Posted on 01/21/2005 11:01:49 AM PST by CrawDaddyCA
Cops without a warrant can secretly attach Global Positioning System devices to a suspect's vehicle, according to a federal judge - who said using the gadgets is virtually the same thing as following a car along a road.
The decision handed down by U.S. Judge David Hurd in upstate Utica last week could give law enforcement officials another high-tech weapon to catch criminals, but is troubling to privacy advocates.
Hurd ruled that Robert (Bugsy) Moran, a Hells Angel member and defense attorney accused of conspiring to distribute methamphetamine, had "no expectation of privacy in the whereabouts of his vehicle on a public roadway."
"Law enforcement personnel could have conducted a visual surveillance of the vehicle as it traveled on the public highways," Hurd wrote.
Assistant U.S. Attorney David Grable, who is prosecuting Moran, strongly backed the ruling.
"Your movements on a highway aren't private," he said. "You don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy, which is a Fourth Amendment test."
But civil liberties advocates said the decision opens the door to increased government surveillance.
Miniature GPS receivers are now available for about $1,000 and can be affixed to the undercarriage of vehicles in minutes.
Hurd's ruling is only binding in his upstate courtroom, said law Prof. Barry Kamins, but other judges will likely consult it.
"It's kinda scary," said Christopher Dunn, associate legal director of the New York City Liberties Union. "If this ruling applied to New York City, the NYPD would be free to go out and attach these devices to cars and track people without any showing of wrongdoing."
In the Laci Peterson murder case, California detectives got court permission to hide the devices on three of Scott Peterson's vehicles. They showed Peterson visited a marina they had searched several times.
Not all judges agree with the most recent federal ruling.
Last year, Nassau County Court Judge Joseph Calabrese said attaching a GPS device to a car amounted to a search and seizure. "At this time, more than ever, individuals must be given the constitutional protections necessary to their continued unfettered freedom from a 'big brother' society," he wrote.
The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the force of the Crown. It may be frail; its roof may shake; the wind may blow through it; the storms may enter, the rain may enter,—but the King of England cannot enter; all his forces dare not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement!
That is an excellent point. Generally anytime you or your property are not free to move, you are under arrest (or are being detained). Law enforcement must have probable cause to do that. The exception to the rule I stated is if a police officer has reasonable suspicion to believe that you are involved in criminal activity, he may make a temporary detention, called a Terry stop.
However, the GPS analogy the judge used is a poor one. I can drive my car on private property, particularly my own where I do have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Particularly if my car is in an enclosed garage, the police cannot enter my garage without a search warrant to see if it is in there. When the police seize your car and place the GPS in it, it is more akin to a "pen register". (A pen register collects the number you called and not the actual communication you hold) You have no expectation of privacy in the number called, the phone company keeps that record or the owner of the number you are calling will know you called it. Nonetheless, it still takes a court order to get a pen register placed on your telephone.
If you think this country is no better off than the Soviet Union I suggest that you read some history.
This ruling is of no danger to anyone that is law abiding and, in fact, the device will not be placed on any one's car who is not a suspect in a serious criminal action.
Nor will it be of much use in any case.
What would be the danger to you of having one on your car?
"Suspect has turned off the highway.....Suspect hasn't moved in three days....Get that damn device back it is worth a grand."
So if I find one on my car, can I assume it has been abandoned or given to me to use as a skeet target?
If a police car is on a public highway, I can follow it. Therefore, I can secretly place a GPS transceiver on the police car, and track its movements wherever I want. Do I understand this ruling correctly?
How about the car of that cute girl down the street?
And placed on trains, trucks, etc.
justshutupandgtakeit: This ruling is of no danger to anyone that is law abiding
Mysterio, don't you hate being right?
That depends on whether being an attractive person of the opposite sex is a just cause or just a cause.
Wasn't a guy charged with stalking last year because he secretly placed a GPS tracking unit in her car so he could follow her movements? This guy should get a new trial after this ruling - the girl had no expectation of privacy.
In a free country, I wouldn't have to prove the danger. You would have to prove the need.
It's the essence of an unfree country that the state enjoys the presumption of authority to act as it pleases.
Heck, for $1000 I'll put it up on Ebay. If they can legally place it on my vehicle without my knowledge, then if I find it, it's mine.
That about summs it up don't it .....
A quick technological note here. The GPS devices you buy in your store do not transmit. They only receive. So they cannot be used to track your vehicle from afar.
Correct. They do, however, store a "track" of recent movement and the last reliable position fix received. Many models include an emergency "clear memory" key combination which will delete all saved waypoints, and some or all of the above information.
The devices that these cops are using must include some sort of transmitter. This is more like Lojack, or the combined GPS/cell-phone services provided by OnStar.Not necessarily. They could just store a track in memory for recovery later, or they could stay quiet and send a burst of data rarely, a compressed stream of time/position stamps only when memory fills up...
This is true. If following a car doesn't require a warrant, then using a gadget to do so shouldn't require a warrant either.
Just goes to show, government efficiency is a catch-22.
I've read of stalking cases where ex-spouse, BF/GF attach GPS to the ex's car... and it is not taken lightly by the courts.
They can be bought for $100 up.
Sounds interesting..
It is also essential to wear tinfoil hats, as an unprotected head might give off brain waves..
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.