Court Rules GPS Tracking Legal For Law Officers 293
Via Engadget (which does a good job of explaining the case), an anonymous reader passed us a link to a GPS Tracking Systems Blog post. The site, which reports regularly on GPS-related news, has word that on-the-sly GPS tracking is legal for officers of the law. A 7th circuit court of appeals ok'd the use of a GPS device in apprehending a criminal. Though the defendant's lawyers argued on fourth amendment grounds, the judge found GPS tracking did not warrant an 'unlawful search and seizure'. The judge did warn against 'wholesale surveillance' of the population, though, so ... that's some comfort.
It ok'd the WARRANTLESS use of GPS (Score:5, Insightful)
The summary left out the most important tidbit of information in this case: The police did not have a warrant for their actions.
If the police have reasonable cause to suspect that someone is up to no good and they go through due process to get a warrant, I have no problem with them using GPS as a tool in their arsenal of crime-fighting weapons.
However, I have a major issue with the police, with no reason to think I might be doing something wrong and no warrant to back it up, putting a GPS receiver on my car just in case I do do something wrong.
The judge in this case was a complete and total idiot. He can warn all he wants to, but he just set a legal precedent that says they can if they want to. There is now absolutely nothing stopping the police from GPS-bugging anyone at any time for any reason, or even with a complete lack of a reason. Who here thinks that even though the police can GPS-bug people without a warrant that they simply will choose not to do so because the right thing to do, in the spirit of the Constitution, is to get a warrant first?
Yeah, I don't either. If you give the government that kind of power, it has shown throughout history—including many incidents in recent U.S. history—that it will not only use it, but push it even further.
If I recall correctly, the rationale behind the original decision was that police can follow people the old-fashioned way—a stakeout—without a warrant or probable cause, and that GPS-bugging them is legally no different, because people should have no reasonable expectation of privacy while driving on public roads.
Well, I'm sorry, I vehemently disagree. The resources required to conduct a stakeout demand that the police don't just do it all willy-nilly for no reason, and anyone who expects to be electronically tracked when there is no reason or cause to do so is an idiot. I know it, you know it, the police know it, this judge knows it, but with the swing of a gavel, he just legalized the excruciatingly stupid idea that you don't have any privacy on the roads. Some people think that talking about Big Brother watching us is an exaggeration, but when I read about stuff like this, it's really hard to see much of a difference.
If there's any justice to be had from this, this idiot judge's decision will be overturned at some point.
Re:It ok'd the WARRANTLESS use of GPS (Score:5, Insightful)
What's worse, would EZ-Pass or On*Star (I have neither system - I'd rather bleed to death at the side of the road after an accident than lose my privacy 100% of the time) data obtained without a warrant now be admissible in court? I suspect that the cops might not even have to leave the comfort of their offices to attach the GPS bug if they play the game right.
-b.
Re:It ok'd the WARRANTLESS use of GPS (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:It ok'd the WARRANTLESS use of GPS (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:It ok'd the WARRANTLESS use of GPS (Score:5, Funny)
Re:It ok'd the WARRANTLESS use of GPS (Score:4, Funny)
Apparently, you are not aware that On*Star can give restaurant recommendations in times of dire emergency or you'd have never made your comment.
Re:It ok'd the WARRANTLESS use of GPS (Score:5, Funny)
Has such a case occurred? (Restaurant recommendation instead of calling an ambulance.) Anyway, I suppose it all makes sense. You're bleeding to death. Therefore you have anemia. Nothing a good, bloody steak can't fix.
-b.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:It ok'd the WARRANTLESS use of GPS (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not permanently attached to my car or to me. It can be (and often is) left at home or switched off - I suppose if I were really paranoid I'd remove the battery. OnStar is non easily removable (though it has been done). EZ-Pass stores location data by design - I doubt that cell companies store GPS locations of everyone's phone over time in detail since there'd be simply too much data to store.
