Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Virginia court upholds GPS tracking of suspect's vehicle
Times Dispatch ^ | 9/09/10

Posted on 09/10/2010 7:44:32 AM PDT by Libloather

Va. court upholds GPS tracking of suspect's vehicle
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: September 09, 2010

Richmond, Va. - The same GPS technology that motorists use to get directions can be used by police without a warrant to track the movements of criminal suspects on public streets, the Virginia Court of Appeals said yesterday.

In a case that prompted warnings of Orwellian snooping by the government, the court unanimously ruled that Fairfax County police did nothing wrong when they planted a GPS device on the bumper of a registered sex offender's work van without obtaining a warrant.

Police were investigating sexual assaults in Northern Virginia in 2008 when they focused on David L. Foltz Jr., a registered sex offender on probation. They attached a Global Positioning System device to the van he drove for a food services company and tracked him as he drove around.

After another sexual assault occurred, police checked the GPS log and determined that the van had been a block or two from the scene at the time of the attack. That prompted officers to follow Foltz in person the next day. They saw Foltz knock a woman to the ground and try to unbutton her pants, according to the appeals court.

Foltz was arrested. A jury convicted him of abduction with intent to defile and sentenced him to life in prison.

Defense attorney Christopher Leibig tried to have the evidence against Foltz suppressed, arguing that the use of the GPS device amounted to unconstitutional search and seizure and violated the defendant's privacy rights. Arlington County Circuit Judge Joanne F. Alper rejected the argument, and the appeals court upheld her ruling.

(Excerpt) Read more at 2.timesdispatch.com ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Extended News; Government; News/Current Events; US: Virginia
KEYWORDS: court; fourthamendment; gps; gpstracking; ruling; tracking; virginia; warrantlesssearch
Can't wait to try this myself.
1 posted on 09/10/2010 7:44:35 AM PDT by Libloather
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Libloather

Abduction with intent to defile?


2 posted on 09/10/2010 7:47:12 AM PDT by null and void (We are now in day 594 of our national holiday from reality. - 0bama really isn't one of US.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: null and void

Fancy legalese for “attempted rape”.


3 posted on 09/10/2010 7:48:40 AM PDT by ArrogantBustard (Western Civilization is Aborting, Buggering, and Contracepting itself out of existence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Libloather
What I would propose:

Mandatory tracking of all government employees (military exempt). Are they working? Where do they hang out? Let's find out the dirt.
Mandatory public exposure of all financial transactions conducted by government employees (military exemp). What are they buying? How much do they spend? Where did that money come from?

Private citizens deserve some privacy. Public servants? We deserve to know the dirty details.

4 posted on 09/10/2010 7:49:25 AM PDT by ClearCase_guy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather
The van was not the defendant's, it was his employers. Therefore, the defendant had no expectation of privacy while on his job, since the owner could have put the same device on the vehicle to see where the defendant was. Many trucking companies track their vehicles in this manner.

If the vehicle was the defendant's, then the argument might be different.

5 posted on 09/10/2010 7:53:03 AM PDT by kosciusko51
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy
Mandatory tracking of all government employees (military exempt).

Why do you want to exempt the military?

6 posted on 09/10/2010 7:58:51 AM PDT by freedomwarrior998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy
Private citizens deserve some privacy.

Can you point me to this "right to privacy" in the text of the Constitution?

7 posted on 09/10/2010 7:59:39 AM PDT by freedomwarrior998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: kosciusko51

The article doesn’t stipulate whether the van was owned by him or an employer.

He could be self employed and so the ‘work van’ is his.

Either way, I’m glad they caught the jerk.


8 posted on 09/10/2010 7:59:41 AM PDT by Bigh4u2 (Denial is the first requirement to be a liberal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: kosciusko51

Ooops.. Never mind..

Should have re-read the second paragraph.

“Food service company”.


9 posted on 09/10/2010 8:01:12 AM PDT by Bigh4u2 (Denial is the first requirement to be a liberal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Libloather
It still seems like this should require a search warrant approved by a judge for the cops to plant this on a car.

Is there any detection equipment to find if a GPS receiver is nearby? Active AM & FM radios produce signals to convert the tuned station to an intermediate frequency and this can be detected even to the point of knowing what station you are tuned to. Is there anything similar in a GPS receiver than can be detected? It would be interesting to mail any GPS equipment stuck to my car to China.

10 posted on 09/10/2010 8:01:41 AM PDT by KarlInOhio (Gun control was originally to protect Klansmen from their victims. The basic reason hasn't changed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy

Wouldn’t that require something like a tracking device on their ankle? That would cost a lot for initial purchase, maintenance and monitoring, wouldn’t it? Since they would be govt employees also, who would monitor the monitors? It would also require someway of tracking their finances, wouldn’t it?


11 posted on 09/10/2010 8:02:09 AM PDT by stuartcr (Nancy Pelosi-Super MILF.................................Moron I'd Like to Forget)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Bigh4u2

You may be right, but the article does seem to imply that it was not his: “... the van he drove for a food services company ...”. I think it would phrased differently if it was the defendant’s.


12 posted on 09/10/2010 8:03:11 AM PDT by kosciusko51
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: freedomwarrior998
I didn't call it "a right" and I didn't reference the Constitution.

Truth be told, I think privacy is over-rated -- an argument can be made that society would be a lot cleaner and more moral if people had less privacy. But I choose not to argue in favor of less privacy for most citizens.

What I do argue for is the concept that if government wants to peel away privacy, then that effort must start with the government bureaucrats who are most eager to live in a world without privacy. If it's good for them, then maybe it could be considered for the rest of us as well.

13 posted on 09/10/2010 8:04:48 AM PDT by ClearCase_guy (Things will change after the revolution, but not before.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: freedomwarrior998
Can you point me to this "right to privacy" in the text of the Constitution?

I'd think that the right of the citizens to be free from unwarranted and excessive observation by the government would be adequately covered by appealing to a combination of the 4th and 9th amendments.

14 posted on 09/10/2010 8:04:54 AM PDT by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus (The success of Darwinism was accompanied by a decline in scientific integrity. - Dr. Wm R. Thompson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: ArrogantBustard

Back in the day you couldn’t say ‘rape’ on the air. The newsies would report that a woman had been beaten, stabbed, shoved down a flight of stairs and suffered bruises, broken bones and lacerations, but she hadn’t been ‘criminally assaulted’!


15 posted on 09/10/2010 8:05:37 AM PDT by null and void (We are now in day 594 of our national holiday from reality. - 0bama really isn't one of US.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: KarlInOhio

A GPS unit like this one would have some electromagnetic signature. The question is the transmission frequency. I’m sure there are electronic devices that could be used to find it, but my guess is that not all of the them are legal to own, esp. in China.


16 posted on 09/10/2010 8:07:05 AM PDT by kosciusko51
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: kosciusko51

Oops, I misread your last sentence. I thought you were in China, not sending it to China.


17 posted on 09/10/2010 8:08:56 AM PDT by kosciusko51
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: freedomwarrior998

Can you point me to this “right to privacy” in the text of the Constitution?


I’d say it’s an implied right that would fall under the 10th Amendment. Clearly, there is some expectation of a right to privacy, otherwise what basis is there to justify the 4th Amendment?


18 posted on 09/10/2010 8:30:37 AM PDT by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: null and void

Abduction with intent to defile?”

Language from about 1810?

Yesterday, Schwarzenegger signed a new law in California, which I believe should be copied in each & every state.

Life in prison without any chance for parole for sex offenders who are the worst of the lot.

The others can be put on parole for life, along with registration, which is more control than just making them register.

Here in Nevada, it is legal for a person who is a sex offender & must be registered to sign themselves up as a TRANSIENT & the sheriff can do nothing about it.

I am working to try & get that changed.

No sense in spending any money on websites & other means of notifying the public ‘where these criminals are’ if they can register as a transient!!


19 posted on 09/10/2010 8:34:55 AM PDT by ridesthemiles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus

That’s the justification behind the “right” to abortion. Apparently it stems from a “right to privacy” found in penumbras and emanations from the 4th, 9th and 14th amendments.

Do you believe there is a “right” to an abortion as well?


20 posted on 09/10/2010 11:42:50 AM PDT by freedomwarrior998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: freedomwarrior998
That’s the justification behind the “right” to abortion. Apparently it stems from a “right to privacy” found in penumbras and emanations from the 4th, 9th and 14th amendments.

Do you believe there is a “right” to an abortion as well?

You know, for some reason, I knew you were going to try to make that argument. And a STUPID argument it is.

Sorry, but asserting a legitimate right of privacy under the 4th and 9th amendments does not follow to a nebulous "right" to abortion. In fact, the 5th amendment guarantees every person, among other things, that they shall not be deprived of their life or liberty without due process of law, meaning that these can only happen when you are convicted of a crime in a court of law. Otherwise, you may not have these taken from you (if the Constitution were actually followed). Meaning - abortion is not allowed under that clause.

Simply because left-wing judges have tried to find a "right" to abortion under the 9th amendment does not negate the fact that the 9th amendment (and the 4th) DOES protect our unenumerated rights - which includes privacy.

