Court Rules Probable-Cause Warrant Required For GPS Trackers

schwit1 tips this news from Wired: "An appellate court has finally supplied an answer to an open question left dangling by the Supreme Court in 2012: Do law enforcement agencies need a probable-cause warrant to affix a GPS tracker to a target's vehicle? The justices said the government's statement 'wags the dog rather vigorously,' noting that the primary reason for a search cannot be to generate evidence for law enforcement purposes. They also noted that 'Generally speaking, a warrantless search is not rendered reasonable merely because probable cause existed that would have justified the issuance of a warrant.' The justices also rejected the government's argument that obtaining a warrant would impede the ability of law enforcement to investigate crimes."

More importantly...

[Anonymous Coward]

Even if it would impede law enforcement's ability to investigate crimes, we must recognize that freedom is simply more important.

Let's see if I got this

[HangingChad]

the primary reason for a search cannot be to generate evidence for law enforcement purposes.

So, we don't have any evidence now so we'll attach this GPS tracker to their car and then we'll have evidence that justifies tracking their car!

Law enforcement logic.

Can you climb into the backseat and hide?

[Anonymous Coward]

As a GPS tracker is simply a proxy for a person hiding in the car and tagging along for the ride, writing down everyplace you go, the answer to this question has always been pretty self-evident to me. You need a warrant.

"impede the ability of law enforcement"

[Sockatume]

All oversight impedes the one's ability to do one's job. The whole point is that it's a trade-off against the costs of the lack of oversight. Other things that impede law enforcement:

1) Need to actually prove someone committed a crime
2) Restrictions on tasering people "because they look a bit crimey"
3) Not permitted to use seized drugs to hold a "pot brownie fundraiser"

Re:Let's see if I got this

[gstoddart]

Yes, that's exactly what they've been saying.

"If we can't monitor you to prove you're doing something bad, we'll never be able to know".

Law enforcement and governments have decided it's too inconvenient to follow the procedural rules which have been established, and more or less started trying to make the case for just bypassing them out of convenience.

And, sadly, some of the courts seem stacked with people inclined to just say "well, if you're law enforcement, go ahead".

Re:Let's see if I got this

[Anonymous Coward]

Now lets hope they extend that logic to the NSA fishing though our email and giving the results to law enforcement for parallel construction.

Re:Let's see if I got this

[Somebody Is Using My]

And - as importantly - let's hope NSA and the other Three-Letter-Agencies actually obey these laws.

Unfortunately, because they so often operate in secret, it's very hard to monitor their compliance. And as we've seen repeatedly throughout the last century, they are quite willing to bend or break the law to achieve their goals.

So while it's great that a judge has smacked down local police's ability to tag innocent civilians with warrentless-GPS trackers (whose activities have to be revealed in court), it likely does little or nothing to stop the Federal agencies from continuing to do the same.

Re:Let's see if I got this

[IndustrialComplex]

The courts have long been like a Range Safety Officer who hasn't seen something go wrong in so long that they just skim the safety plans and supporting documentation.

The problem is that at least for the Range Safety Officers, when something goes wrong, the blame immediately falls on them. With the courts, it's not often easy to know when something goes wrong, and even when you do know, blame rarely falls back on the courts.

Re:Let's see if I got this, get this..

[Travis Mansbridge]

This is precisely why some argue that prostitution and recreational drugs should be legalized. When conflicts arise surrounding these relatively innocuous, yet illegal activities, there is no legal recourse for the parties involved. Only black-market resolutions are available (usually violence).

Re:More importantly...

[Jane Q. Public]

"Even if it would impede law enforcement's ability to investigate crimes, we must recognize that freedom is simply more important."

Convenience of law enforcement is NEVER justification for diminishing citizen's rights.

The government has often tried to use this argument in the past. "If we cannot do this, it is just too hard to catch criminals." Note that this excuse can ALWAYS be argued, no matter how many powers you give the police. That makes it one of those constant pressures that must be resisted at all costs.

---
"That it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer, is a Maxim that has been long and generally approved." -- Benjamin Franklin, letter to Benjamin Vaughan, March 14, 1785.