-b.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The big cell companies have something like 60 million subscribers; to track everybody once a minute, that's something like 4 billion records an hour. So yeah, it's a lot of data, but figure what, 16 bytes for a record, so 64 gigabytes an hour and 11 terabytes a week. So yeah, I don't think that it is something that they would
Re:It ok'd the WARRANTLESS use of GPS (Score:5, Insightful)
GPSs can under ideal circumstances accurate down to 30cm. On handheld units, perhaps 10m. So WTF, lets go with that number. Further assume that people never travel faster then 1000km/h, which is about half the speed of a Concorde but still significantly faster then any commercial jet today in service. 1000km/h / 10m = 27.77 hz (maximum relevant data collection cycle) - 3 111.27 cycles/day. Say that they are lazy and they store UTM coordinates as 8 bit strings, thats 15 chars; 15 bits. 32 bit timestamps (which would be stupid, may as well be WTF ever GPS uses), and say 50 chars/bits for some kind of UID, we get 97.... call it 100 bits/user/cycle. Or around 40 kilobytes/day. Say I'm wrong, and off by a factor of 10, and they have no DBAs who know about data encoding. 400 k/day, less then 12mb/month.
12mb/day is nothing, in the grand scheme of things, if "they" were motivated to do it. And assuming that they use a non-brain dead encoding scheme like I have proposed, and only record position if there is movement, then we are likely down to few mb/years. Cycle the data out so we only record ~100m accuracy, every 30 sec/max (fractions of hz), we are down to few mb/lifetime.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah. We tried to warn cell phone users about that. Most of them couldn't see past the "Ooh! Aah! New nifty social status gadget!" mentality.
> they're all terrorists anyway
Every single cell phone call relayed through a satellite counts as an international transmission and is eligible for government surveillance.
Even if you manage to post to Slashdot through only American servers the moment someone in Canada reads your post it becomes an international transmission and is
Re:It ok'd the WARRANTLESS use of GPS (Score:5, Insightful)
Opinions: 2
Unsupported Assertions: 3
Facts: 0
Knock it off with the "Fact:" crap. You're not helping.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This is a fact. I've proven it through personal experience at least three times.
> Fact: They can justify anything they want at any time
That is a fact as evidenced in the news over the last two years.
> Fact: The only economically viable solution is complete and utter dismantling of the Federal Government
Proof is available here [slashdot.org].
I don't know why the mods knocked the post down to -1:Flamebait. Apparently they haven't been paying
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I do think the police have to get a warrant for your onstar data, since it's from a private company, unless it's an exigent circumstance.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Can GM/On*Star give up the data voluntarily even if no warrant is shown? What's in the customer contract regarding data protection?
-b.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:It ok'd the WARRANTLESS use of GPS (Score:4, Interesting)
I wonder if you were to jam a police GPS you'd be obstructing justice [washingtonpost.com]
Steve
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It ok'd the WARRANTLESS use of GPS (Score:5, Insightful)
Obviously I agree that they should be required to get a warrant, so that they can be held accountable for watching people for the hell of it.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You forgot the most important part:
So that they can be held accountable for watching people for the hell of it WITH MY MONEY.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nowhere in the article did it mention if the data from the device was used to help
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Now you're the one leaving out information. In this case the police did have reasonable suspicion that the person in question was doing something wrong. In fact, the judge feels that the police had probable cause.
That said, I don't see why the police shouldn't have been required to get a warrant first.
Imagine it were a McBain movie (Score:4, Interesting)
Maybe the way to look at it, is imagine if this were a McBain movie.
McBain's partner, just a week before retirement, has just been shot by Columbian cocaine dealers. McBain runs out into the parking lot, sees his police car is on fire, and a car speeding away. He reaches into his pocket and pulls out a magnetized tracker (presumably there's some backstory about how it ended up in his pocket), and throws it at the fleeing car. It hits the roof of the car, but at a bad angle, and rolls down the side, dramatically slides, and miraculously takes hold.
Maybe that car has the crooks in it, and maybe it doesn't. But he's just taken his best guess. As the fleeing car speeds off over the horizon, McBain goes back to his bleeding partner.
"Get Mendoza, and .. *cough* .. and tell .. my wife .. I .. *cough* love he--*gurgle*. [dies]" McBain gets a determined look in his eye, walks back outside, where a guy has just dismounted a motorcycle.
"Police business, I am commandeering this vehicle," he says in a heavy Austrian accent, and he mounts up and peels off with a powerful screech. It is a very "cool" motorcycle, despite the prominant Kawasaki logo.