So, do I think the government has an unrestricted right to invade my privacy, simply because the 9th amendment has been abused to justify abortion? Of course not.

Do YOU think the government has an unrestricted right to invade YOUR privacy?

21 posted on 09/10/2010 12:29:11 PM PDT by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus (The success of Darwinism was accompanied by a decline in scientific integrity. - Dr. Wm R. Thompson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus

The 9th Amendment does not confer any substantive rights. Instead, the 9th Amendment was codified to prevent a draconian implementation of Expressio unius est exclusio alterius, with regards to the rights outlined in the Constitution. If the 9th Amendment actually conferred substantive rights, all you would need is for a Federal Judge somewhere to “find” a new “right” to something hidden away in the Ninth Amendment. That of course would mean that we live in an oligarchy, not a Republic.


22 posted on 09/10/2010 1:14:20 PM PDT by freedomwarrior998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: freedomwarrior998

EVERY right is substantive. Rights are not something granted by a government that gets to specifically list which ones we hold. We hold, naturally, ALL rights - whether specifically enumerated in a document or not. My right to privacy is substantive - whether you or the police like it or not.


23 posted on 09/10/2010 1:27:36 PM PDT by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus (The success of Darwinism was accompanied by a decline in scientific integrity. - Dr. Wm R. Thompson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus

So you have the right to do whatever you want? Whatever is “right in your own eyes”? Or is their an outside controlling influence somewhere?


24 posted on 09/10/2010 1:51:07 PM PDT by freedomwarrior998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: freedomwarrior998
So you have the right to do whatever you want?

Uh, yeah, actually, unless I'm hurting someone else in the process. That's sort of what "liberty" is - the freedom to do right, and to be free of arbitrary and intrusive restraints from the government.

Besides, I find your whole line of reasoning on this point to be....idiotic. Because I've argued that I have the right to be free from excessive government intrusion and surveillance in my life, that means I think I can do whatever I want (the unspoken implication being that it's illegal, immoral, or harmful to someone else - which actually takes the matter out of the realm of the 9th amendment, for the most part), and this is a "bad" thing? I'm glad when people like you aren't judges, and it's a detriment to this country when they are.

Since you apparently don't believe in that stinky ol' 9th amendment, I take it you don't believe that people ought to be free to spend their own money how they like, live where they choose to live, travel where they choose to travel, raise their kids how they see fit, or develop their own property in the manner they choose?

25 posted on 09/10/2010 9:29:18 PM PDT by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus (The success of Darwinism was accompanied by a decline in scientific integrity. - Dr. Wm R. Thompson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
Uh, yeah, actually, unless I'm hurting someone else in the process. That's sort of what "liberty" is - the freedom to do right, and to be free of arbitrary and intrusive restraints from the government.

Is that the Standard that the Founder's established? Are you sure you are not equating "liberty" with "license"? After all, the Framers codified laws against sodomy, adultery, pornography and other perversions that many today consider as "not harming anyone else."

Besides, I find your whole line of reasoning on this point to be....idiotic. Because I've argued that I have the right to be free from excessive government intrusion and surveillance in my life, that means I think I can do whatever I want (the unspoken implication being that it's illegal, immoral, or harmful to someone else - which actually takes the matter out of the realm of the 9th amendment, for the most part), and this is a "bad" thing? I'm glad when people like you aren't judges, and it's a detriment to this country when they are.

The 9th Amendment interpretation that you suggest is extremely dangerous. Further, the interpretation is expressly out of line with what Madison and the Framers envisioned when they wrote it. Your interpretation is exactly how liberal judges "find" "rights" to things like abortion and homosexual "marriage" in the Constitution. I'm merely pointing out how dangerous that is. The 4th Amendment already makes clear that UNREASONABLE searches and seizures are impermissible. Why don't you try actually reading the decision of the Virginia Court of Appeals, (which coincidentally is not a liberal Court) rather than MEDIA accounts of what the Court ruled.

Since you apparently don't believe in that stinky ol' 9th amendment, I take it you don't believe that people ought to be free to spend their own money how they like, live where they choose to live, travel where they choose to travel, raise their kids how they see fit, or develop their own property in the manner they choose?

Really? You make a pretty broad assumption? Because I disagree with your misinterpretation of the 9th Amendment, I must not believe in it at all? Then you make a pretty incredible leap into the realm of absurdity. I think you do this for a reason. Should I hazard a guess as to why?

26 posted on 09/10/2010 10:20:47 PM PDT by freedomwarrior998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson