GPS tracking by police

coreyfyfe · #1 05-13-2009, 07:06 AM

Different state opinions:

"MADISON, Wis. - Wisconsin police can attach GPS to cars to secretly track anybody's movements without obtaining search warrants, an appeals court ruled Thursday. However, the District 4 Court of Appeals said it was "more than a little troubled" by that conclusion and asked Wisconsin lawmakers to regulate GPS use to protect against abuse by police and private individuals."

http://www.chicagotribune.com/techno...,5867383.story

"ALBANY — A Watervliet man will get a new trial on burglary charges after the state's top court ruled Tuesday it was wrong for a police investigator to slap a GPS device on the defendant's van to track his movements without a search warrant."

http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories...storyID=799375

I'm more than a little troubled by this myself. I know the Wisc. judges were just trying to follow the strict interpretation of the law by saying it wasn't specifically illegal, but still. I think the Mass SJC just came down with a similar ruling as NY, as well.

I guess one arguement is that they can get the same information by tailing you and with the GPS they're saving gas/CO2/etc, but I really can't think of anything else they could say to defend the practice.

D Rokk · #2 05-13-2009, 07:11 AM

it is scary but its not blatently illegal.. my first thought, just like the article said, was they can get the same info by tailing someone...

this just needs to be somehow regulated to help prevent abuse

Deluge Of Sound · #3 05-13-2009, 08:50 AM

MakiSupaStar · #4 05-13-2009, 10:39 AM

Yeah this is a just a big can of worms. I'm against it. I think it should only be allowed with a warrant.

BigKahuna13 · #5 05-13-2009, 10:50 AM

There are a couple of huge problems with the comparison to police eyeballing someone.
First they have to actually modify the persons car - his private property - to install the GPS. That's a far different thing from passively looking at what someone does.

Secondly the level of detail recorded and the length of time it is recorded goes far beyond what police - with budgetary constraints on manpower - can do.

This is really pretty scary. Install a GPS and a couple of months get a detailed profile on the person. Knowing where the person went it's a pretty small step to figuring out who he may have seen, what his religious/political affiliations are etc. All on a whim, with no oversight from a judge.

Sure the police can get the same information by following someone - but no PD is going to pay that kind of overtime required to track someone for a couple of months. Not without a real good reason.

jwbassman · #6 05-13-2009, 11:12 AM

I would agree with Maki. A warrent should be issued to use a GPS. Giving the Police carte blanche to use a GPS on whomever they please is just over stepping the boundaries of privacy a bit. I mean we all would like to see criminals get caught, but this leave the door wide open for police to start using them on who ever they see fit. Next thing you know the Gov will be pushing for everyone to have some type of registered GPS in their vehicle so they can pull up and track or view a GPS history on who ever when ever. It's just a matter of time before we're living in a society that resembles a something out of a dysutopian novel. i.e. 1984 (as referenced above).

Armueller2001 · #7 05-13-2009, 11:18 AM

If you have nothing to hide, what's the problem?

^ I absolutely HATE that phrase above.. waiting to hear it on this thread.

jwbassman · #8 05-13-2009, 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Armueller2001

If you have nothing to hide, what's the problem?

^ I absolutely HATE that phrase above.. waiting to hear it on this thread.

Well, If you have nothing to hide, what's the problem?

[/Smart@ss Remark]

Steve · #9 05-13-2009, 11:25 AM

So they know what the car did.

Can someone testify as to who was in the car?

If so, what do they need GPS for.

If not, fine. Go arrest the car.

jwbassman · #10 05-13-2009, 11:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve

So they know what the car did.

Can someone testify as to who was in the car?

If so, what do they need GPS for.

If not, fine. Go arrest the car.

While this is true, it gives them more ammunition to push people to be implanted with GPS chips in the future...

^this is a joke, yet sadly I have a feeling that it may actually come true in the not too distant future...

BigKahuna13 · #11 05-13-2009, 11:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve

So they know what the car did.

Can someone testify as to who was in the car?

If so, what do they need GPS for.

If not, fine. Go arrest the car.

First we aren't talking only about arresting people. Police agencies have been known to collect information on people for reasons other than arresting them.

With a warrant, supervised by the court. No problem.
No warrant, no supervision. Big problems.

And I'm guessing in a criminal case most people would expect the owner of a car to know who's using it when he's not, unless it's been reported stolen.

TheVoiceless · #12 05-13-2009, 12:01 PM

This is a sign of the times. Police being lazy. Sorry if you are in law enforcement, but when was the last time an office truly served and protected his community???

D Rokk · #13 05-13-2009, 12:45 PM

an officer i have known my entire life took two bullets to the leg trying to get a mother and her children out of a riteaid that was being robbed.

his partner took a bullet in the shoulder

i live in a very peaceful area btw

people who dont believe police do anything, dont like police, or think police are lazy, a$$holes, whatever.. should go on a list.. anyone on said list will not be responded to when they call the police, ambulance, or fire dept..

tplyons · #14 05-13-2009, 12:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MakiSupaStar

Yeah this is a just a big can of worms. I'm against it. I think it should only be allowed with a warrant.

I agree. To me, it's just like a wire tap. I think they should only be able to track your personal habits without your knowledge only with a court order.

bigtexashonk · #15 05-13-2009, 01:00 PM

Only with a warrant.

Rattman · #16 05-13-2009, 01:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MakiSupaStar

Yeah this is a just a big can of worms. I'm against it. I think it should only be allowed with a warrant.

+15

Duly subscribed and noted. No warrant, no secretly-planted GPS device on cars or band vans either. . .

PSPookie · #17 05-13-2009, 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Armueller2001

If you have nothing to hide, what's the problem?

Ah, the mating call of the totalitarian oppressor.

If I'm not under suspicion then why do you want to watch me?

D Rokk · #18 05-13-2009, 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PSPookie

Ah, the mating call of the totalitarian oppressor.

If I'm not under suspicion then why do you want to watch me?

because i like them new faux fur bikini briefs you bought

two fingers · #19 05-13-2009, 01:10 PM

I think it should only be allowed with a warrant. HOWEVER it's not the job of the judge to legislate from the bench. So if he/she accurately interpreted the law, then they did their job. If the LAW of that state allows for this action, and the people don't like it, it should be taken up with their representatives, NOT a judge.

PSPookie · #20 05-13-2009, 01:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by D Rokk

because i like them new faux fur bikini briefs you bought

Yes, but traditional stalking and the paparazzi can cover that. There's no need for GPS