Supreme Court Rules Warrants Needed for GPS Monitoring 354
gambit3 writes "The Supreme Court has issued its ruling in the case of Washington, D.C. nightclub owner Antoine Jones, saying police must get a search warrant before using GPS technology to track criminal suspects. 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."
Ruling..... (Score:2)
Re:Ruling..... (Score:5, Funny)
Quick someone call the CDC! We have a sudden outbreak of common sense in the Capitol!
Re:Ruling..... (Score:5, Funny)
Quick someone call the CDC! We have a sudden outbreak of common sense in the Capitol!
I tried but all I heard on the other end of the line sounded like moaning zombies and muffled screams.
Re:Ruling..... (Score:5, Funny)
I tried but all I heard on the other end of the line sounded like moaning zombies and muffled screams.
Are you sure you called the CDC and not Congress?
Re:Ruling..... (Score:5, Funny)
There can't be zombies in the Capital, Zombies eat brains. Duh.
they get a lot of them right (Score:2)
we just have too highly a politicized process for people to understand that.That includes members of this site who one day will cheer someone/something on and the next day vilify it.
Re: (Score:2)
Even a broken clock is right twice a day...
Re: (Score:2)
My thought exactly, except with a big "DAMN" in front of it.
Re:Ruling..... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Ruling..... (Score:4, Informative)
And 4 out of 9 - almost a majority - believed that this tracking was wrong because of our right to privacy even in a public place, not solely because tracking of this sort constitutes a "search" by the government.
If just one more justice would agree, then we could finally start our privacy rights growing again instead of eroding.
Re:Ruling..... (Score:5, Insightful)
The Supreme Court is generally disliked by both parties, The conservatives think the Court it too liberal, the Liberals think the court is too conservative. However it is mostly because the way the Court is structured it is outside the normal showboating politics, where a Judge who tends to lean one way will not get his job threatened for "Flip Flopping" or what is more generally called changing ones opinion based on facts.
The biggest problem people usually have is in their minds Legality = Morality while they are rather disjointed. Often they work hand and hand but not all ways. Because it is legal for you to do something it doesn't make it morally rite. Also if it is moral or immoral to do something it shouldn't be legal/illegal, based on moral alone.
Re:Ruling..... (Score:5, Informative)
They got one right?!?!
They got two right, with the recent religious freedom case in Hosana-Tabor vs. EEOC. And just like that case, this was a unanimous decision from SCOTUS. That's two Supreme Court ass-kickings in a row for this administration, from both sides of the aisle. I had always thought that the upcoming "Obamacare" case would be a 5-4 ruling either way, depending on what side of the bed Anthony Kennedy woke up on that morning. Now I'm not so sure. I don't think that one will be unanimous too, but now I wouldn't be surprised if it were 6-3 or 7-2 against. SCOTUS seems to be a lot more attuned to the notion that the Constitution is a restraining order against government lately.
Good. (Score:5, Insightful)
Is getting a search warrant on someone really that time consuming?
Re:Good. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Warrants (Score:5, Interesting)
I have seen some that are "rubber stamped" with only a vague description of what they're after (eg: "computer equipment")
The judge in the 2nd case is doing it right
Re:Good. (Score:5, Informative)
Ironically in this case, they had probable cause and a warrant. Oddly they chose to ignore the terms of the warrant and invalidate their search. I was reading the facts of this case, and I was appalled; both by the incompetence of the police and their assumptions about privacy and searches. A Federal judge issued a combines FBI/DC police team a warrant to install a GPS device on this guy's car for a ten day period in DC (I'm not clear on whether they had to ten days to install the device, or they could only track him for ten days. It's immaterial as you'll see.) They waited 11 days and got one of the feds to do it outside of DC (he was in Maryland).
So they went through the trouble of establishing probable cause and getting the warrant; then merrily decided that the warrant didn't matter and proceeded to ignore its restrictions.
