Does Warrantless GPS Tracking of People by the Police Violate the Fourth Amendment??

I guess such devices are not illegal to own??
Click to expand...
Yet! :eek:

This discussion brings up another question. Suppose you do find the device. What then? If it is marked "Property of <yourcity> PD" can you throw it away? Run over it? Dump it in a storm drain? If it's not marked, it might "accidentally" get destroyed.

Of course, the best way to dispose of such a device is to attach it to some utility vehicle or city-owned vehicle. Or perhaps a southbound Union Pacific train. :D
 
Wave of the future...

Someone touched on the prospect that in all likelihood, .gov will not have to plant any device to achieve this tracking capability.

It will likely be implemented commercially, with OnStar, and its descendants, which could become standard equipment on passenger vehicles.

Law enforcement will piggy-back on the commercial network, with additional monitoring software. Imagine the power of added data logging, police could simply query the data for all vehicles having approximate gps coordinates, at a time when a crime occurred.

Expect associated laws to make it a felony to disable/modify the tracking.

Warrants will go the way of buggy whips.

I knew a cop who worked for DHS, he said they would routinely track suspects using cell phones, including turning them on remotely to listen; without a warrant. You just couldn't use that fact in court, but the evidence gained illegally was easy to massage to make it look as though it was "inadvertently" acquired. :p
 
I knew a cop who worked for DHS, he said they would routinely track suspects using cell phones, including turning them on remotely to listen; without a warrant. You just couldn't use that fact in court, but the evidence gained illegally was easy to massage to make it look as though it was "inadvertently" acquired.
Click to expand...

There was another thread a while ago about ON*Star being used by Feds to track and listen in on conversations. At that time it wasn't well known that the On*Star system could be activated remotely so that the provider could hear what was going on in the car...without the occupants knowing.

Tracking is one thing, monitoring conversations through electronic devices is quite illegal without a warrant.

If the gov't mandates any of these devices on cars, I'd predict a booming business in cut-out switches that keep them from being remotely activated... or from sending GPS signals all the time.
 
I'd hate to have to wade back through all the pages of this thread. Did anybody address the cell phone GPS matter? Don't all recently-manufactured cell phones generate a GPS signal, all the time? On my Samsung, I only have the option of "911 only" or not.

Also, if the cell phones do generate GPS locator signals, what's all this stuff about cops' having to triangulate towers, in order to locate a cell phone? Couldn't they just contact the cell phone service provider and determine the location of the phone from its GPS signal?
 
That's a lot like asking if it would be OK for civilians to execute people or wage war. It's simply not an accurate analogy. The rules are different for government and civilians.


You can say it's not OK to use the GPS devices but it's NOT a 4th amendment issue.
Click to expand...

It is a 4th amendment issue. It is an invasion of privacy

What Is an Illegal Search?
The 4th Amendment to the US Constitution protects individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures. An unreasonable search depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. Any search of a person, home, or car without probable cause or a valid search warrant is an invasion of privacy and an unreasonable search.
 
Winston:
It is a 4th amendment issue. It is an invasion of privacy

What Is an Illegal Search?
The 4th Amendment to the US Constitution protects individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures. An unreasonable search depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. Any search of a person, home, or car without probable cause or a valid search warrant is an invasion of privacy and an unreasonable search.
Click to expand...

Do yourself a big favor and read back through some of the comments by Zukiphile, and maybe even my post with a case cite. Attaching a device to a vehicle is neither a search nor a seizure.
 
"What's the difference between this and a undercover officer tailing you?"
Very little. There are some REP issues that arise, or may arise, to be concerned with.

---

"Attaching a device to a vehicle is neither a search nor a seizure."

Correct. You only need a warrant, as a general rule, when using tracking devices when it is necessary to breach the REP assigned the vehicle's engine compartment by the courts to hook it to an internal power source. Not doing that? Then you do not need a warrant. Need to do that? Obtaining such a warrant is a relatively simple thing; it being an REP issue, not a search and seizure issue.

---

"I guess this all comes down to what is "a reasonable expectation of privacy"??"

As a matter of fact, it IS all about REP. REPs a nebulous concept, though, defined by both the individual and society; and it evolves.

---

The Federal Law Enforcement Center's Legal Division has publically available content geared toward the lay person:
http://www.fletc.gov/training/programs/legal-division

Their podcasts are geared for the lay person:
http://www.fletc.gov/training/programs/legal-division/podcasts/

Don't like listening to Podcasts? There are transcipts available at the bottom of each Podcast page.

There's even one on GPS, REP, etc:
http://www.fletc.gov/training/progr...sues-transcripts/gps-tracking-transcript.html
 
Suppose you do find the device. What then? If it is marked "Property of <yourcity> PD" can you throw it away? Run over it? Dump it in a storm drain? If it's not marked, it might "accidentally" get destroyed.
Click to expand...

