In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Police Cannot Use GPS Without Warrant, Court Rules
allen griggs
Member Posts: 35,509 ✭✭✭✭
nytimes.com
Police Used GPS Illegally, Court Rules
By SEWELL CHAN
Published: May 12, 2009
In a 4-to-3 ruling, the New York State Court of Appeals ruled on Tuesday that the State Police violated a criminal suspect's rights under the State Constitution when it placed a GPS tracking device inside the bumper of his van without obtaining a warrant.
The police had used the device to monitor the movements of the suspect, Scott C. Weaver, for more than two months. But the court ordered the evidence gathered from the device suppressed and ordered a new trial for Mr. Weaver.
In three written opinions, the judges debated the constitutional issues raised by the growing use of global positioning system technology as a tool of surveillance. The case could set an important precedent for state and local police agencies.
In the early morning on Dec. 21, 2005, a State Police investigator crawled under Mr. Weaver's van, parked on the street, and placed a GPS tracking device, known as a Q-ball, inside the bumper. It remained in place for 65 days, constantly monitoring the location of the van.
It was not clear why Mr. Weaver, of Watervliet, N.Y., was placed under electronic surveillance, but he was eventually tried for two burglaries - one in July 2005 at the Latham Meat Market; the other in December 2005 at a Kmart in the same hamlet in Albany County.
A jury convicted Mr. Weaver of two counts relating to the burglary of the Kmart but acquitted him of the counts pertaining to the meat market burglary. (GPS evidence had only showed that Mr. Weaver's van crossed the parking lot of the Kmart hours before the burglary; he was never spotted behind the wheel, and was convicted in part on the testimony of a witness who said that Mr. Weaver, now 41, had used the van to scout out the Kmart before going back to commit the crime.)
Writing for the majority, Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman cited a 1983 United States Supreme Court case in which government agents had placed a beeper in a five-gallon drum of chloroform to track the container's movements. The beeper was used to help the agents keep visual track of the vehicle carrying the container. In that case, the court found that the driver of the vehicle had no reasonable expectation of privacy since the van's movements were visible for all to see.
The judge also raised the specter of a GPS being used to penetrate every part of a person's private life.
The judge added that the ruling had no bearing on federal cases, because the United States Supreme Court has not ruled upon whether the use of a GPS by the state in criminal investigations constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment, and most federal appellate courts have not addressed the issue.
"In light of the unsettled state of federal law on the issue, we premise our ruling on our State Constitution alone," Judge Lippman wrote, citing similar decisions in Washington State and Oregon. He was joined by Judges Carmen Beauchamp Ciparick, Eugene F. Pigott Jr. and Theodore T. Jones.
In a dissenting opinion, Judge Robert S. Smith acknowledged the newness and greater efficiency of GPS devices but defended the legitimacy of the search.
Police Used GPS Illegally, Court Rules
By SEWELL CHAN
Published: May 12, 2009
In a 4-to-3 ruling, the New York State Court of Appeals ruled on Tuesday that the State Police violated a criminal suspect's rights under the State Constitution when it placed a GPS tracking device inside the bumper of his van without obtaining a warrant.
The police had used the device to monitor the movements of the suspect, Scott C. Weaver, for more than two months. But the court ordered the evidence gathered from the device suppressed and ordered a new trial for Mr. Weaver.
In three written opinions, the judges debated the constitutional issues raised by the growing use of global positioning system technology as a tool of surveillance. The case could set an important precedent for state and local police agencies.
In the early morning on Dec. 21, 2005, a State Police investigator crawled under Mr. Weaver's van, parked on the street, and placed a GPS tracking device, known as a Q-ball, inside the bumper. It remained in place for 65 days, constantly monitoring the location of the van.
It was not clear why Mr. Weaver, of Watervliet, N.Y., was placed under electronic surveillance, but he was eventually tried for two burglaries - one in July 2005 at the Latham Meat Market; the other in December 2005 at a Kmart in the same hamlet in Albany County.
A jury convicted Mr. Weaver of two counts relating to the burglary of the Kmart but acquitted him of the counts pertaining to the meat market burglary. (GPS evidence had only showed that Mr. Weaver's van crossed the parking lot of the Kmart hours before the burglary; he was never spotted behind the wheel, and was convicted in part on the testimony of a witness who said that Mr. Weaver, now 41, had used the van to scout out the Kmart before going back to commit the crime.)
Writing for the majority, Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman cited a 1983 United States Supreme Court case in which government agents had placed a beeper in a five-gallon drum of chloroform to track the container's movements. The beeper was used to help the agents keep visual track of the vehicle carrying the container. In that case, the court found that the driver of the vehicle had no reasonable expectation of privacy since the van's movements were visible for all to see.
The judge also raised the specter of a GPS being used to penetrate every part of a person's private life.
The judge added that the ruling had no bearing on federal cases, because the United States Supreme Court has not ruled upon whether the use of a GPS by the state in criminal investigations constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment, and most federal appellate courts have not addressed the issue.
"In light of the unsettled state of federal law on the issue, we premise our ruling on our State Constitution alone," Judge Lippman wrote, citing similar decisions in Washington State and Oregon. He was joined by Judges Carmen Beauchamp Ciparick, Eugene F. Pigott Jr. and Theodore T. Jones.
In a dissenting opinion, Judge Robert S. Smith acknowledged the newness and greater efficiency of GPS devices but defended the legitimacy of the search.
Comments
"Wisconsin court upholds GPS tracking by police"
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-ap-wi-gps-police,0,5890193.story
oh but big brother would never do anything like this to us would they ?
MADISON, Wis. - Wisconsin police can attach GPS to cars to secretly track anybody's movements without obtaining search warrants, an appeals court ruled Thursday.
Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen's office, which argued in favor of the warrantless GPS tracking, praised the ruling but would not elaborate on its use in Wisconsin.
Gun control defined: The theory that people who are willing to ignore laws against rape, torture, kidnapping, theft, and murder will obey a law which prohibits them from owning a firearm.
This will settle down, and will settle in the area that will require a warrant to place a hidden GPS device on a person or vehicle.
Don't get you panties in a wad, just put your tin foil hat back on so the goberment can't read your thoughts.
Margaret Thatcher
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics."
Mark Twain
The cops had a prime suspect, but little evidence.
They got a warrant, and placed a GPS device on the guy's car.
Then, the wily cops put the heat on the guy.
They called him in for questioning. They told him that they were sure he had murdered the girl, and that he had buried the body, and they had a pretty good idea where the body was.
It worked like a charm.
The guy had murdered her, and buried the body.
He got real nervous. He went and dug up the body, drove 15 miles way out in the country, and re-buried the body.
The cops tracked him on the GPS, went out in the country and dug up the body, case closed! Psycho boy got life in prison.
GPS can be a very effective tool for law enforcement, but, they need to get the warrant.
However, on the flip side I would say that a vehicle is a private posession and thus police shouldnt be able to "invade" the vehicle without a warrant.
The point gets muddled though because how can a suspect argue that GPS on a vehicle in public violates their privacy when the police can simply follow you around and watch you and record your movements with video and still cameras ?
I saw we put GPS's on all LEO vehicles. After all they are public property.
some states have them, it tells them which unit is closer to the incident so they dispatch the closest unit.
quote:Originally posted by Hunter Mag
I saw we put GPS's on all LEO vehicles. After all they are public property.
some states have them, it tells them which unit is closer to the incident so they dispatch the closest unit.
I meant for the public to monitor. But yes I'm aware of what you said too.