Posted on 08/14/2008 1:29:55 AM PDT by Schnucki
Someone was attacking women in Fairfax County and Alexandria, grabbing them from behind and sometimes punching and molesting them before running away. After logging 11 cases in six months, police finally identified a suspect.
David Lee Foltz Jr., who had served 17 years in prison for rape, lived near the crime scenes. To figure out if Foltz was the assailant, police pulled out their secret weapon: They put a Global Positioning System device on Foltz's van, which allowed them to track his movements.
Police said they soon caught Foltz dragging a woman into a wooded area in Falls Church. After his arrest on Feb. 6, the string of assaults suddenly stopped. The break in the case relied largely on a crime-fighting tool they would rather not discuss.
"We don't really want to give any info on how we use it as an investigative tool to help the bad guys," said Officer Shelley Broderick, a Fairfax police spokeswoman. "It is an investigative tool for us, and it is a very new investigative tool."
Across the country, police are using GPS devices to snare thieves, drug dealers, sexual predators and killers, often without a warrant or court order. Privacy advocates said tracking suspects electronically constitutes illegal search and seizure, violating Fourth Amendment rights of protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, and is another step toward George Orwell's Big Brother society. Law enforcement officials, when they discuss the issue at all, said GPS is essentially the same as having an officer trail someone, just cheaper and more accurate. Most of the time, as was done in the Foltz case, judges have sided with police.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Sure sucks to be a bad guy these days...
Hope I never have to be a bad guy...
Good they caught the guy but I don’t agree that planting something on my car to track my movements is the same as the police following me.
They can’t plant a listening device in my house just because it’s cheaper and more effective than an officer doing the same thing in person. Either way, it would require a warrant and so should the tracking device.
I wouldn't be too enthusiastic about them doing that to me, either, but where I go in my car is a publicly-viewable event on public roads. There is a presumption of privacy in my home, and if they bugged that without a warrant it would mean War, but there's a difference here.
They can’t plant a listening device in my house just because it’s cheaper and more effective than an officer doing the same thing in person. Either way, it would require a warrant and so should the tracking device.
I see your point, but I also question whether a sex offender registry isn't a form of probation justified by past behavior, and justifying what the cops did in this case. I guess the guy didn't have a cell phone they could track . . .
‘The Foltz case offers a rare glimpse into how a Washington area police department uses GPS. Foltz’s attorney, Chris Leibig, challenged police in court last week and tried to have the GPS evidence thrown out. He argued at a hearing at Arlington County General District Court that police needed a warrant since the device tracked Foltz’s vehicle on private and public land. The judge disagreed, and the evidence will be used at Foltz’s trial, which will begin Oct. 6.
-snip-
Without obtaining a warrant, Jack Kirk, a detective from the Fairfax police department’s electronic-surveillance section, placed a GPS device on Foltz’s van while it was parked in front of his house, Kirk testified. He said it took three seconds. Another vehicle was not targeted because it was on private property, he said.’
I guess the Detective was making the argument that the Rapist car was not private property and he could touch it, and put a GPS device on it. But, he could not go on the guys real ‘private property’ aka his lawn.
Weird.
No warrant needed. Interesting.
They aren’t tracking a person, just his vehicle. He might not be in it.
Agreed. It is better than the police following you.
Only those who have something to hide would worry about being tracked.
Just a coincidence I'm sure.
Looks like he may have resisted arrest. LOL
Because most of us carry one and pay for the privilege. It checks in with nearby radio towers periodically to report position which is logged by a computer. The tool is called a cell phone.
They ought to implant a GPS chip in every convicted felon, deep inside so it can’t be easily removed.
Not true, unfortunately. GPS and other surveillance technology is in use for criminal purposes by stalkers against innocent people. How do I know? I'm one of the victims.
Implant GPS chips deep inside their brain cavities along with small, coded explosive devices. If an offender is tied to a crime via GPS evidence and positively ID, send out the code . . .
What are you doing on a Constitutionalist forum?
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
I tend to take this little amendment to our U.S. Constitution very seriously. This type of surveillance should be utilized only with a warrant.
What is to stop legislature or Executive Order that would require a GPS chip be installed in the manufacture of every motor vehicle and bicycle? Cherry picking surveillance very well could become the norm. And a Congress that finds it so easy to limit our 1st Amendment rights of speech would not be very shy about monitoring our 1st Amendment right of peacable assembly.
Your crime-fighting media at work.
The Constitution does not say you have a right to privacy in your car.
You do not have a right, to drive a car.
It is a privilege.
Many new cars have GPS systems installed already.
The LE needed no warrant, because they weren’t searching, and didn’t search, his vehicle.
LE can’t search a trash can beside your house for evidence, without a warrant. But they can search it once you put it on the curb. Or they could put a GPS tracker on the bag of trash.
Same with a car parked on the street.
As long as the subject is already in the system and subject to parole monitoring or some type of restrictive court order, I see no problem in doing this. The slippery slope comes into play when the cops indulge in fishing expeditions.
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.