put a GPS on anyones car without permission, including the police, elected officials, or you?
Re:If you have nothing to hide (Score:3, Insightful)
Great! When can I install a webcam inside your house and broadcast it on the internet 24/7?
Anonymous Coward (Score:2, Insightful)
It will be used until the tables are turned and the GPS devices are placed on police cars by the "terrorist" or should I say concerned "badguys" taxpayers. Whats next mandatory GPS implanted in your kids, A George Orwell world - Think about it.
Re:Yes, but... (Score:3, Insightful)
Toss it on the roof of a Penske truck or something! They'll be following it all over the country!
I fucking hate cops. They all believe that if you're in jail that you're guilty, they're only interested in processing cases not justice, and a good majority of cops are just psycho-bullies from grade school who want to shoot a gun.
Mod me down if you want, you'll think differently when you're at the shit end of their crooked stick.
Re:Do the police... (Score:2, Insightful)
They only hear half a conversation on the phone, and even that requires a certain proximity, usually. You can always get the little dish thing they advertise to old ladies and kids on late-night TV, but you still only get one side.
Likewise, if they are tailing you all day they only see where you go and what you do when you've got a cop on your ass all day. They don't get to see where you would go on your own, or where you go on your own private property (for instance, if you owned a few hundred acres out in the country). Its more information gathering than is justifiable without a warrant (which is NOT that hard to get).
Re:Scarier still... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Do the police... (Score:3, Insightful)
Using your example of sorts: following a car physically only tells you where the car is while it is on public property. The minute that car drives onto a ranch or farm, or the moment it drives into a privately owned garage or building, the police either have to stop cold at that point, or have a warrant handy. A GPS tracker will track exactly where the car is no matter what.
free directions? (Score:4, Insightful)
The cruel irony of increasing surveillane tactics (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Do the police... (Score:4, Insightful)
"Quantity has a quality all its own".
It would take 5 officers to tail someone 24/7. That is enough to stop almost all frivolous or abusive tracking. Without that deterrent, the only thing that could block abuse would be judicial oversight.
Re:Nothing to see here... (Score:4, Insightful)
Innocent until proven guilty.
The cops don't get to assume guilt and violate anyones 4th amendment rights based on a hunch. That's what warrants are for. They have to present probable cause, based upon sound information and reasoning, satisfactory to a court, prior to violating someone's rights.
This is illegal search, requires warrant (Score:4, Insightful)
It is quite clear that this tracking indeed is search for which a warrant is required under the constitution. This is a type search which was not envisioned at the time the founders wrote the constitution and far more more dangerous and frightening than they likely imagined. They are spinning in their graves for certain. We are seeing grave risks to the very threat to our freedom by tyranny, worse than what the founders of the US had feared. The way everything people can do can be monitored tracked and then data mined would have shocked and deeply disturbed them if they were alive to see this. We should be very concerned about these dangerous trends.
Re:If you have nothing to hide (Score:5, Insightful)
The police and FBI have a long, sordid history of intimidation, harassment and disruption of dissident groups and activists (up to and including murder [wikipedia.org]). Any state surveillance of people should require a warrant—both to provide some oversight (which isn't much, considering the way some courts like to rubber-stamp these requests [commondreams.org]) and make a record of the state's activities against its own citizens.
Re:Do the police... (Score:4, Insightful)
And once those gps units are small enough, they'll be able to plant them on your person and track you everywhere.
Link? (Score:3, Insightful)
one could cut the wires etc.
I'm interested if anybody has information on how to do this. Actually, I'd rather co-opt their CDMA hands-free speakerphone for my own use, but I don't know how to get an ESN off it or implement dialing. Bluetooth FTW.
Re:Do the police... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Yes, but... (Score:2, Insightful)
If they attach it to my car without my permission, doesn't it become MINE to do whatever I want with?
Good question! And if it becomes yours then wouldn't they need a warrant to collect it?
Re:Do the police... (Score:3, Insightful)
No if a private citizen does it they go to jail. [engadget.com]
It's not at all obvious from that (angry and low-fact) engadget post the the person in question got in trouble just for using a GPS. The dude was stalking his ex-girlfriend. I'd want to know if she had a stay-away order against him, or if he'd threatened her. Doing these things would certainly justify sending him to jail, with or without his use of a GPS — though the GPS might be considered evidence that he was engaged in stalking.
This is what I hate most about the blogosphere: somebody reads a news item and passes it on in distorted form, out of mental laziness, a need to quote "facts" that support their particular agenda, or whatever. Then thousands of people post this same crap in their own blogs, and you have another outbreak of Blog Rage. Cure: don't quote something you've read in a blog without checking the source — and if the source is another blog, check their source, and so on.
Unless you want to be a party to spreading BS. Hey, it's your right.
Turnabout is Fair Play? (Score:4, Insightful)
hehehe - here's a thought; I'm guessing I'm not the only circuit hacker here. I figure with $50 worth of parts from Mouser I can make one of these that will store to an SD card. If you have a cop that stops at the local coffee shop regularly, and drives the same car, stick on on his car and pick it up a couple days later. It's no different than trailing the officer around all day, after all.
Who's with me?
OK, now here's the real question; if we are afraid to track the government - even just the local public enforcement officials - at the same level as they are tracking us, do we not have a very serious problem?
"Does the government fear us? Or do we fear the government? When the people fear the government, tyranny has found victory. The federal government is our servant, not our master!" -Thomas Jefferson
Jefferson spent years contemplating these issues, and debating them with many of the period's other great minds. Have you spent enough time researching it to disagree? If not, you should not blindly accept his statement - but you should spend the time studying. This great experiment is worth it. See Common Sense and The Federalist Papers if you need a starting point.
Re:Do the police... (Score:1, Insightful)
Yes, police *can* follow you around all day. That's called harassment and would be stopped immediately by a judge.
Read and understand this: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Re:Do the police... (Score:5, Insightful)
Probably because in some cases that is exactly what is happening. Speed limits in some areas are set unrealistically low. Local traffic is basically ignored at any speed. Out of state plates will be pulled over and ticketed, even though to be safe they should be flowing with traffic.
Traffic laws are also subject to politics. We don't get safety all the time. Sometimes it is just the perception of safety. Speed variance is a bigger killer than raw speed, but our speed limits are generally set lower than most drivers can handle. This results in one subset of the population doing the speed limit and the other subset of the population driving at a reasonable rate of speed for the road. So you'll get a spread of, say, 15 mph. A car going 75 is much more likely to hit a car doing 60 than it is to hit another car going 75. But we blame the speeders because they are speeding, rather than seeing that the system is stupid and dangerous.
Re:Do the police... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Do the police... (Score:3, Insightful)
Why does everybody allways acts like they are being cheated out of their money when caught breaking traffic laws? They are laws, you know them and they improve safety.
Perhaps because the current system has the built-in assumption that you won't usually get caught, so perfect enforcement would make the fines and points against your license stack up way faster than designed? Or maybe because it sometimes appears to be more of a revenue-generation system than a safety-enhancement system...
Re:Do the police... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Yes, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
How do you post at +2 with trolls like that?
They may not dispense justice, but they can arrest and imprison you for days without filing charges. You get to be packed into a room full of real criminals for 72 hours while they figure out if you should even be charged or not.
But I guess since there are no crooked cops this is not a problem.
This is ridiculous. (Score:3, Insightful)
Before the patriot act, electronic surveillance of a US Person required evidence and congressional oversight due to the importance of the constitution and our bill of rights. These procedures have never been a speedbump to a legitimate investigation.
We are more and more becoming a police state. Wake up people. This is not how an honest government treats its citizens. The word 'warrant' has a definition; a definition that suggests there is legitimate REASON behind a 'warranted' invasion of a citizen's privacy.
No warrant = no reason.
Re:Do the police... (Score:4, Insightful)
Seriously, though, if the police put a tracker on my car, and are unable to produce documentation demonstrating that they have done so, is the tracker mine if I discover it before they remove it?
IANAL but I'd never want to piss of a cop, knowing that some are loose cannons.
