Skip to comments.
Police Turn to Secret Weapon: GPS Device
Washington Post ^
| August 13, 2008
| Ben Hubbard
Posted on 08/17/2008 8:54:24 AM PDT by Eric Blair 2084
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-77 next last
4th Amendment violation? Thoughts?....
To: Eric Blair 2084
FReepers have been harping on this for years....and it's only going to get worse.
I'm glad it allowed them to catch this POS, though.
2
posted on
08/17/2008 8:56:33 AM PDT
by
Psycho_Bunny
(Islam: Imagine a clown car.........with guns.)
To: Psycho_Bunny
Yeah, I have mixed emotions about this one too...
Sort of like Osama bin Laden driving off a cliff in my new car. (with GPS Satellite Navigation)
3
posted on
08/17/2008 9:03:39 AM PDT
by
Eric Blair 2084
(Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms shouldn't be a federal agency...it should be a convenience store.)
To: Eric Blair 2084
We have a corrupt cop in my town and IA hired a PI to put a GPS on his cruiser so they could track him. The cop found the GPS, held a press conference with is attorney and sued the dept. for racial harrasment (he’s black). He’s still on the force and has a multi-million dollar lawsuit pending.
4
posted on
08/17/2008 9:07:46 AM PDT
by
Rebelbase
(Black dogs and bacon bombs.)
To: Eric Blair 2084
They put a Global Positioning System device on Foltz's van...
Seems about the same as tapping a phone or surveillance
5
posted on
08/17/2008 9:07:52 AM PDT
by
Las Vegas Ron
(Election '08, the year McCain defined the word "dilemma")
To: Eric Blair 2084
I honestly don't see any difference between using GPS to track a suspect and having a detail of undercover detectives following him around, other than the fact that it is a lot cheaper and a lot more effective.
6
posted on
08/17/2008 9:09:06 AM PDT
by
E. Pluribus Unum
(Public policy should never become the captive of a scientific-technological elite. -- Ike Eisenhower)
To: Eric Blair 2084
In the long run I doubt if the courts look at electronic following any different than physical following.
7
posted on
08/17/2008 9:09:35 AM PDT
by
org.whodat
(Republicans should support the SAM Walton business model, and then drill???)
To: Eric Blair 2084
I’ve never believed invasion of privacy is out of bounds unless it occurs on your own property. Even the fourth amendment only says you should be secure in your person and personal effects and to me that says that the police shouldn’t be able to assault you and steal your property. I have no trouble with the state knowing where someone is if they’re under suspicion. The state still has to prove guilt beyond a resonable doubt and grant all legal protections during trial, which is substantial. I don’t care if there are cameras in public places, either. If I’m not doing anything wrong, there is photographic proof that I’m not.
8
posted on
08/17/2008 9:10:13 AM PDT
by
TheThinker
(Capitalism is the natural result of a democratic government.)
To: Eric Blair 2084
If the POS outright owns the car, I have a problem under the fourth amendment. That said though, if a financial house has ownership in the car (they financed), and authorizes the GPS, no problem!
9
posted on
08/17/2008 9:10:48 AM PDT
by
Issaquahking
(Obamacide - how to kill a nation in one easy election.)
To: Eric Blair 2084
Two thoughts - the puke was caught about a mile from my house, so I say hang him.
Having said that, why did the cops fail to get a warrant?
10
posted on
08/17/2008 9:19:01 AM PDT
by
patton
(cuiquam in sua arte credendum)
To: Issaquahking
I suppose you could program the GPS device to stop sending in areas which are presumptively private, and not otherwise visible to the public. But, when his vehicle is on the streets or in a place where the public is invited, where the police could observe him is they had the manpower and budget to tail (the old fashioned way) him 24x7.
To: Issaquahking
On*Star and his cell phone could provide the same info couldn’t they?
12
posted on
08/17/2008 9:20:52 AM PDT
by
null and void
(Barack zerObama - International Man of Mystery...)
To: Eric Blair 2084
It should require a warrant, which is a minor inconvenience (afterall, if there is nothing wrong with their request, the police have nothing to worry about). I mean, what happens when the person they track (for days) turns out not to be of interest? The police just go and remove the GPS and nobody hears about it again (no harm right?)...perfect recipe for blind fishing expeditions. If there is no oversight for these sorts of government powers, the government may as well mandate that every motor vehicle must have a GPS tracking system linked to a police database. After all, it is no different than having a detective trail every citizen (aside from being cheaper and more efficient!), and if you have nothing to hide, why worry? Think of the children!
David Lee Foltz Jr., who had served 17 years in prison for rape...
Another successful rehabilitation! All of those criminals mentioned in the article will receive a paltry sentence and be recycled back into the community. These career criminals provide the justification for expanding government powers, and sometimes I think this is by design (though that would be evidence of competence - more likely is that this is the natural progression of the state via gross incompetence).
13
posted on
08/17/2008 9:25:51 AM PDT
by
M203M4
(True Universal Suffrage: Pets of dead illegal-immigrant felons voting Democrat (twice))
To: Eric Blair 2084; Larry Lucido
As a former Sheriffs Deputy we had ROPE teams. Repeat Offender Enforcement.... Career bad guys have bad habits. .....now with GPS which is no less invasive than a wiretap or search warrant that has to be justified to a judge still, such repeat offenders can be watched “better”. Criminals subject themselves to a lifetime of woes when they break the law. They pay their debt to society yet can never lose that record. Trends are used to track all sorts of activity from consumers to terrorists. A criminal record is included in a profile to narrow down who is local and may have revived their old “bad habit” as in this case.
Just the way I observed it .........right or wrong that is what I saw and experienced. No sympathy for criminals....ever.
14
posted on
08/17/2008 9:33:29 AM PDT
by
Squantos
(Be polite. Be professional. But, have a plan to kill everyone you meet)
To: org.whodat
In the long run I doubt if the courts look at electronic following any different than physical following.That's been the view so far. If I were a judge in a lower court, I would spend extra time writing this opinion. It's sure to be reviewed by a higher court.
15
posted on
08/17/2008 9:41:33 AM PDT
by
Eric Blair 2084
(Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms shouldn't be a federal agency...it should be a convenience store.)
To: Wally_Kalbacken
Amendment IV 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.
Again, if the POS outright owns the vehicle, they have no case. If a loan is made to buy the car, then, with permission from the financing house, you can place the GPS.
16
posted on
08/17/2008 9:42:56 AM PDT
by
Issaquahking
(Obamacide - how to kill a nation in one easy election.)
To: null and void
Providing he has either on board...and again, perceived actual ownership in totality.
17
posted on
08/17/2008 9:45:05 AM PDT
by
Issaquahking
(Obamacide - how to kill a nation in one easy election.)
To: Eric Blair 2084
The woman's coalition at college had a bumper sticker
DISARM RAPISTS
Sounds good to me.
18
posted on
08/17/2008 9:46:57 AM PDT
by
mountainlion
(concerned conservative.)
To: Eric Blair 2084
I’d say do whatever it takes to catch these P’sOS. We can’t make everybody happy. I’m sure the libs out there and the aclu will try to find a way to fight this GPS use as soon as they get done springing all these criminals.
To: Squantos
Thanks for the insight. I think I’d rather not know what the police really do. It’s probably scary. May be necessary but still scary.
20
posted on
08/17/2008 9:50:02 AM PDT
by
Eric Blair 2084
(Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms shouldn't be a federal agency...it should be a convenience store.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-77 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson