Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is wrong. I don't understand the court's ruling. Cars are indeed personal property. This would be the equivalent of police installing a camera on the outside of your home, looking in.
No, not equivalent to looking inside your home because that's not visible to the public... but I think it is akin to having a camera installed on the side of your house looking at your door and monitoring your in/out movements... using the court's logic... the cops can do that without a warrant. I really don't get it.
We've all watched cop shows where they set up surveillance of suspects from buildings, other homes and cars, we also know that police will "tail" a suspect whenever they leave their home whether by car or public transportation ("Follow that car" comes to mind) so what is so offensive about using a gps tracking device instead of police car?
Like traffic cameras the objection simply seems to be the employment of technology to simply perform tasks that police already do and have done for many years.
Or, am I missing something?
Ovcatto, my issue is that they had to "seize" your car by attaching the GPS device to it... surveillance does not implicate any use of the target's private property... they do it from government vehicles or from third party property... don't you find it odd that they can attach a device to your personal property without a warrant?
Even better, I'd stick it on an over-the-road semi and say "track this you punks."
Well, that's not the point, is it fellas? They aren't going to put the device in the middle of the dashboard... it's going to be stuck under the car while you sleep and you would have no idea it was there.
We've all watched cop shows where they set up surveillance of suspects from buildings, other homes and cars, we also know that police will "tail" a suspect whenever they leave their home whether by car or public transportation ("Follow that car" comes to mind) so what is so offensive about using a gps tracking device instead of police car?
Like traffic cameras the objection simply seems to be the employment of technology to simply perform tasks that police already do and have done for many years.
Or, am I missing something?
Yes, you are missing something. The ability to track someone's public movements some of the time does not translate into an expectation that we can be tracked anywhere, all of the time. Tracking someone through conventional surveillance methods requires time and resources that require law enforcement to spend their time tracking people who actually need to be tracked. The only kind of state where police work is easy is a police state.
Ovcatto, my issue is that they had to "seize" your car by attaching the GPS device to it... surveillance does not implicate any use of the target's private property... they do it from government vehicles or from third party property... don't you find it odd that they can attach a device to your personal property without a warrant?
I must have missed the seize part unless this seizure that you speak of is a figurative one. In the latter case, I don't see how surreptitiously attaching a device to your car constitutes an unreasonable search or seizure.
I must have missed the seize part unless this seizure that you speak of is a figurative one. In the latter case, I don't see how surreptitiously attaching a device to your car constitutes an unreasonable search or seizure.
Then you agree that they can do the same to your home or your baby stroller... or briefcase or purse.
"The ability to track someone's public movements some of the time does not translate into an expectation that we can be tracked anywhere,"
I would imagine that if that is the case you vastly underestimate the ability of law enforcement to track you without the aid of a GPS.
"Tracking someone through conventional surveillance methods requires time and resources that require law enforcement to spend their time tracking people who actually need to be tracked."
I don't see how the expenditure of actual manpower translates into a protection against law enforcement tracking those who don't actually need to be tracked. It has never been a hinderance in the past nor do I suspect that it will be a hinderance in the future. So, if the only argument is that GPS tracking should be disallowed is because it places some sort of imaginary physical and fiscal limitations on who an agency tracks, doesn't seem to eliminate the human judgement of whom they should or should not track, just the number.
"The only kind of state where police work is easy is a police state."
So, freedom is now measured in hours worked. I suppose the same argument should have made around the time when radios, telephoto lenses and binoculars were employed by police departments not to mention those ubiquitous computers in squad cars?
Tell me this, if it's that easy to track someone's movements without GPS, why did law enforcement even argue for the "need" to do so without a warrant?
And yes, freedom is indeed measured by how easy it is for the police to track the movements and actions of its citizens. If you feel comfortable living in a Stasi-like environment, go live somewhere more fitting of your ambivalence like Pyonyang or Havana. The last thing we need in the U.S. is people who don't understand the importance of putting limits on the powers of law enforcement.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