He pulls another electronic gizmo out of his pocket. We get to see the brand name very clearly: it's an HP Pocket PC with a MS Windows CE logo. He pushes a button, and there's an amazingly beautiful 3D movie (took 2 weeks to render on the Opteron cluster) on the little screen, showing just where the car of interest is.
At this point in the movie, I have to ask you something. Are you thinking, "Whoa, that's not cool! Total abuse of power and violation of the 4th!" Or are you thinking, "Go McBain!" Well, what are you thinking, punk?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
1. Suspected bad guy with a warrant for tracking, just like the warrant required to tap his phone and get his bank records. Limited battery time and or limited data storage onboard for scope requirement of the warrant. Provision in the warrant for realtime or just storage of location.
2. Vehicle evading police. One tag shot at the car to trace it and all the high speed accidents would be avoided. They can fall back and video tape the suspect while other car
Re: (Score:2)
What is different about G
Re: (Score:2)
The judge in this case was a complete and total idiot. He can warn all he wants to, but he just set a legal precedent that says they can if they want to.
I think you are the total idiot. His legal precedent will specifically go against such widespread GPS tracking as that is what he ruled. If any instance of the cops, the feds or anyone performing such is discovered then they will be facing charges themselves, as they will be
Re:It ok'd the WARRANTLESS use of GPS (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, if they have probable cause to believe that crimes are being committed (existence of a chop shop parting out stolen cars), they can tell it to a judge and prosecutor and the judge will no doubt be happy to give a warrant authorizing tracking of the car.
-b.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Duh.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It ok'd the WARRANTLESS use of GPS (Score:4, Insightful)
That is a beautiful statement of the common public misconception (which is often well groomed by government whining).
This isn't about seeing the police side of this. This is about the legitimate derivation of power within a Constitutional Republic. History is filled with dire examples of why it is best for the citizenry to disallow authority for the sake of political or legal ease. At the same time there are no lighthouse examples of why a well controlled government would be a Bad Thing.
^BumP (Score:4, Insightful)
Crime Control
Due Process
The quick version is that crime control means giving police wide latitude to do their job. If they 'know' someone is guilty, they shouldn't have to jump through hoops to arrest & jail them. Due process says what it means: all the i's have to be dotted & the t's have to be crossed.
Someone who says"I can very much see the police's side of this" is leaning towards the Crime Control school of thought, which is directly contrary to the system of law setup in These United States.
Re:^BumP (Score:5, Insightful)
I always assert that the rest is pre-empted by choice of the definition of the word "crime". We don't have too many criminals. We have too many laws.
If we could refine our system of laws then, in instances such as this story, the appropriate use of power wouldn't be questionable because there'd be no excuse to abuse it in other more borderline situations.
Re:^BumP (Score:5, Insightful)
All I said, and all that was meant, was that I can see the police's case here. Using a GPS tracker is not, in may respects, different from just following a person around. (Which they are allowed to do, as far as have ever heard.) But, as I noted, there are some differences that make me balk and not really feel that they're quite the same and that the tracker is going too far.
In short, next time, try reading more careful and *not* leaping to assumptions. You'll save yourself some embarassment.
Re:^BumP (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm sorry but that is extremely naive. People in general are not by and large decent and no sub-group of them is. If people by and large were good and decent then Communism would be the most effective economic system. People are greedy, mean, and cruel people driven by sugar-coated base instincts for which they have come up with extremely elaborate justifications over several thousand years.
The position of police officer is an easily obtained position of ever increasing power with very little day to day oversight. For instance, a police officer could pull you over tonight for no reason at all and require you to walk 20 ft off the side of a low traffic road. If you refuse that officer can beat you with a baton and point a gun at you. Once he has you off the road he can sodomize you with the baton because he has a whim. Should you resist at any point the situation will basically degrade into a case of it being your word against his and believe me nobody takes the word of the offender over the word of the good police officer.
Now you claim that they wouldn't do this because they are by and large good and decent people. After all, the people who are drawn to a position with that sort of power would never be the same kind of people who would want that sort of power. They would be the people who wouldn't want that kind of power, right? I mean really, there are more people who wouldn't suffer from typical human weakness and abuse great power than typical people right?
