ATS: Judge Rules Police Don't Need Warrant to Attach GPS Tracker to Car

I think this is going a bit too far, myself. I have my GPS always turned on on my phone, because I don't care who knows where I am calling from. One thing I don't want the authorities to know is how fast I drive.

There was a case recently where a rental car company installed GPS trackers on their cars and charged customers an extra fee, if they were found to have exceeded the speed limit or some such. I'm pretty sure the courts ruled against the rental car company.

I feel confident that this will be overturned in a higher court. This might be an issue that warrants that everyone write his Senator and Congressman to request legislation addressing this privacy issue. I don't think it's too much trouble for the police to get warrant to put any device on a suspects car, on his person, or in his home. In many States, a person's automobile is considered an extension of one's domicile.

www.wsmv.com...
www.cbsnews.com...
www.theregister.co.uk...
www.chicagotribune.com...
www.nbcsandiego.com...


[edit on 05/1/13 by GradyPhilpott]

Duh! This is a no brainer. The difference between tracking someone with GPS and following them is; They can be tracked anywhere, even on private property. This is so unconstitutional, it's not even funny. Another case of the judge not fully understanding the technology?
I don't want to be tracked, nor do I want someone to have the ability to track me whenever they feel like it. This will be found unconstitutional, IMO. If it isn't something is very wrong. Not that it would surprise me.

What I really like is the fact the jerk they tracked was a Lawyer.

I had always thought they made their money off legal clients, but guess I have been wrong.

Seekerof,

I don't have a problem with gps devices installed in vehicles. They serve a purpose and can be invaluable in an emergency.

The problem I have is with the police being able to use them to investigate people without a warrant. If the police are using a gps device to track someone over a length of time, they should have to provide due cause, just like they do with any other investigation.

Once again, it isn't the USE of technology that is the problem, it's the ABUSE that concerns us.

Seekerof actually I don't have any type of device in my car, I glad of it.

And if I key myself out of my car I do what I did a week ago get a lock smith, actually he open my car with his own van key, them told me that it was the third car he has open like that during that week, it has to do with my type of car and how bad the safety is.

By they way I drive a Ford, I will not tell what kind.

For starters, the GPS cannot tell the difference between Private roads and public roads, private or public property.

That was my first thought as well....what an insult to our intelligence... This judge must think we are brain-dead. Sad thing is, he's likely right, if this gets upheld...

By they way I drive a Ford, I will not tell what kind.

The fact that it drives at all is commendable, given the most common FORD anagrams, hehe.... (kidding)

[edit on 13-1-2005 by Gazrok]

Originally posted by XPhiles
I would assume the serious modern bad guy would go HI-TECH as well. Maybe using anti spy gadgets...

I hate big brother..

U.S. District Judge David N. Hurd is from New York.....New York is a blue state, and this judge was choosen by the dominant democrats and liberals in New York.

So, if you want to blame anyone blame all the liberals and democrats that seemed to have voted for this judge. I do not see this having anything to do with the current administration. Perhaps some members don't know yet that the people of the different states are the ones who vote for these judges.

The same can be said of theother thread in which a Californian ruling banned another rifle.

[edit on 13-1-2005 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by Seekerof
"Unconstitutional"?
Not hardly.

Get used to it. In the very near future, virtually every car made will have one. Don't like it? Buy a bike. Walk. Get a bus. But be assured, its not "unconstitutional," in any way, shape, or form. If it was, it would not be getting installed on factory cars, etc. Airplanes are going to this, also. Got a problem with that? Swim. Go by boat. Ride a bike. Take a bus.

This is very unconstitutional. And, if my car has one, someday, I'll still be entitled to remove the device, if it's my car. Won't that be a kick in the ass if they start telling us it's illegal to remove the GPS device?

Just curiuos, but isn't Lojack an early form of a tracking system like OnStar?

Originally posted by Damned

This is very unconstitutional. And, if my car has one, someday, I'll still be entitled to remove the device, if it's my car. Won't that be a kick in the ass if they start telling us it's illegal to remove the GPS device?

I tell you what if they start to put the buggers in all the cars you bet I will tear the sucker out of it.