Re:Good. (Score:5, Insightful)
Those pesky checks and balances.
Re:Good. (Score:5, Informative)
Your post should be +5
It's amazing how many people don't understand checks-and-balances even though they learned it in school. And I'm not just talking about the 3 branches of government, but also the Check of the States upon the central power (tenth amendment).
The U.S. is like the European Union. A single whole but composed of multiple sovereign governments that retain most of the power to themselves.
Re:Good. (Score:5, Insightful)
Wrong. If you read the Constitution you will see that it is not a compact between "multiple sovereign governments", which would imply that there is some higher authority which resides in the States to create a constitution. Rather, it derives its genesis from "We the People" as a whole. You are likening the Constitution to a contract between individual parties (the States), when in fact the States comprising the Union were in fact never party to the "contract". Their job was to ratify the agreement of the citizens. There was a long discussion about this between 1860 and 1865.
Re: (Score:3)
Until around 1861...
Re:Good. (Score:5, Insightful)
Hopefully that'll bring this BS to an end, along with ending the jobs of the officers that continue to pull this stunt. Is getting a search warrant on someone really that time consuming?
The police regularly ignore the rules these days, it rarely ever costs anyone their job. In the future they will probably just not enter that particular info into evidence.
Re:Good. (Score:5, Insightful)
Hopefully that'll bring this BS to an end, along with ending the jobs of the officers that continue to pull this stunt.
Is getting a search warrant on someone really that time consuming?
The police regularly ignore the rules these days, it rarely ever costs anyone their job. In the future they will probably just not enter that particular info into evidence.
Yeah, but having convictions overturned due to failure to follow the law is a sign of incompetence. Consider this case centered around someone who was undeniably guilty of criminal activity, who will now walk free. That's not quite doing the job of Law Enforcement Officer, is it.
Re: (Score:3)
"Yeah, but having convictions overturned due to failure to follow the law is a sign of incompetence. Consider this case centered around someone who was undeniably guilty of criminal activity, who will now walk free. That's not quite doing the job of Law Enforcement Officer, is it."
If the evidence obtained without warrant is not entered in to evidence for the trial, and a conviction occurs without any "tainted" evidence, there's no cause for a judgement to be overturned.
I'm not a lawyer, but I think you'll f
Re:Good. (Score:5, Insightful)
Hopefully that'll bring this BS to an end, along with ending the jobs of the officers that continue to pull this stunt. Is getting a search warrant on someone really that time consuming?
The police regularly ignore the rules these days, it rarely ever costs anyone their job. In the future they will probably just not enter that particular info into evidence.
Yeah, but having convictions overturned due to failure to follow the law is a sign of incompetence. Consider this case centered around someone who was undeniably guilty of criminal activity, who will now walk free. That's not quite doing the job of Law Enforcement Officer, is it.
I figure this is why the action was barred: "The government had told the high court that it could even affix GPS devices on the vehicles of all members of the Supreme Court, without a warrant."
And they said: "Oh no you won't either!"
Re:Good. (Score:5, Insightful)
Hopefully that'll bring this BS to an end, along with ending the jobs of the officers that continue to pull this stunt.
Is getting a search warrant on someone really that time consuming?
The police regularly ignore the rules these days, it rarely ever costs anyone their job. In the future they will probably just not enter that particular info into evidence.
Yeah, but having convictions overturned due to failure to follow the law is a sign of incompetence. Consider this case centered around someone who was undeniably guilty of criminal activity, who will now walk free. That's not quite doing the job of Law Enforcement Officer, is it.
Yes it is! You can't break the law and uphold the law at the same time. It is a grave disservice to society letting this many go; but justice would be holding accountable those who failed to obey the law in order to put the bad guys away.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes it is! You can't break the law and uphold the law at the same time. It is a grave disservice to society letting this many go; but justice would be holding accountable those who failed to obey the law in order to put the bad guys away.
