Well there is that expectation of privacy thingy.
In any case, if the law has evidence the person isn't abiding the laws then a warrant isn't a very high bar to overcome.
GPS Surveillance without a Warrant: United States v. Antoine Jones
- Thread starter madanthonywayne
- Start date
Well there is that expectation of privacy thingy.
In any case, if the law has evidence the person isn't abiding the laws then a warrant isn't a very high bar to overcome.
You’d be surprised at how many police officers agree that it is a violation of the fourth amendment. GPS units are a little different from previous technology ruled as just an extension of the sense, e.g. binoculars, beeper, helicopters, etc. With the beepers, they had to have a visual while following the car. Therefore, you knew who was actually driving it. With the GPS units, it could be anyone. Then there’s the issue of the cars being on private property where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. There’s a lot of personal information that can be gathered by a GPS unit. I’m a law abiding citizen but I wouldn’t want a police officer to know my every move.
Hellenologophobia
Registered Senior Member
Pandaemoni
Valued Senior Member
He means illegal without a warrant.
Having just read the opinion, that's not actually what they literally said. The Court rules that using a GPS locater on a person's car was a "search." The Court expressly said:
Usually a search requires a warrant, but there are exceptions, one notably being the "automobile exception" to the warrant requirement.
If the Supreme Court meant to overturn the automobile exception (or deem it inapplicable in GPS cases, it's very strange that they didn't say so. Actually, it's strange to me that it didn't come up at all even if they didn't mean to make an exception to the exception.
It's a strange ruling. It probably means that a warrant is required, but that is reading between the lines and to some extent assuming the automobile exception no longer applies. If courts rule that this ends the automobile exception, police can't search vehicles without a warrant. My guess if that courts will rule this to be an exception to the automobile exception, but that every other search of a vehicle is exempt from the warrant requirement. That's a weird rule though, because the law is clear that on probable cause they can break the lock on your car door and the glove compartment, then rummage through your personal effects in the car, all without a warrant, but they cannot attach a small device to the outside of the car.
I'd also guess that a split between the circuits will eventually arise.
Last edited:
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRGHHHHHHHHHH!
No it does not!
The act required that a percentage of phones are locatable to within certain distances, and this is accomplished using triangulation from the cell masts.
Even smartphones lacked GPS chips until about 5 years ago. Basic phones DO NOT HAVE GPS chips in them.
A phone being locatable ≠ GPS.
We discussed this before, here:
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=107655
Look where England ISN'T going. Cars in the UK do NOT have GPS fitted by law. The GPS units people buy are for their cars do not transmit any location data. They are for the car users information only. There is NO satellite observation of UK drivers, period.
The system described (badly) in that article is taking aspects of systems in place, and gluing them into some Chimera that cannot live.
We have static speed cameras, and also 'average speed' cameras that work over an area. Calling them 'spy cameras that ID the vehicle' is a paranoid slant,... of course they ID the vehicle! If a vehicle breaks a speed limit (and therefore the law!) it's number plate is read. Number plates exist for the sole purpose of IDing a vehicle. It not a matter of spying, but being held accountable for the vehicle. Let's put this in some perspective, most accidents happen in areas where there is congestion, towns and cities, and the speed limit is 30mph in built up areas generally, and many people speed. Hitting a pedestrian at 30mph or under, and they have a decent chance of survival,... at 40mph, not much. The limit makes sense, and without enforcement, too many people would speed, and put lives in danger. These measures are to keep pedestrians and motorists safe. And it works, the UK has very safe roads, and very low death rates, despite being a densely populated country. In fact, we have about a quarter of the rate of road deaths than the USA. It's not all because of speed cameras of course.