do police need warrants for gps tracking devices? - best car alarm with gps tracking

by:Kingcobra     2019-10-12
do police need warrants for gps tracking devices?  -  best car alarm with gps tracking
The U. S.
Immersed in tradition, the Supreme Court entered a turbulent world of new technology on Tuesday.
The dispute before the court is whether the police must obtain a search warrant from the judge before they can connect the GPS tracking device to the car, so that they can monitor every movement time of the suspect indefinitely.
This case may have a huge impact on the privacy of the information age.
Naturally, the police want to use new technology to get the goods to the bad guys, while the citizens naturally think that when they leave home, there is still some personal privacy in their car.
This case vividly demonstrates this conflict.
At 2004, the FBIWashington, D. C.
The Metropolitan police task force began investigating the suspect Antoine Jones.
They first got the warrant and then bugged his phone, but Jones was careful about the way he spoke on the phone.
Then they installed a GPS tracking device on his car. for 28 days, every car moved, its location was tracked by satellite, and the information was sent to the FBI every 10 seconds.
The trail led to the arrest of Jones, who also seized 97 kilograms of cocaine and $850,000 in a hiding place.
Jones was convicted of conspiring to distribute drugs, but a group of conservative and liberal judges in the United StatesS.
The Washington appeals court unanimously rejected the decision because the tracking device was installed without a warrant.
The court said that tracking a car for such a long time without the court's authorization violated the Fourth Amendment's prohibition of unreasonable searches.
The government appealed to the United States. S.
The Supreme Court argues that a search warrant is not required when a car is traveling on a public road.
The Supreme Court heard the case on Tuesday.
"It is critical to understand that this case has nothing to do with whether law enforcement can use GPS devices.
This is about whether they should get a search warrant, "said Walter dalinger, a lawyer representing Antoine Jones.
"If the Supreme Court gives a green light to wireless GPS tracking," he added, "then" any officer can install any GPS device on anyone's car, even if the officer believes, when the Supreme Court judge leaves the court, it will be interesting to know where they are going at night.
No one will be immune from installing GPS devices on their vehicles.
"However, the government argues that the Fourth Amendment only prohibits unsecured searches of private spaces, such as inside a house, car or locked desks.
The Supreme Court had previously believed that a search was conducted on a public street.
For example, garbage placed for pickup
No search warrant required.
In addition, the government claims that the GPS device is only an electronic extension of the old device.
Manual monitoring.
Pat Rowan, a former Bush administration federal prosecutor and assistant attorney general, supports the view.
"There is no meaning of the Fourth Amendment to what a person does in a public place," he said: "Whether they are observed walking down the street or driving along the street . ".
Rowan admits that everyone has what he calls an "instinctive reaction" that GPS tracking that is not authorized is too far away.
But, he added, "what you're talking about is a very clear line that the Supreme Court has long drawn up that the police can observe in public, individuals do not have reasonable expectations for privacy.
This is equivalent to allowing the police to conduct very effective secret surveillance of a person for a long time.
"Rowan does say that, in fact, monitoring is almost impossible within a month if it is not found.
That's why GPS changed the rules of the game and, as Rowan said, it's a "huge gospel" for the police ".
So why not get a warrant first?
Because to obtain a search warrant, the police must prove that they are likely to believe that the crime is happening or has occurred.
The government says GPS tracking is particularly useful in the early stages of the investigation-
Before determining the possible cause
"You have a clue about a person, but it's not confirmed," Rowan said . ".
"You don't know what they're doing. This is a low-
This will enable the FBI or any law enforcement agency to collect a great deal of information about their actions without having to go to the judge to defend their investigation.
Dellinger, counsel for the accused, retorted: "That's exactly what the problem is.
"The government's position is that any law enforcement officer has the option to put this device in anyone's car and keep track of what medical appointments you are going to make and what religious groups you will meet, what political activities will you attend.
It's really an extraordinary undertaking, and the key protection is that the neutral district judge will approve it in advance, he said, before you install a GPS device.
Dellinger had a second argument, which was not dealt with by the court of appeal, but it was in the Supreme Court.
The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution not only prohibits unreasonable searches, but also prohibits the seizure of property.
He argued that placing a GPS device outside Jones's car would interfere with Jones's right to ban others from using his car, and the planting of the device constituted an infringement of Jones's property.
This argument does appeal to former assistant attorney general Rowan, who believes that "it doesn't sound right" and that there is no expectation of privacy when a device is secretly attached to a car.
In fact, unscientific sampling of prosecutors revealed that they did hesitate to push the envelope distance with GPS devices.
Former US president David KellyS.
A lawyer in New York, who spent nearly 20 years as federal prosecutor, said he had always believed that a search warrant was needed for a long time.
Term tracking device.
"The four corners of the car are yours," he argued . "
"You have reasonable expectations of privacy at this point.
Kelly admitted that the need for a warrant meant that some bad guys would get away with it.
"Bad luck," he said . "
"Find another way to find that person.
If you can't find the possible reason, do you know?
Maybe you have no reason to get into that car and install that device.
"While today's case involves GPS devices, it may have a huge impact on other devices in the information age.
What about cameras taking pictures on public streets?
When will the phone be tracked when it is turned on?
Defense lawyer Dellinger insists these are different: the camera is fixed and the phone can be turned off.
The Supreme Court is often reluctant to rule boldly on new technologies.
In difficult ways, we learn that the impact of new technologies is unpredictable.
In the 1920 s, when law enforcement began hacking suspects, the court ruled that a search warrant was not required.
In 1967, nearly 40 years later, the court overturned the verdict and said it needed a search warrant.
The court's only ruling on any kind of vehicle tracking device was in 1983.
In this case, the court approved the placement of the pager in the suspect's large container in the car without a warrant.
The police then followed the sound of the pager for a day.
However, the court specifically raised the question of whether --
Authorization is required for long-term tracking devices.
In recent years, the lower courts have divided on this issue.
In Washington, D. C. C.
In writing for the unanimous appeals court panel, Judge Douglas Ginsberg said that the Jones case required a search warrant for its intrusive nature.
"A person who knows all the travel of others can infer whether he is the person who goes to church every week, the alcoholic, the frequent visitor to the gym, the disloyal husband, the outpatient patient who receives medical treatment, partner of a particular individual or political group
He said the police had the potential to carry out 24/7 surveillance a month long by monitoring and tracking suspects, which is "zero ".
When nine-
Chief Justice David Sentelle did not agree with the decision of the Court of Appeal to reject the panel.
"A reasonable expectation of privacy when a person travels on a public highway is zero," he said. "the sum of infinite zeros
The value part is zero.
"When the Ninth Circuit appeals court, based in San Francisco, ruled that a warrant was not required for a GPS case, such objections prevailed on the opposite coast.
When the court refused to reconsider its decision, Alex Kozinski, the chief justice, disagreed. Kozinski, a Romanian communist, immigrated with his parents at the age of 12 in 1962
"There's something creepy.
"Americans are concerned about this secret and despicable behavior," he wrote . "
"For those of us who live under a totalitarian regime, there is a terrible feeling of deja vu.
Custom message
Chat Online 编辑模式下无法使用
Chat Online inputting...