Re:Yes, but... (Score:4, Insightful)
One phrase: Plausible Deniability
Police: "Did you put the GPS tracker we put on your car on the cross country bus?"
You: "GPS tracker? What's that? I saw something stuck to my car, but I thought it was someone's "hide a key," so I took it off and put it on the curb so the person who owns it could come find it." Like I said, I didn't know what it was and I didn't put it there, so I took it off. It wasn't mine. I don't know what happened to it.
In short, they may put it on my car, but I am under moral or legal obligation to practice "ordinary care." I can't take it and sell it as if it belongs to me, but I certainly don't have to protect it in any way.
Re:Do the police... (Score:4, Insightful)
If you really think about this statement, I think you'll find it to be demonstrably false.
It sucks that you get so many tickets for speeding. To avoid this, you should slow down. I suspect your argument comes from your perception of what the "flow of traffic" and "reasonable speed" is, which apparently can do with some recalibration.
Slow down.
(Please?)
Re:Tracking Devices and the Fourth Amendment (Score:4, Insightful)
There are a few interesting points in your post: It all hinges on the "reasonable expectation of privacy".
If I'm walking down a public road, and I look around and don't see anyone nearby, do I have a "reasonable expectation of privacy"?
Is there legal distinction between short term privacy and long term privacy? e.g. Is my expectation that people will not follow me around for any significant period of time "reasonable" under the US constitution?
If a police officer is patrolling in a marked police car, do they have a "reasonable expectation of privacy" or would it be ok to tag that police car with a GPS tracker and display the location real time in a Google Maps mashup? Is there some other law that would prevent this apart from the constitution?
If the above is ok, what about if the police office is parked behind some bushes/a billboard in a "Dukes of Hazard" style speed trap. Does that officer have a "reasonable expectation of privacy"?
What about if said officer is patrolling in an unmarked car (but one which was ID'd as a police car earlier), do they now have a "reasonable expectation of privacy"?
I'm guessing that most of these questions haven't been answered by US courts. I'd be particularly interested if there is a distinction between the expectation of privacy for police officers and the expectation of privacy for the general public.
Re:Do the police... (Score:2, Insightful)
which means the cops should require a warrant full stop, because once it's planted they have no control over where it goes, and the police should ALWAYS be forced to error on the side of not breaking the law.
Re:Nothing to see here... (Score:3, Insightful)
Fourth Amendment:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The current argument are on the exact meanings we can infer from "secure" and "searches."
Remember the root of secret is the same root of secure and have a common etymology. What is a "search?"
The 4th amendment isn't about protecting guilty, but preventing over-reaching governments creating a prosecution from innocuous facts.
Remember this quote when considering the motivation of the 4th amendment:
"If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him.â
Cardinal Richelieu (1585-1642)
It is a proud declaration that even the most innocent have something very real to fear from any police or enforcement organization and the government.
Re:Do the police... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Do the police... (Score:5, Insightful)
They're just quite a bit more difficult to spot.
Bull Shit, with a capital BS. How hard is it to watch the average prick driver in your town change 4 lines at a time, with no blinker, cutting off one car in each lane? How hard is it to spot some 90 year-old fart in a Buick pull out in front of me from a side street, when there isn't a car within 2 minutes BEHIND me? How hard is it for a cop to sit at an intersection and spot people making illegal left turns against the red, because they don't want to have to wait another light cycle? I could write more tickets for tail-gating in ONE day on the beat than I could write speeding tickets in an entire month, which brings me back to the main point. Why do the freakin' cops sit at a "speed-trap" for 20 minutes, one or two times a month (mind you, not at an intersection, where the majority of collision accidents happen) if they are out there to protect us from evil speeders? If speeding at the particular (cough, convenient, cough) spot is such a public danger, then why the hell aren't they out there EVERY day? Why do the sit in conveniently unoccupied construction zones? To protect the absent workers and their precious gear? No, because fines are "doubled", meaning twice the profit.
Re:Do the police... (Score:4, Insightful)
"There is no such thing as a "right" to privacy"
Is there a place in the constitution where a right to privacy is specifically mentioned as something the people do not have?