You mean, if a cop drives over a speed limit, everyone who was ever arrested by him, should be immediately exonerated, right?
Actually it's the stupidest thing about US legal system, ever, that reliable, verifiable evidence can be thrown out for any reason. Justice must operate on facts, not fiction. Punish the people who break the law, punish cops who break the law more severely because they are given more trust, but keep the evidence. Maybe some kind soul will want to sacrifice his career and years of his
Re:Good. (Score:4, Interesting)
You mean, if a cop drives over a speed limit, everyone who was ever arrested by him, should be immediately exonerated, right?
Actually it's the stupidest thing about US legal system, ever, that reliable, verifiable evidence can be thrown out for any reason.
No, it is not. It is the single most important rule that makes police respect the law at least sometimes.
Justice must operate on facts, not fiction.
But it does not operate on facts. It operates on two sides (prosecution and defence) playing tug of war. Facts help a little, but good rhetoric helps even more. This is adversarial system, which means that even if defence attorney knows for a *fact* that his client is guilty, he is required to try and get him exoneration or good deal.
Punish the people who break the law, punish cops who break the law more severely because they are given more trust, but keep the evidence.
And here you have the reason for 'tainted evidence' rule - cops are not punished more severely. They are punished very lightly or not at all.
Maybe some kind soul will want to sacrifice his career and years of his life to bring something really nasty to justice -- who are we to keep him from doing so? Certainly more harm is done by legalized "war on terror" crap.
Re:Good. (Score:5, Insightful)
Punish the people who break the law, punish cops who break the law more severely because they are given more trust, but keep the evidence.
And here you have the reason for 'tainted evidence' rule - cops are not punished more severely. They are punished very lightly or not at all.
But throwing out the evidence punishes not the cops or prosecutors but the society as a whole. It makes no sense, it only serves the interest of criminals -- collude with cops, taint all evidence, then taint all evidence of tainting the evidence, and everyone goes free.
Throwing out illegally obtained evidence protects the innocent from being violated by the police when the police only have a hunch that someone is a criminal. Otherwise, there will always be a cop or prosecutor willing to break the law and receive punishment on the hopes that their illegally obtained evidence will put away a criminal mastermind. If their alleged mastermind turns out to be innocent, what then? Throwing away evidence is premised on the whole presumed innocent until proven guilty idea.
Re: (Score:3)
Is getting a search warrant on someone really that time consuming?
More time consuming than not getting one; I'm sure most people reading Slashdot understand the potential for laziness. I don't think you need to fire the officers that used GPS; I'm sure they were told it was ok by a bunch of lawyers in their respective departments and bureaus.
That said, I'm happy to see this ruling from the Supreme Court.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure they never ASKED any lawyers. Not that it matters, since the lawyers would usually be prosecutors, and of course they would be inclined to say yes. Especially over a beer, since this is not a conversation to be had officially.
Now can we get this legal precedent applied to domain seizures? Trolling sites for illegally shared files is alll well and good, but claiming the site operators know what is going on is about as much probable cause as was available in this case. the principle should apply.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Preferably, either directly elected cops or an elected board that oversees the police departments. Because in most places the only thing checking your neighborhood cop is.... another cop. Imagine if we had the same thing with politicians with no outside checks.
Score one for Bad Guys, er I mean Civil Liberties (Score:2)
Seriously, this is a good thing. I have no problem if a warrants are involved. They should be, otherwise, law enforcement feels the right to slap one of those devices on anyone's vehicle for any old reason. There is a reason for warrants, it helps keeps things fair and legal. If the bad guys are really showing their hands, then obtaining a warrant for a GPS should be a no brain-er. And until then, law enforcement can do the good old stakeout for a few days until all the legal paperwork is signed and bu
Re: (Score:2)
Honestly, if law enforcement has, and can demonstrate, probable cause, they'll have no problem getting a warrant very quickly.
I've read of officers getting warrants during the duration of a traffic stop in a couple of rural counties around my location in the middle of the night.
