high court: warrant needed for gps tracking - best car alarm with gps tracking
Washington's Supreme Court ruled in a unanimous decision on Monday that police could not install GPS equipment on the suspect's car to track their actions without obtaining a warrant in advance.
A gps device helped the authorities connect Washington, D. C. C.
Nightclub owner Antoine Jones lives in a house in the suburbs where money and drugs are stored.
He was sentenced to life imprisonment.
A federal appeals court in Washington overturned Jones's conviction for a drug plot because police installed GPS equipment on his car and then followed his month-long operation without a warrant.
Google's cloud service was interrupted. protesters in the Virginia Beach shooting incident in Connecticut state have interrupted Harris's Supreme Court.
Deputy Judge Antonin Scalia said that the government installed GPS equipment and was used to monitor the movement of vehicles, which constituted a search, which meant that a search warrant was needed.
"By connecting the equipment to the Jeep Jones is using," wrote Scalia, officials encroached on a protected area.
CBS News legal analyst Andrew Cohen says today's decision is a victory for civil liberties and a fourth amendment to the failure of law enforcement officials
"Perhaps the biggest surprise is that the judges agree," Cohen said . ".
"All the judges agreed that placing a GPS monitor on the suspect's car triggered the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.
But the court did not say whether the search was reasonable.
Scalia wrote down the main comments of the three in the case.
Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, and Sonia ramayor also joined him.
Sotomayor also wrote one of two consent opinions that agreed to the results of the Jones case for different reasons.
Judge Samuel Alito also wrote an agreement saying the court should further deal with the issue of GPS tracking wireless devices such as mobile phones.
Justice Ruth Bud Ginsberg, Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan also joined him. The case is U. S. v. Jones, 10-1259.
Cohen believes that the case, or a similar case, may be referred to the court again, "because the judges have not ruled on whether the exact search here is reasonable.
In other words, even if the Fourth Amendment applies, the use of GPS devices in some cases may be considered constitutional.
"New SWFObject ("", "ap-scotus-11-
12 "," 610 "," 560 "," 10 "," FFFFFF "); so. addParam("base",""); so. addParam(
"Allow full screen", "true "); so. addParam(
"AllowScriptAccess", "always "); so.
Installation (""); so. write("ap-scotus-11-12");