The scenerio I listed would be an extreme but the kind of sadistic sexual pervert who would desire a scenerio like that isn't even uncommon let alone unheard of. It would stand to reason that those want to abuse power are more likely to seek out positions of power than those who do not want to abuse it. Even those with honest intentions will take on group behaviors and probably end up breaking rules to catch those they believe are bad guys.
I have a unique perspective. I am now a business owner in a good neighborhood. I am well connected and highly respected in the community. The police do not usually pull me over because they do not believe I am 'up to something'. Recently a police officer did pull me over to courteously let me know my tags had expired and that I should get it taken care of as soon as possible. He called me sir and addressed me with respect.
As a teen I was a rebellious youth to who smoked pot and listened to heavy metal. I dressed accordingly. The police questioned, searched, and harassed me and my friends regularly. The searches usually didn't have probable cause and if the police found something they would just lie about the circumstances. Now, usually an 'incident' would involve several police officers but any other officers would just back up whatever was in the report (no matter what really happened). In one case a friend was out past curfew on a bike, he also had a bench warrant for a pipe the police had previously found when stopping him for speeding some time before. The police checked his ID, saw he was of age, and sent him on his way. Just a few moments later the car started to come after him so he fled on the bike, figuring he could get away and carry on with his life since he lived in another state. The police officer chased him a couple blocks and then actually hit him with the car. They refused to let him be examined by the hospital and held him in a choke hold while strip searching him (he did not resist before they began choking him).
Several officers 'witnessed' him wreck the bike on his own. All his bruises, scraps, and other marks were from that incident. It was also made clear to him that should he speak with a lawyer they would hear of it and his life would not be pleasant after that.
I'm sure those police think of themselves as being by and large decent people trying to do a job. In their minds those kids are troublemakers and hoodlems and they are doing a good thing
Re: (Score:2)
Which, if the media would start telling the truth, only really applies to actions taken by the Federal Government. If we'd be following the Constitution, as it was written, the States are free to fine-tune things as they see fit.
> the people should control them
That was my assertion as well. I apologize if the sentence logic was tangled.
Re: (Score:2)
That's the problem -- it doesn't differentiate between legal and illegal activity, and it doesn't require the officer to make a judgment call as to whether it's worth his time to continue following you. Nor does it turn off when it's obvious that you'
Re:It ok'd the WARRANTLESS use of GPS (Score:5, Insightful)
You need to back up and reexamine your premise there. In the US nobody is a criminal until they've been convicted by a court. If you think they might be engaging in criminal behavior, what's wrong with having to get a warrant?
This isn't making a mountain out of a molehill, it's squashing the molehill before it becomes a mountain.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They aren't criminals in the United States, you can not be a criminal without being proven guilty in a court of law. A warrant means that a neutral citizen who has been chosen to make these decisions believes there is some kind of reason to believe you may have committed crimes. Law enforcement is by definition biased and can not appropriately decide when there is enough reason to justify intruding upon the lives of innocent citizens;
Re: (Score:2)
The Bill of Rights has been dead for nearly 200 years. See here [articlev.com] and here [slashdot.org] for explanations and rationale.
Public Road vs. Privacy of one's home (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
In my opinion the police should get a warrant before following someone in an unmarked police car also, when the circumstances allow enoug
Re:Public Road vs. Privacy of one's home (Score:4, Insightful)
In addition, the tracking does not somehow automatically stop when the car EXITS public streets and enters private property. This is pretty much the equivalent of tagging someone's actual body with a nano-GPS device. Sure, the police could physically walk behind you when you're in public, but should they have the right to know what room you are in inside your house, at all times? And should they be able to know your location 24x7, from the comfort of their office chair, without even needing to convince a judge you're a likely suspect in a crime?
I also do think the fact that this makes it much cheaper and easier to do IS significant. It's kind of like privacy on the Internet: lots of things that have always been "public knowledge" have in actually tended to be fairly private due to obscurity. Now, they can suddenly be instantly accessible to anyone in the world, often showing up unbidden in unrelated searches. Such changes in ease of access do indeed call for changes in laws regarding accessibility and privacy of information.