All that this ruling will do is cut back on "hunches" and make sure an officer can get at least one other person agrees that there is something worth investigating and/or worth tracking.
Unanimous (Score:2)
Left to rule on ... (Score:2)
Your iPhone, smart phone, auto GPSr, or even hand-held GPSr track being used against you.
Funny how they don't bundle both decisions together, though clearly the attachment of a device to an unwitting suspect's vehicle is a more active role than seizing records your vehicle or device have been recording for you.
Best be careful about Geocaching near marijauna farms (even if you are unwittingly near one in a state or federal park!)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Even if tagged by law enforcement at this location you would have your Geocaching alibi. Hmm..... Light-Bulb!
Re:Left to rule on ... (Score:4, Informative)
Your GPS receiver can only be used against you if you are arrested and it is confiscated, at which point any history stored in the device may (depending on the warrant) be obtained and admitted as evidence.
They cannot be used to track you.
Could have gone farther... (Score:2)
It's a good ruling (and about damn time on this one), but it could have gone farther. As the minority opinion says, and I agree, what's to stop non-intrusive methods such as future UAV drones from being used without a warrant?
Re-elect Obama (Score:2)
So that the SCOTUS will keep feeling the urge to keep the POTUS on a short leash.
Warrants are needed only by the government (Score:2)
Outside of that ...
All the justices found the 4th amendment applied. (Score:5, Informative)
A brief read of Justice Sotomayer's concurring opinion seems to characterize the differences in the justice's reasoning as follows:
1.) Scalia, Sotomayer, Roberts, Thomas, and Kennedy formed the majority in the opinion of the court, which relied on the fact that a trespass occured when the physical device was planted on the car. The majority did not look at any issues other than the trespass one because the trespass issue was sufficient to decide the case. Sotomayer describes it his way: "By contrast, the trespassory test applied in the majority’s opinion reflects an irreducible constitutional minimum: When the Government physically invadespersonal property to gather information, a search occurs. The reaffirmation of that principle suffices to decide this case."
2.) Alito, joined by Breyer, Kagan, and Ginsburg, focused more on the impact of obtaining the knowledge - that is, whether GPS tracking data, regardless of whether it's obtained via physical trespass or some other way, falls within the expectation of privacy protected by the fourth amendment. Alito would hold that trespass is irrelevant to 4th amendment law, and that only the expectation of privacy issue is relevant.
3.) Sotomayer (who joined the opinion of the Court), thinks that Alito's dismissal of the trespassory test would do harm to the constitutional protections, but emphasizes that, in other cases where no trespass occurs, the Court should also analyze expectation of privacy.
In sum, we have 5 justices who are willing to apply a trespassory analysis (which means physically attaching a device to a car is subject to the warrant and reasonableness requirements of the 4th amendment), 5 justices who think the expectation of privacy involved in one's movements should provide 4th amendment protection when long-term electronic tracking is used, regardless of whether trespass occurs, and at least 1 who thinks both apply.
It should be noted that, if I'm reading Sotomayer's concurring opinion correctly, the 4 in the majority other than Sotomayer should not be viewed as having rejected the application of the expectation of privacy test to electronic location tracking. Rather, they've emphasized that the expectation of privacy test is in addition to the trespassory test, and expressly declined to evaluate it because the trespassory test was conclusive.
A couple of other notes:
(1) The government did obtain a warrant in this case, but the placed the tracker on the car outside the time and physical location the warrant gave permission for. The Court did not consider the government's argument that the technical violation of the warrant's strictures rendered the search unreasonable, holding that the government waived those arguments. Therefore, we don't have any insight into how strictly the requirements of warrants will be applied.