Re:Do the police... (Score:3, Insightful)
as to "If you do it"; a while ago in Portland OR the Mayor and chief of police (now the new mayor) said it was ok to look through the trash of a person of interest so... a local paper looked through the MAYOR's trash and published the results. Sure were a lot of wine bottles.....
Yea, but if I park my car by the curb, unlike the garbage, it is still my private property and the police have no business putting their property on my property.
IMO, that's the relevant difference between putting a tracking device on a car and digging around in someone's garbage.
Re:Do the police... (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree with raw speed isn't the main killer, people not paying attention is the biggest problem, but unfortunately that cannot be 'fixed'.
but our speed limits are generally set lower than most drivers can handle.
I daresay it depends greatly on the vehicle your driving, the speed limit is typically set for what a car with crappy suspension, bald tyres, and in general bad maintenance etc could handle.
put a light sportsbike on the same road with a new set of tyres, and (if alone and no other vehicles on the road going slow) you could safely do double the speed limit with a year or two experience riding.
Same with cars, a slick European sports car is going to out-handle a $400 piece of crap.
I agree there are many idiots out there that go way too fast in the vehicle they're in, and soon learn their mistakes. but going a little faster than the speed limit (in general) is far from dangerous except when other cars are going slower nearby.
Re:Do the police... (Score:5, Insightful)
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Re:Do the police... (Score:3, Insightful)
I think you know that you're cherry-picking one obscure study, from 1992 ... Inappropriate speed is anti-social. You want to make yourself the sole arbiter of what the safe speed of a road is. I think you're wrong, and I've got the law and that big fucking metal sign on my side.
Heh, you start out implying you have the study on your side, then degenerate into the typical nanny state "You are anti-social and I know better than you what's good for everybody" when the proper response is to let people think for themselves, which, in that study, they do remarkably consistently and safely.
You can have that attitude and that big fucking metal sign. I'd rather not be a nanny stater and try to run other people's lives. That's the true anti-social attitude.
Re:Do the police... (Score:3, Insightful)
You've simplified that way past the point where the comparison would be true and valid.
There are situations where a cop can legally point a gun at you or me, and, yes, there are also situations where you or I could legally point a gun at a cop. At least where I live, that's the case. Of course, that would require the cop to genuinely appear to be doing something illegal and life-threatening... Roughly the same thing that you or I would have to be doing for them to pull a gun on us.
The comparison is invalid because the cop pulling a gun has to be doing it in immediate prevention of some crime (ie, there has to be a good reason backed by law for it). Putting a GPS on someone's car is an information-gathering technique, intended to show them if someone is breaking the law.
I'm often on the side of the cops, but I can't see how anyone could argue that the car isn't private property and/or that sticking a GPS on it should not require a warrant. If they have probable cause to do it, then how hard could getting the warrant be?
Re:Do the police... (Score:5, Insightful)
This is only my observation and not a scientific study!
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The difference between "following" and "trackin (Score:3, Insightful)
Sorry. Their "duties" do not include tracking people with GPS transponders. I'm not saying it should be legal to do it to the police... I'm saying it shouldn't be illegal for anyone to do it without a court order.
Re:The difference between "following" and "trackin (Score:5, Insightful)
For you, a private citizen, following a police officer or other official while in performance of their duties is illegal.
It begs to be asked: why?
Re:Do the police... (Score:2, Insightful)
It's pretty clear you don't know anything at all about logic. Or humanity.
That just speaks for itself, doesn't it?
Re:must be really cool to be psychic... (Score:3, Insightful)
of course, increased speed only makes sense with a sensible amount of visibility, even on mountain tracks that typically have no traffic or random bits on the road, it makes no sense at all to go faster unless you have at least 3 seconds viewing distance ahead of you, or rather enough time to slow down enough to avoid any obstacle you may see.
I just assumed other people did the same, but then again if they did we wouldn't have half the number of speed related crashes we do now I guess.
Re:Tracking Devices and the Fourth Amendment (Score:4, Insightful)
ChrisMP1 is correct. Being seen in public is not the same as being tracked, electronically or otherwise.