Re: (Score:2)
I was about to say the same thing, but you beat me to it.
Because computers are never wrong (Score:2)
This sort of conviction has already started with DNA, except now we see things being opened up to in
Thinking about this... (Score:3, Insightful)
-b.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That makes sense. They're tracking the car.
The police in this case were using the GPS to track the person, through the car. The car itself wasn't at issue. Thats where this all falls apart. If the car was stolen, then they have an argument.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, let's say that there was a car containing someone who'd just robbed a diner and shot five people. I wouldn't be opposed to using a GPS bug to track its occupants if there's no other safe way of doing so. The primary issues are time and expediency - if there's prima facie evidence of a serious crime in progress or being fled from AND there isn't time to contact a judge to seek a warrant, then the surveillance is justif
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed 100% -- they had ample time to see a judge and get a warrant.
-b.
GPS jammer? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Volume 0x0b, Issue 0x3c, Phile #0x0d of 0x10
Low Cost and Portable GPS Jammer
I built one based on this information for an electronics class a while back. It indeed works, as I can cause my Garmin III+ to lose positioning. Range limit is based on antenna used and power output.
If I find the bug, can I keep it? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I mean..if you leave it say, on a log, floating down a river, its hard to track you, right?
Re: (Score:3)
It would make for an awfully boring tracking pattern if the bug stays in the suspect's driveway 99% of the time and occasionally goes for a ride in the car to the grocery store or to church on Sunday.
-b.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:If I find the bug, can I keep it? Parking Boots (Score:2)
Does he own stock? (Score:2)
Big brother issues are definitely a concern in this case. More and more of the population seems to be willing to allow themselves to be profiled to death, though, so there really aren't any arguments left which would make any sort of difference.
Other than "ulterior motive" and "big brother", there really isn't much else to talk about except the weather.
What about personal GPS Nav system??? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Let's say you live in the state of Oregon, and it is a few years from now, when the general gas tax is replaced by a road usage tax.
You WILL have a GPS system in your car.
Since the road usage tax amount will depend on which roads you use and what time you use them (e.g. I-5 in downtown Portland at noon is 15 cents per mile, at 3AM is 5 cents per mile), your GPS will record everyplace you drive and at what time. This data w
Could we charge the police with a crime? (Score:2)
If you can't get them for a breach of privacy, get them for theft. I remember hearing about a case where a landlord who put hidden cameras in an apartment. The landlord couldn't be charged with a privacy violation so the police got him for stealing electricity he used to power his recording equipment
Re: (Score:2)
comparison with red-light cameras (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Whoa! Next stop Supreme Court (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?caseno
Preview says it does.
Yet another case that begs the question (Score:2, Insightful)
Comfort? (Score:3, Insightful)
>The judge did warn against 'wholesale surveillance' of the population, though, so ... that's some comfort.
No. It's not!Note to self... (Score:3, Funny)
without warrant != without motive (Score:3, Insightful)
If everybody had a right to privacy everywhere, things like traffic cameras would become illegal. Should nobody be able to check whether it's best to go through First or Second Avenue, because Mr. John Smith is afraid his wife will see his car entering the "adult store" parking lot? And what if her cousin saw you, should she need a warrant to tell your wife? (hey, that wouldn't be a bad idea...)
There is *one* and only one well defined place to draw the line where your privacy becomes more important than my right to watch. The line should be drawn at the borders of your property. The police and everybody else should absolutely need a warrant to look into your home, but once you step into the street my right to see trumps your right to stay unseen.
Re: (Score:2)
That appears to be one of the arguments they are usin
Yes, it's legal, now get back at them (Score:2, Insightful)
What I do not agree with is the placement of unsolicited materials upon private property by a third party. This sounds to me, on a basic leve
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you ever find a small device attached to the bottom of your car and you didn't place it there, dial the emergency services, report a suspected IED, and hope they don't attempt a controlled detonation.
If it's a bomb you've saved your life (and I've parked in the same carparks as people that didn't check, and died) and if it's a GPS tracking device you've just cost the local police a lot of time, money and embarrassment.
It's a win either way.