Would doing that not be interfering with a police investigation? Could obstruction of justice charges perhaps be brought? Or would that be doubtful??

.
 
Would doing that not be interfering with a police investigation? Could obstruction of justice charges perhaps be brought? Or would that be doubtful??
Click to expand...

It isn't beyond my imagination. If so, the state could be argued to have appropriated or "seized" a car for its own investigation, so that a warrant should be necessary if they want to present the evidence in court.
 
Do yourself a big favor and read back through some of the comments by Zukiphile, and maybe even my post with a case cite. Attaching a device to a vehicle is neither a search nor a seizure.
Click to expand...

If you need a warrant to do a legal wiretap. To find out who a person is talking to and what they are talking about. I don't see any difference. In using an electronic device to see where you are driving to. It is an invasion of privacy.

The argument is a convicted criminal. Oh home arrest has an ankle braclet. That is the terms of his sentence. To track his movment. So how is it not. To put on a persons property.
 
The argument is a convicted criminal. Oh home arrest has an ankle braclet. That is the terms of his sentence. To track his movment. So how is it not. To put on a persons property.
Click to expand...

Winston: Giving you the benefit of the doubt, I'd just like to opine that whatever drugs you're on seem to be working well! :D Can't even begin to have a dialogue with somebody so removed from ordinary logical reasoning skills. :eek:
 
lanceOregon said:
Would doing that not be interfering with a police investigation? Could obstruction of justice charges perhaps be brought? Or would that be doubtful??
Click to expand...

zuikiphile said:
It isn't beyond my imagination. If so, the state could be argued to have appropriated or "seized" a car for its own investigation, so that a warrant should be necessary if they want to present the evidence in court.
Click to expand...

T'would seem to me that the state would have to prove you destroyed the device yourself, which would require a witness or video of the action. As opposed to the device falling off after a jarring bump or having it blown off at a high pressure car wash (or something :rolleyes:).

The argument about appropriating the vehicle for the investigation would, as stated, require a warrant... and one dated before the investigation began or the device was placed.
 
This discussion of finding the device makes me wonder how big they are and what they look like and where they get their power? A GPS has to have an antenna with a view of at least a slice of open sky, and I don't know of any really tiny ones. A GPS receiver itself doesn't need much power, and could run for some time on a small battery if it doesn't have a display to support. A transmitter which could send the info back to the police is another story. Continuous transmission over any distance, even using fairly low power, is going to eat up any small battery fairly quickly. Intermittent transmission would make it last longer, but unless you have a pretty good sized battery, it still wouldn't last all that long before needing replacement.

Transmitters and receivers can be made pretty small, but not invisible, and a transmitter needs an antenna as well.

Basically, any useful device would be pretty hard to conceal and secure in place, and it might need to tap into the vehicle's 12 volt system for power. I have two old trucks, and enough problems with the wiring and corrosion, thank you very much. If someone is going to decide to screw with the frame or paneling of my vehicles to attach something, or screw around with the wiring to drain power, I think that someone should be a judge with a reason that will stand up in court, not a cop with a hunch.
 
Notwithstanding any number of posts, complaints, opinions, comments offered in this discussion, a couple of the above from yours truly, re this business of police attaching ANYTHING to privately owned property absent court authorization, is simply another piece of evidence that indicates how close we have come to that proverbial police state.
 
This discussion of finding the device makes me wonder how big they are and what they look like and where they get their power? A GPS has to have an antenna with a view of at least a slice of open sky, and I don't know of any really tiny ones. A GPS receiver itself doesn't need much power, and could run for some time on a small battery if it doesn't have a display to support. A transmitter which could send the info back to the police is another story. Continuous transmission over any distance, even using fairly low power, is going to eat up any small battery fairly quickly. Intermittent transmission would make it last longer, but unless you have a pretty good sized battery, it still wouldn't last all that long before needing replacement.

Transmitters and receivers can be made pretty small, but not invisible, and a transmitter needs an antenna as well.

Basically, any useful device would be pretty hard to conceal and secure in place, and it might need to tap into the vehicle's 12 volt system for power. I have two old trucks, and enough problems with the wiring and corrosion, thank you very much. If someone is going to decide to screw with the frame or paneling of my vehicles to attach something, or screw around with the wiring to drain power, I think that someone should be a judge with a reason that will stand up in court, not a cop with a hunch.
Click to expand...

Modesto police were able to successfully monitor Scott Peterson's whereabouts with a GPS system they secretly installed on his pickup back in 2003. I'm confident that the technology has more than likely improved significantly since then.

Don't you remember his arrest photo on the news back then??

image550138x.jpg


He had grown a beard, dyed his hair, and even used a tanning lotion to change his skin color.

The GPS system had alerted the police that he was close to the Mexican border, when they arrested him.

.
 
Police sure can get a lot of work done when they are uninhibited by personal rights.

Don't you think police could have (or maybe had) gotten a warrant to follow Scott Peterson
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top