(2) The Court did not address this, but it's not hard to imagine scenarios where the Court might allow tracking without a warrant. For example, if an officer witnesses a crime but cannot effect an arrest, the Court might allow an officer to plant a device without a warrant due to exigency, and thereafter apply for a warrant. Similarly, the Court might allow a device to be planted during the course of a high-speed chase without warrant, if the means to do so are invented. I want to emphasize this is total speculation on my part, but fourth amendment law goes far beyond "did a search occur?"
(3) Although there's no holding yet, there's very good reason to believe that obtaining GPS data from non-trespassory means, such as from OnStar or a cell phone, will also require a warrant.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:All the justices found the 4th amendment applie (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Does your point number 1, above, mean they planted the tracker and only applied for a warrant after they found it yielded incriminating evidence?
Re: (Score:3)
The basis of Oliver was that the open field was not a person, house, paper, or effect. Therefore, the trespass doctrine did not apply. The Oliver court also held that there was no reasonable expectation of privacy in an open field.
In today's opinion, the court ruled that the car is an effect. Therefore the trespass doctrine applies. The court explicitly distinguished Oliver:
Finally, the Government’s position gains little support from our conclusion in Oliver v. United States, 466 U. S. 170 (1984), that officers’ information-gathering intrusion on an “open field” did not constitute a Fourth Amendment search even though it was a trespass at common law, id., at 183. Quite simply, an open field, unlike the curtilage of a home, see United States v. Dunn, 480 U. S. 294, 300 (1987), is not one of those protected areas enumerated in the Fourth Amendment. Oliver, supra, at 176–177. See also Hester v. United States, 265 U. S. 57, 59 (1924). The Government’s physical intrusion on such an area—unlike its intrusion on the “effect” at issue here—is of no Fourth Amendment significance.8
[Footnote] 8 Thus, our theory is not that the Fourth Amendment is concerned with “any technical trespass that led to the gathering of evidence.” Post, at 3 (ALITO, J., concurring in judgment) (emphasis added). The Fourth Amendment protects against trespassory searches only with regard to those items (“persons, houses, papers, and effects”) that it enumerates. The trespass that occurred in Oliver may properly beunderstood as a “search,” but not one “in the constitutional sense.” 466 U. S., at 170, 183.
An Obvious case (Score:2)
sanity (Score:2)
A rare moment of sanity from a court known for some otherwise insane rulings (Citizens United / corporate personhood among them).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This court didn't create corporate personhood, it just clarified that aspect of it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood [wikipedia.org]
Corporate personhood isn't the problem anyway, though for all it's vilification in the media you'd never know it. If you want to sue AT&T, you want to be able to sue AT&T and not some individual who works there - personhood makes sense in a lot of scenarios.
Citizens united just let corporations and unions be more honest about funneling money to candidates - now that it'
New York Times article link (Score:3)
I am glad this decision came down from the Supreme Court. I am also glad to find it here already on the news page at /. .
I am providing a link to the NY Times article on this same subject it is more informative IMHO.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/24/us/police-use-of-gps-is-ruled-unconstitutional.html [nytimes.com]
From the NY Times link above by Adam Liptak
Though the ruling was limited to physical intrusions, the opinions in the case collectively suggested that a majority of the justices are prepared to apply broad Fourth Amendment privacy principles unrelated to such intrusions to an array of modern technologies, including video surveillance in public places, automatic toll collection systems on highways, devices that allow motorists to signal for roadside assistance and records kept by online merchants.
Further into the article are the juicy bits. I paste them here for you /.ers who are RTFA imparied.
Justice Sotomayor joined the majority opinion, agreeing that many questions could be left for another day “because the government’s physical instruction on Jones’s jeep supplies a narrower basis for decision.”
But she seemed to leave little doubt that she would have joined Justice Alito’s analysis had the issue he addressed been the exclusive one presented in the case.
“Physical intrusion is now unnecessary to many forms of surveillance,” Justice Sotomayor wrote. In the case of G.P.S. devices, she wrote, “I would ask whether people reasonably expect that their movements will be recorded and aggregated in a manner that enables the government to ascertain, more or less at will, their political and religious beliefs, sexual habits, and so on.”
She went on to suggest that “it may be necessary to reconsider the premise that an individual has no reasonable expectation of privacy in information voluntarily disclosed to third parties.”
“People disclose the phone numbers that they dial or text to their cellular providers; the URLs that they visit and the e-mail addresses with which they correspond to their Internet service providers; and the books, groceries, and medications they purchase to online retailers,” she wrote. “I for one doubt that people would accept without complaint the warrantless disclosure to the government of a list of every Web site they had visited in the last week, or month, or year.”
Justice Alito listed other “new devices that permit the monitoring of a person’s movements” that fit uneasily with traditional Fourth Amendment privacy analysis.
“In some locales,” he wrote, “closed-circuit television video monitoring is becoming ubiquitous. On toll roads, automatic toll collection systems create a precise record of the movements of motorists who choose to make use of that convenience. Many motorists purchase cars that are equipped with devices that permit a central station to ascertain the car’s location at any time so that roadside assistance may be provided if needed and the car may be found if it is stolen.
“Perhaps most significant, cellphones and other wireless devices now permit wireless carriers to track and record the location of users— and as of June 2011, it has been reported, there were more than 322 million wireless devices in use in the United States.”
He's lucky... (Score:5, Funny)
Not a complete victory (Score:4, Informative)
More information and explanation of the ruling can be found at the NYTimes [nytimes.com], wikipedia [wikipedia.org], and the court's opinion text (PDF [supremecourt.gov]).
Question (Score:2)
My initial reaction to this is that this is a very good thing.
But a serious question. Police now cannot track your car via GPS without a warrant. But is there anything preventing police from just following you? Is the location of your car, driving around in public places, reasonably considered private, personal information?
So what's the objection to GPS tracking, if it is no less invasive than other means of tracking can be? The only thing that seems to separate GPS tracking is its passive nature; that i
Interesting break down (Score:5, Informative)
Court HAS NOT ruled that warrant is required (Score:3, Interesting)
From Volokh: [http://volokh.com/2012/01/23/what-jones-does-not-hold/]
What Jones Does Not Hold
Orin Kerr January 23, 2012 12:50 pm
A lot of the early press reports on United States v. Jones are reporting that the Supreme Court held that the government needs a warrant to install a GPS device. But that’s not correct, actually. The Court merely held that the installation of the GPS was a Fourth Amendment “search.” The Court declined to reach when the installation of the device is reasonable or
Re: (Score:3)
Offtopic: Spoofed GPS signals? (Score:4, Funny)
Would like to be a fly on the wall!! (Score:4, Interesting)
I am not surprised by the ruling and agree with the decision. I imaged the discussion to focus on public versus private information. Police do not need a warrant to "tail" a suspect as they move through public streets. However, they need a warrant to follow the suspect into private property as their entrance would be trespassing.
It is good to know that the court viewed the attachment of the device to the vehicle as trespassing. While the court did not explicitly say that a warrant is required in all cases, it is clear the the trespassing issue has implications in both long term and short term use of implantable or attachable technology for surveillance.
Re: (Score:2)
I can only hope that yours is a sarcastic post.
Re:Looks like the terrorists have won (Score:5, Informative)
Why bother?
Everything you just said above is supported by our the current President's administration.
Remember it was President Obama's guys arguing in favor of this...not Newt's.
Just saying..
----
The difference between GWB & BO. A "GW" on the left, and an "O" on the right. All the policies are still the same as Reagan and Clinton's.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In this post-9/11 world, if Lady Liberty isn't willing to beat some terrorists over the head with that damned torch, then the terrorists can have their way with her. I say that she's just playing dead, to lure them closer.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:5-4 decision huh? (Score:5, Informative)
It was 9-0.
Scalia, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Kennedy, Thomas, and Sotomayor, JJ., joined. Sotomayor, J., filed a concurring opinion. Alito, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which Ginsburg, Breyer, and Kagan, JJ., joined.