The legal reasoning (Score:2, Informative)
Warrantless Surveillance? (Score:2)
Now, instead of assigning an on-duty officer to tail a suspect 24/7, they are using a GPS device.
How is this sort of warrantless surveillance a 4th Amendment violation? I'm not saying it is not, I just don't see it.
Another cluess judge (Score:3, Informative)
Someone watches too much 24.
Not too concerned about the GPS, but the cameras (Score:2)
Free citizen (Score:3, Interesting)
Slap!
This GPS receiver will let us know exactly when you do. Your ticket will come in the mail. Thank you for supporting our county!
Please do not remove the device, as you will be charged with destruction of government property.
Re: (Score:2)
And state governments want to do this to get their share of gas taxes when you drive on "their" roads. You're billed per mile driven. Oregon wanted to do this some time back. I don't know how far they got with it the first time around.
Both will be back.
Free nations should be tracking the cops (Score:4, Insightful)
track all the cops all the time, record everyting they say or do.
then track politicians next. then everyone on the public payroll.
they work for us, it's about time we put the hammer down on their screwing around on duty
holy shit you people are conceited (Score:3, Insightful)
Police are only interested in where you've been or where you're going if they have a reason to suspect you of a crime. And if they suspect you of a crime, they can already track your movements - it's called surveillance (you know, like the "steakout" in your favourite holywood trash-flick). Police have never needed a warrant to track your movements for the simple fact that there is no such thing as a right to "privacy of movement"! Nor should there be. If you're moving around in public, people will see you. Period. The only restraint placed on police use of GPS surveillance should be the need to have probable cause.
Important key word here: Reasonable Suspicion (Score:4, Interesting)
I am a law enforcement officer in Florida. If I have reasonable suspicion that you are actively engaged in a crime, I have the right to detain you, without arresting you or charging you, for up to 24 hours.
While detained, I cannot search your person or your vehicle. You cannot give consent to be searched either, as you would be under duress and not free to go.
What I can do is a cursory pat-down of your person for safety reason (see Terry Stop case law). I can also observe your vehicle from the outside, and if I see any weapons or contraband in plain view I can immediately arrest you and do a full search of both your person and your vehicle.
Reasonable suspicion gives a police officer an enormous number of tools to work with. People need to learn what it means, and once they understand what it means, lobby for change if they do not like it. Most police officers stick to the letter of the law, and to the letter of the case law to the best of their abilities. If you change the law to restrict cops, all *good* cops will abide by it whether they like it or not.
The key limit of what we can do under reasonable suspicion is "an unreasonable violation of a reasonable expectation of privacy." The judge probably believed that a GPS tracker placed on the exterior of a vehicle was no more invasive than an officer following the vehicle around to see where it went. We already do that when we do undercover surveillance ops.
Re:Officer Safety (Score:5, Insightful)
That's all good IF they have a warrant to authorize the tracking. The judge's decision essentially opened the door for warrantless surveillance of "suspects" - lack of judicial oversight over police actions isn't a good thing.
-b.
"Tracking" was always allowed ... (Score:2)
"Tracking" was always allowed, if you were walking/driving in public they could always follow you, no warrant was necessary.
Re: (Score:2)
The GPS method takes less manpower since movements can be recorded and checked up on periodically and someone doesn't need to be "on the case" to follow the car. Thus it's more likely to be used capriciously since it's inexpensive and easy to use. I'm not opposed to it in cases where someone is fleeing after a felony for example, or had just stolen a car and the cop
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I seem to remember a rule that no, they can't follow a suspect for an extended period of time without getting a warrant. If I'm mistaken, there certainly should be such a rule. The word "search" means "To make a thorough examination of; look over carefully in order to find something; explore." When the police follow someone around they're searching for evidence of wrongdoing. The only question is whether or not the search is reasonable.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
There are two separate issues here:
- Whether the suspect has to be alerted.
- Whether there should be a requirement for a search warrant (judicial oversight).
When police obtain a search warrant to bug a phone line they are not required to alert the suspect.Re: (Score:2)
But, it allows certain things, it doesn't require them. If the officers don't use this in a certain case, a
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Go back to the books, bub. Just because the Constitution doesn't spell it out, doesn't mean it isn't there.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
It's the Ninth Amendment. Read it and remember it.