From what I gather, your legal brief justifies stalking in public.
Re:Do the police... (Score:3, Insightful)
Well I have no sympathy for Mr Cheney but on that matter he is right.
I'm not sure whether your comment should even be dignified with a response, but on the slim chance that you aren't just trolling I'll give it a shot.
No, it isn't just a piece of paper. For one thing, it is the supreme law of the land in the USA, so the suggestion by a sitting official in the executive branch that it can be casually brushed aside is inherently tyrannical.
For another, it is the document that established the modern idea of popular governance. It is an enlightened document that outlines basic, essential human rights and eloquently states them in a way that is clear, straightforward and expresses the intent of the founders without regard to technological advances and temporary political whims.
Let's just say that I don't agree with you, sir, but luckily that piece of paper grants both of us the right to express our differences without fear of political reprisal.
Re:The difference between "following" and "trackin (Score:3, Insightful)
If speed variance kills (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:must be really cool to be psychic... (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, I find that speed limits are WAY too high on many roads with blind corners.. and WAY too low on well maintained divided lane highways with infinite visibility, high fences, raised roadways in a dry climate.
The pace of traffic on I-70 between Colorado and Kansas (for example) is about 90 miles per hour. 100 isn't uncommon. To be honest, 120 in a good car is pretty safe. The road is raised, 4 lane, divided, in perfect shape with a pretty normal day having 10 miles of visibility, totally dry with a hot road surface and bright sunshine. The speed limit is 85mph which is OK, but perhaps a little on the low side, seeing that you'll get run over doing that speed.
On a similar road in Iowa, the speed limit is 65 and you WILL get a ticket for doing 70. Just a political jurisdiction change, no difference in road conditions except a slightly higher chance of rain.
Of course, there are death traps in Connecticut where no sane person would go over 50 (and i'm the guy who thinks 110 is fine in Kansas) but the speed limit is 60.
It really depends on what road you're on.
Doing 60 on the death trap in CT will get you a nod and a smile. Doing 110 on Kansas will get you a week in the pokey.
Which is Evil Keneval?
hmmm
Re:Do the police... (Score:3, Insightful)
I was with you until "they improve safety". Traffic laws may have been written to improve safety. If enforced they may actually improve safety. But they also may hinder safety, and they may have been written to generate revenue without any regard for safety (or even in the face of it).
I think it's silly to pretend traffic laws are a separate class of quasi-law that can be blatantly violation and even whined about when enforced, but that's as much a problem with the intent, enforcement and effect of the laws as it is with the people whining about it.
Re:Do the police... (Score:3, Insightful)
Yep, exactly. No anti-gun person I've ever met managed to come up with *any* argument why Police should have guns and reasonable when mentally sane civilians should not.
The only arguments revolve around "guns are unsafe for the handler", "guns do not prevent all crimes anyway" and "the Police must have more rights" which could be answered by a 9-year old kid as soon as they found out that there's just a human under that Police uniform. After that, most anti-gun advocates start to get ad-hominem...
Re:Do the police... (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, anyone who drives knows that anyone who drives knows jack shit.
If everyone understood this very simple idea, then I wouldn't see people doing 55-60 MPH in the left lane of a 4 lane highway on a regular basis.
Perhaps if people knew jack I also wouldn't see people walk out into cross walks against the light because they never bothered to learn that edestrians in crosswalks at a light don't have right of way unless the light says they do?
Or maybe I wouldn't see people comming to a dead stop in a rotary, to let incoming traffic in (actually have a friend who was ticketed himself after someone came to a dead stop, and waved him on, he still got a ticket for failing to yeild! I have started honking my horn and gesturing at them to "go now!")
Though my personal favorite are the ones who, on open road, pull right up next to another car, and sit there doing the same speed for miles and miles, like "ooh I got a buddy". Yes, lets drive these cars as close together for as long as possible and make anyone behind us have to go over 2 full lanes to get around. Lets not have some spacing or distance so maybe if one of us has an issue we wont both crash. Good work douchebags.
-Steve
Re:Do the police... (Score:3, Insightful)