Re: (Score:2)
Can you not read? It was unanimous.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The majority opinion stated that planting a GPS device is a search, and therefore requires a warrant, full-stop. The minority opinion stated that, because of the month-long surveillance, a warrant would be necessary in this particular case. The minority opinion did not argue which circumstances would or would not require a warrant.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Ouch. Your post has got to sting. 5-4 split was over the "rationale" behind the 9-0 decision.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
The decision was the same, the reasoning by which some members arrived at the decision was different. As I see it, that makes it unanimous.
4-5 Non-decision (Score:3)
4 said warrantless tracking via GPS was illegal. period.
9 said warrantless tracking via a attached GPS was tresspass, and thus illegal.
5 out of the 9 did not say if you could warrantless track via GPS WITHOUT tresspas. i.e. via a person's cell phone or GM's On-Star. It may well still be perfectly legal - or not. (I hope not, but....)
Re:cookie (Score:5, Insightful)
Cookies should require warrants.
As most cookies are not installed by Law Enforcement, you're not quite following the plot.
See, I as a private eye, could install a GPSr device on your car or cookies on your computer to serve me in my private investigations (or even my nefarious plot to take over the world) which has nothing to do with the 4th Amendment -- unless Law Enforcement tries to use any of the data I've gathered.
Your computer is only yours in illusion.
Re: (Score:2)
Your computer is only yours in illusion.
That's akin to saying that your car is not yours because other people can walk up to it and look through the windows.
Re: (Score:3)
Pretty much. Even if you see someone stealing your car, you're not allowed to shoot or taser or hit them in order to prevent the act.
Welcome to reality. You've left the matrix and now your eyes are opened. ;-)
Re:cookie (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Depends on the laws of your state...I believe TX for instance will allow you to use deadly force to protect your property.
A few years back...they tried to convict a guy here in LA who shot some kids robbing his car outside his apt. The jury would not convict him of homicide on the youth that was killed.
Also, some areas extend your car to be considered part of your home...an
Re: (Score:3)
Also, some areas extend your car to be considered part of your home.
Since late 2008, your car is your home for much of the US.
Re: (Score:3)
Recently (within the past year) they passed an update to the Castle Defense in PA. The updated law states that you are allowed to use deadly force to defend yourself when in any location you are legally allowed to be. I'm not sure how long ago your example happened, but we had a case where a man shot and killed his wife's boyfriend with a bow and arrow and wasn't charged because of the new law. All you need to do is feel threatened and I don't know about you, but I find someone trying to steal my car ver
Re: (Score:3)
Here, if somebody tries to steal your car, you can shoot them dead. And no, I do not live in Texas.
What a strange concept. How about if someone steals your lunch? Your bicycle? Your wallet? A pity that we now value personal property more than human life. That means everyone's life is worth less, not just the perp's.
Is it legal to shoot the person after they've been arrested, maybe on trial? It's a crazy and inconsistent law if you, the victim cannot shoot and kill the person at any time afterward.
Re:cookie (Score:4)
And you are exactly correct. If you want the contents your car/computer to remain completely private, you need to "park it on your own private property"/"keep it off the public Internet".
No. Wrong. Very bad wrong. Today's ruling states that the goverment cannot impinge on my property (i.e. my car) even if I DO park it on the public streets / drive on the public road.
On the other hand -- looking in the windows of a parked car on public property is usually allowed -- if there's a reason to be looking in windows. One of the suburbs around Chicago (Palatine for those that care) instituted a policy whereby officers are trained to look through windows in parking lots to see if the owners left cell-phones, wallets, big piles of coins, etc, where they can be seen by thieves. The officer then writes a warning or waits to advise the owner that there is a risk of Breaking and Entering in Palatine, and that such valuables shouldn't be left out in plain view. (I have actually been the recipient of such a warning). As a side effect they also get to do a visual search of every car in the parking lot. Then, when they come up to give you the warning, they also check for signs of drug use / anything that would give them an excuse to pat you down.
