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.
Wisconsin court upholds GPS tracking by police
joker5656
Member Posts: 5,598 ✭✭✭
Not a good sign. Glad i don't live there. No warrent needed. WOW.
http://dailykenoshan.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=7559&Itemid=102
MADISON - In a decision released this morning, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals held in pertinent part that no Fourth Amendment search or seizure occurs when police attach a Global Positioning System (GPS) tracker to the outside of a car parked in an area accessible to the public, and then use the tracker to follow the car's movement on public streets. The court affirmed Michael A. Sveum's Dane County conviction for aggravated stalking, a conviction obtained in part by use of detailed GPS tracking information on the movements of Sveum's car.
Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen, whose office represented the State of Wisconsin on appeal, applauded the decision. "New technology can provide new ways for law enforcement officers to investigate possible crimes," said Van Hollen. "Here, the use of the GPS tracker didn't violate the Fourth Amend-ment because police never searched or seized Sveum's car, its occupants or its contents."
As part of their investigation of Sveum's alleged stalking, police obtained a circuit court warrant authorizing them to covertly attach a GPS tracker to Sveum's car. Based in part on information retrieved from the tracker, police later obtained another warrant to search Sveum's residence and car. Sveum challenged the admission of the GPS tracking information and other evidence obtained as a result of the tracking. Adopting arguments made by the State, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals concluded that neither a search nor a seizure occurs when law enforcement officers use a GPS device to track a vehicle while it is visible to the general public. Under those circumstances, the GPS tracker simply made it easier to discover what was already open to public view-the car's movements.
From the court's decision:
[T]o the extent a tracking device reveals vehicle travel information visible to the general public, and thus obtainable by warrantless visual surveillance, the use of the device does not normally implicate Fourth Amendment protections. It follows that no Fourth Amendment violation occurred here simply because the police used a GPS device to obtain information about Sveum's car that was visible to the general public.
We also agree with the State that the police action of attaching the GPS device to Sveum's car, either by itself or in combination with subsequent tracking, does not constitute a search or seizure . . . [W]e discern no privacy interest protected by the Fourth Amendment that is invaded when police attach a device to the outside of a vehicle, as long as the information obtained is the same as could be gained by the use of other techniques that do not require a warrant.
The court also rejected Sveum's other challenges to his conviction.
Michael A. Sveum is currently incarcerated at the Oshkosh Correctional Institution.
The Wisconsin Court of Appeals' decision in State of Wisconsin v. Michael A. Sveum appears on the court's website:
http://www.wicourts.gov/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=36414
The Dane County District Attorney's Office represented the State of Wisconsin in Dane County Circuit Court. Assistant Attorney General Daniel J. O'Brien represented the State in the Wisconsin Court of Appeals.
http://dailykenoshan.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=7559&Itemid=102
MADISON - In a decision released this morning, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals held in pertinent part that no Fourth Amendment search or seizure occurs when police attach a Global Positioning System (GPS) tracker to the outside of a car parked in an area accessible to the public, and then use the tracker to follow the car's movement on public streets. The court affirmed Michael A. Sveum's Dane County conviction for aggravated stalking, a conviction obtained in part by use of detailed GPS tracking information on the movements of Sveum's car.
Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen, whose office represented the State of Wisconsin on appeal, applauded the decision. "New technology can provide new ways for law enforcement officers to investigate possible crimes," said Van Hollen. "Here, the use of the GPS tracker didn't violate the Fourth Amend-ment because police never searched or seized Sveum's car, its occupants or its contents."
As part of their investigation of Sveum's alleged stalking, police obtained a circuit court warrant authorizing them to covertly attach a GPS tracker to Sveum's car. Based in part on information retrieved from the tracker, police later obtained another warrant to search Sveum's residence and car. Sveum challenged the admission of the GPS tracking information and other evidence obtained as a result of the tracking. Adopting arguments made by the State, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals concluded that neither a search nor a seizure occurs when law enforcement officers use a GPS device to track a vehicle while it is visible to the general public. Under those circumstances, the GPS tracker simply made it easier to discover what was already open to public view-the car's movements.
From the court's decision:
[T]o the extent a tracking device reveals vehicle travel information visible to the general public, and thus obtainable by warrantless visual surveillance, the use of the device does not normally implicate Fourth Amendment protections. It follows that no Fourth Amendment violation occurred here simply because the police used a GPS device to obtain information about Sveum's car that was visible to the general public.
We also agree with the State that the police action of attaching the GPS device to Sveum's car, either by itself or in combination with subsequent tracking, does not constitute a search or seizure . . . [W]e discern no privacy interest protected by the Fourth Amendment that is invaded when police attach a device to the outside of a vehicle, as long as the information obtained is the same as could be gained by the use of other techniques that do not require a warrant.
The court also rejected Sveum's other challenges to his conviction.
Michael A. Sveum is currently incarcerated at the Oshkosh Correctional Institution.
The Wisconsin Court of Appeals' decision in State of Wisconsin v. Michael A. Sveum appears on the court's website:
http://www.wicourts.gov/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=36414
The Dane County District Attorney's Office represented the State of Wisconsin in Dane County Circuit Court. Assistant Attorney General Daniel J. O'Brien represented the State in the Wisconsin Court of Appeals.
Comments
Not a good sign. Glad i don't live there. No warrent needed. WOW.
just teach people how to scan and locate them, once they loose a few thousand dollars worth of gear, they may stop doing it.
if you have a cellular, you are already screwed.
quote:Originally posted by joker5656
Not a good sign. Glad i don't live there. No warrent needed. WOW.
just teach people how to scan and locate them, once they loose a few thousand dollars worth of gear, they may stop doing it.
if you have a cellular, you are already screwed.
not if you turn it off
[
not if you turn it off
[/quote]
yeah, by removing the battery from the phone.
quote:Originally posted by joker5656
[
not if you turn it off
yeah, by removing the battery from the phone.
[/quote]
if the phoes operating system isn't working neither is the GPS. Urban Myth. phone must be on. don't have to be using it but it does need to be on.
quote:Originally posted by storm6490
quote:Originally posted by joker5656
[
not if you turn it off
yeah, by removing the battery from the phone.
if the phoes operating system isn't working neither is the GPS. Urban Myth. phone must be on. don't have to be using it but it does need to be on.
[/quote]
sorry dude, i have heard and seen different. but good luck with that one. believe what you want.
quote:Originally posted by joker5656
Not a good sign. Glad i don't live there. No warrent needed. WOW.
just teach people how to scan and locate them, once they loose a few thousand dollars worth of gear, they may stop doing it.
if you have a cellular, you are already screwed.
How do you scan for them?