It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Obama Administration Argues No Warrant Required for GPS Tracking of Citizens
The federal government informed an appeals court on Thursday that it has the right and the power to place GPS tracking devices on the privately owned vehicles of citizens without obtaining a warrant. This is in open rebellion to a Supreme Court decision from January that held that such warrantless installation of tracking devices on cars was unconstitutional.
In a case being heard by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the Obama administration argued that since the Supreme Court’s ruling didn’t specifically mandate the obtaining of a search warrant in all situations, then the justices intended to leave a loophole open — a loophole large enough to mount a tracking device.
In the Jones case, the Supreme Court unanimously held that law enforcement violated the Fourth Amendment by conducting “unreasonable searches and seizures” by installing a GPS tracking device to a suspect’s car without first obtaining a probable-cause warrant.
While such a statement seems clear enough, the confusion arises from the court’s pronouncement of the ruling that led to the decision. For example, writing for the majority (the opinions on the legal rationale for the ruling were split 5-4), Justice Antonin Scalia declared that the constitutional privation perpetrated by the police was the unwarranted attachment of the tracking device onto the property of a citizen. However, the minority opinion, penned by Justice Samuel Alito, explained that it was the violation of the suspect’s “reasonable expectation of privacy” that was the principal constitutional issue in the matter.
In the end, neither the majority nor the minority addressed a key argument forwarded by the Justice Department: GPS tracking, the feds argued, is just that and is not a search in the traditional sense whatsoever, therefore no warrant should be required. That is to say, police could accomplish the same end through another means — a means that doesn’t require a warrant (physical surveillance, for example) — therefore, a warrant need not be obtained before attaching a GPS device to the car of a suspect.
In the end, neither the majority nor the minority addressed a key argument forwarded by the Justice Department: GPS tracking, the feds argued, is just that and is not a search in the traditional sense whatsoever, therefore no warrant should be required.
Can we do more?
The question is...should we do more.
"John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it!"
Originally posted by havok
This is why the system is flawed.
Here is clear evidence of an administration that is over stepping its bounds.
Yet all we can do is write about it on a website.
Can we do more?
The question is...should we do more.
Originally posted by abe froman
We need a new american Magna Carta.
Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
reply to post by FortAnthem
So what would happen if a person walked outside and found the feds working on their car without a warrant?
According to the law they would have every right to use [non-lethal] force to protect their private property!
A few caps in the knee wont kill a man... there's my god damn loop hole in the law.edit on 5-6-2012 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)