Police Use of GPS Devices Limited by U.S. Supreme Court

I think this deserves a Hell Yeah, Amen or at the very least a Fist Pump for the little guy!

It seems that not all the Justices are on the bandwagon and are still free thinkers.

"Other justices used more sweeping reasoning, saying police might violate the constitutional ban on unreasonable searches even when they obtain GPS signals without having to attach a device to a car"

AND

“Awareness that the government may be watching chills associational and expressive freedoms,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in a concurring opinion. “And the government’s unrestrained power to assemble data that reveal private aspects of identity is susceptible to abuse.”

Full story linked below....


Police Use of GPS Devices Limited by U.S. Supreme Court

Jan. 23 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. Supreme Court put new limits on the power of police to track criminal suspects’ cars using GPS signals, ruling for the first time on the constitutional implications of the increasingly common devices.

Today’s decision addresses the unprecedented power technology is giving police to peer into Americans’ day-to-day activities.

The justices unanimously overturned the drug conviction of Antoine Jones, while splintering in their reasoning. Writing for the five-justice majority, Justice Antonin Scalia said police officers “encroached on a protected area” when they attached a global-positioning system device to Jones’ car without a valid warrant.

reply to post by SLAYER69


not to steal any of your glory or fame, but here's mine

reply to post by kn0wh0w


If I'm not mistaken two threads is permissible on the same subject if one is in "Breaking News" and the other is in a non related board .

In this case the "NWO/Big Brother" angle.

Originally posted by SLAYER69
reply to post by kn0wh0w

 

If I'm not mistaken two threads is permissible on the same subject if one is in "Breaking News" and the other is in a non related board .

In this case the "NWO/Big Brother" angle.

i figured that.

that's why i said i didn't mean to steal any of your glory or fame

my thread died out a little was trying to revive it this way

Originally posted by kn0wh0w

my thread died out a little was trying to revive it this way

The topic is very important.

But of course appears to have been over shadowed by More Glamorous and controversial topics

Eh?

Originally posted by SLAYER69

Originally posted by kn0wh0w

my thread died out a little was trying to revive it this way

The topic is very important.

But of course appears to have been over shadowed by More Glamorous and controversial topics

Eh?

This topic is certainly more important then others.
But its no doom and gloom news for once, maybe that is setting people off?

Eta:

Starred and flagged you.
Maybe we can get this going a little

reply to post by kn0wh0w


Well since this is the NWO board and very conspiracy oriented. Maybe Big Brother wants people's attention focused elsewhere?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/179aab7cc79f.gif[/atsimg]

reply to post by SLAYER69

. Maybe Big Brother wants people's attention focused elsewhere?

That much is obvious

Big deal. So they are not allowed to attach a GPS tracker to your car. Of course, all new cars come with GPS automatically. So they already have built in trackers. And even on older cars, everyone is VOLUNTARILY installing GPS plotters etc, thinking it's the coolest thing. And of course, since the govt runs the satellites and the whole system, they have no idea how to track you with it. And luckily, your new Smart phone has GPS too! Woo hoo!

reply to post by SLAYER69


Good news, but it is not so good that the Supreme Court did not carry it further than they did.

Link to the Washington Post article.

“People reveal a great deal of information about themselves to third parties in the court of carrying out mundane tasks,” Sotomayor wrote. Perhaps people come to see a “diminution of privacy” as inevitable, Sotomayor said.

“I for one doubt that people would accept without complaint the warrantless disclosure to the government of a list of every Web site they had visited in the last week, or month, or year.”

But, she said, “resolution of these difficult questions” is unnecessary because she agreed with the majority that the government’s “physical intrusion on Jones’ Jeep” supplies a narrower avenue to decide the case.

They know that there are related issues that need to be dealt with and the laws better defined, but they chose to take the lazy way out. I'm not impressed by that. Leaving the other issues to another day instead of dealing with them when they had the chance does not paint a good picture of the Supreme Court.

reply to post by CaptChaos

Big deal

I think it is.
Evidence obtained this way is inadmissable in court.

Originally posted by kn0wh0w
reply to post by CaptChaos

 

Big deal

I think it is.
Evidence obtained this way is inadmissable in court.

Only because they placed a device on his car, which was regarded as unreasonable search. Tapping into existing signals, that the driver is already giving off everywhere, is a different story. It's very specific.

I was somewhat surprised and at the same time encouraged that it was a 9-0 decision. Scalia is writing the opinion. I am anxious to read it.