[edit on 13-1-2005 by marg6043]

Originally posted by Muaddib
U.S. District Judge David N. Hurd is from New York.....New York is a blue state, and this judge was choosen by the dominant democrats and liberals in New York.

So, if you want to blame anyone blame all the liberals and democrats that seemed to have voted for this judge. I do not see this having anything to do with the current administration.

Did anyone say anything about republicans? Big brother isn't limited to the current administration. He can be found any level of government.

Originally posted by jsobecky

This is nothing new; this has always been the case. You have no basis to assume that your public travels are, or should be, a private matter.

I think the matter is more than just one's expectation of privacy while travelling in public. It has to do with tampering with a person's property. If the police want to follow me around for the rest of their lives, I don't have a problem with that because their going to be bored senseless. When the police attach a tracking device to my car, then they should be required to get a warrant. It's not that much trouble. Judges are on call 24/7, just for this purpose.

Maybe the judge is tired of getting phone calls at 0300.

[edit on 05/1/13 by GradyPhilpott]

Originally posted by worldwatcher
Just curiuos, but isn't Lojack an early form of a tracking system like OnStar?

I believe that LoJack works off of radio signals. You would need to be within a certain distance to pick up the signal. Also the LoJack can't tell where you've been. It's more of a "I'm over here" signal.

Just put a tracking chip in our brains and be done with it! Have you heard that children are being implanted with tracking chips now?

www.wired.com...

Now, you can't tell me that parents wouldn't abuse the tracking chip. (assuming they can track it themselves) They'd use it just to find out where the child is. It's the same with the gov't. You can't expect them not to abuse this.

[edit on 13-1-2005 by Damned]

Originally posted by Montana
As has become the usual course of events, private citizens will have to protect their rights themselves. Time to do a little research into gps blockers.

Ah not a problem. Place your hand of a piece of tape over the antenna. I spend so much time trying to get mapping grade unblocked, I have no trouble telling anyone how to block one. Tree canopy, mountainous terrain. Just about anything will interfere. I GPS map roads for my county's 911 and State Police.

One false statement here is that one would not know whether the road was private or not but in most cases the background map will reflect this attribute. The GPS may not distiguish but the user certainly could.

My guess is that cellular technology will be incorperated into any device so network triangulation would work with GPS trilateration. In other words, if you GPS cannot see the sky, three cellular repeaters could provide a rough estimate to the device's location.

Most cellular phone with GPS also use this. For cellular phones without gps, you can still be triangulated by EMS and law enforcement. The GPS adds accuracy.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

he wasnt in sight of the police, no probable cause at all. definately unconstitutional.

My car is private property. Police need permission to search it, just as they need a warrant to search my house. If anyone tampers with my car, without my specific permission, they should be prosecuted. And they will be, if I have my way.

Well let me add my two cents on this issue.... My dad is a lawyer, and I often discuss legal issues such as this with him. I would tend to interpret this matter in a very anal retentive way, tending to favor personal rights to privacy. My legal argument against this would basically break down into this:
The more weight you drive around with in/on your car = more gas your car consumes per mile = more money out of your pocket
So if the police are attaching this device to your car without your knowledge/concent or a warrant, then they are placing an undue monetary burden on you (no matter how infitessimal, IT IS costing you money). Therefore they need to F**k off and get a warrant goshderned no good lousy control freak pigs!

Hehehe! Are you going to be a lawyer, too? Because that's a lawyers' thought process if I've ever seen it.

[edit on 13-1-2005 by Damned]

Originally posted by ColonelForbin
Well let me add my two cents on this issue.... My dad is a lawyer, and I often discuss legal issues such as this with him. I would tend to interpret this matter in a very anal retentive way, tending to favor personal rights to privacy. My legal argument against this would basically break down into this:
The more weight you drive around with in/on your car = more gas your car consumes per mile = more money out of your pocket
So if the police are attaching this device to your car without your knowledge/concent or a warrant, then they are placing an undue monetary burden on you (no matter how infitessimal, IT IS costing you money). Therefore they need to F**k off and get a warrant goshderned no good lousy control freak pigs!

and all i could think of was a lousy amendment...