In effect its abusive, but on paper it looks okayish under a traditional 4th amendment analysis.
-GiH
Re: (Score:3)
They are voluntary. Don't like cookies? Disable them. It is your computer. Heck, super paranoid about that? Don't use a computer or don't use a web browser.
Guess what? Every browser made since the early 90s has had an option to disable cookies. There are even tools to make your browsing close to anonymous. There is a huge difference between something you voluntarily consent to, and something that you absolutely do not.
Re:cookie (Score:4, Informative)
Are you an idiot, or just trolling?
They're talking about attaching a covert tracking device that uses GPS to record your location. It is placed covertly by law enforcement and retrieved covertly (they hope) by law enforcement. You have no access to the device and it is a criminal act if you tamper with it.
They are NOT talking about the navigation unit in your car or phone.
Re:yeah (Score:5, Informative)
Re:yeah (Score:5, Interesting)
Unfortunately, the exclusionary rule doesn't punish the cop who broke the law. What we need is a doctrine that says any search, arrest, detention, etc that oversteps legal authority is a crime just as if any non-police officer had done it. Then it's just a matter of prosecuting police misconduct as assault, breaking and entering, etc. You can keep the evidence, but the person who broke the law to get it is going to jail. This is the exact same way evidence is treated if it's collected illegaly by a non-cop, btw.
Of course, prosecutors are going to be poorly-disposed towards prosecuting the cops they work with daily. So we'd need an independent meta-justice system to keep tabs on that.
Re: (Score:3)
We have actual laws that violations of civil liberties under color of law are crimes.
The problem with such laws as a remedy to police misconduct is that prosecutors almost never prosecute under them even now, and if you remove the exclusionary rule, you'd have even less i
Re:yeah (Score:5, Insightful)
How many police officers would be willing to do their jobs or properly pursue criminals if they didnt get at least some accomodation under the law?
They get accomodation under the law. They are allowed to do all sorts of things normal people can't do, as long as they follow the proper procedures. If you expect to be unable to follow those procedures, I don't really want you as a cop.
cops are pushing suspected criminals because it is their job. I don't think we would get better justice by making a habit of pursuing those that pursue suspects.
The problem occurs when the criminal in question is a cop. If a cop breaks the law, he's a criminal. He deserves to be treated as such. Protecting bad cops is enforcing criminality.
Re:yeah (Score:4, Informative)
He might or might not be found guilty .. but if he is, it won't be based "dirty" evidence.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:yeah (Score:5, Insightful)
"Fruit of the poisonous tree." The problem is that since police and prosecutors are hardly ever prosecuted for unreasonable search and seizure themselves, pretty much the only incentive for them to follow the Fourth Amendment is to see their evidence thrown out of court if it's illegally gathered. If they routinely went to jail for such violations, it might be a different story -- but they don't, and they never will, so this is what we're left with.
Re: (Score:2)
but just because he was illegally tracked doesn't mean he wasn't still guilty. The police should be disciplined, the criminal shouldn't be let off the hook.
Yea. Let cops do whatever and if they violate the Constitution slap them on the wrist. Hell, who needs extradition; just do snatch and grab.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
So give him a new trial, with the illegally obtained evidence excluded.
Re:yeah (Score:4)
Double jeopardy applies, I expect.
And if it doesn't, it should.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:yeah (Score:5, Insightful)
Cops under your system: That dirty SOB, I know he's guilty of (horrific crime.) It'll be worth going on unpaid suspension for a month just to beat a confession out of him.
Esp. since there will probably be some charitable giving to the cop during his discipline from other members of the force.
Re: (Score:2)
Let's hope this is construed to also apply to your cell phone GPS track that is collected by some carriers. Much of the data carriers collect and store can be obtained by police just by asking on letterhead.