justices invoke '1984' during gps case arguments - best car alarm with gps tracking
George Orwell's £ 1984 was of great concern in the Supreme Court on Tuesday as judges were working to resolve a problem that made the use of modern technology in law enforcement not conducive to personal privacy interests.
What is in dispute is a case of testing whether the police must obtain a search warrant before placing a GPS tracking device on the car to monitor the movement of the suspect. A joint FBI-
Local police task forces secretly installed a tracking device in the car suspected of drug lord Antoine Jones.
The GPS accurately positioned the car 24 hours a decade, lasting nearly a month, eventually leading to the arrest of Jones and the seizure of 97 kilograms of cocaine and $850,000 in a hideout --
Evidence of his conviction in the pastBut the U. S.
The District Court of Appeal of Colombia quashed the decision because the police failed to obtain a warrant before placing the device on the car.
The government appealed to the Supreme Court, where judges heard the debate on Tuesday. From the get-
Go, the judges took out the knife for Jones's lawyer, Stephen Leka, and the attorney general of the government, Michael draben.
The difference is that this is Dreeben's 80 debates in court, he cleverly refutes the judge's issue, while the Leckar, who won the court of appeal, has never debated before in the Supreme Court.
In his argument, Dreeben urged the court to stick to the course of the past --
A search warrant is not required to monitor activities carried out on public roads.
However, Chief Justice John Roberts, who appears to be skeptical about applying this rationale to new technologies, asked if the government could "install GPS devices on our cars and monitor us?
Dreeben responded that, according to the theory of the government and the precedent of the court, "the judge of this court was driving on the street, there is no greater privacy expectation than the FBI tracking them around the clock "for GPS devices connected to cars ".
Judge Stephen Breyer asserted in a more ominous tone: "If you win the case, then, there is nothing to stop the police or the government from monitoring the public movement of every citizen in the United States 24 hours a day, "this situation" sounds like 1984.
The discussion of Orwell's dystopian novel appeared five times in the debate.
Judge Sonia Sotomayor asked dreyban to explain the difference between unauthorized use of GPS equipment and the general search agency, which angered the Founding Fathers and prompted the Fourth Amendment
However, Dreeben insists that installing a GPS device on a car is not a search.
He seems to suggest that there are different expectations of privacy in an era of technological progress.
Judge Irina Kagan interjected: "It's too much for me," he hinted that people would think that having robotic devices monitor their actions 24 hours a day violated them.
Judge Samuel Alito, who tried to explain the problem in a different way, said that the "core of the problem" was that it was very difficult to collect personal information until the Internet and computer age.
"But with computers, it becomes so simple to accumulate a lot of information about people. . . .
So what should we do?
But Chief Justice Roberts is more narrowly focused on the government's position that no search warrant is needed.
"Your argument is that it doesn't depend on how much doubt you have or how urgent it is.
Your argument is that you can do it.
It's not necessarily restricted in any way, is it?
Draben replied, "That's right.
"So how hard is it to get a warrant?
Judge Ginsberg raised the issue with government lawyers.
Dreeben admitted that it was not difficult in this case, but pointed out that the search warrant needed to show that there was a possible reason to believe that the crime had occurred, and he said that before there was evidence of the crime, the police used GPS devices most often in the early stages of the investigation.
Sotomayor asked how many GPS devices were used in this way.
Dreeben said he was not aware of local and state usage, but that the number used by federal law enforcement was "very small" every year ".
After Dreeben came to the podium, lawyer Leckar argued that because GPS was placed in jones's car, it was an infringement of his property, equivalent to a seizure in violation of the Constitution, and that his car was commandeered to provide data.
However, the judges are looking for ways to solve a broader problem.
Justice Anthony Kennedy asked what was the difference between installing GPS equipment on the car and placing 30 deputies on the route for monitoring.
"You mean, in my opinion, that the police have to use the most inefficient method," Kennedy said . ".
Leica responded that GPS posed a "serious" threat to privacy because Jones took control of his car and reasonably expected it not to be used to monitor him.
Ginsberg wants to know what is the difference in the surveillance camera system on public streets.
Leka responded that there was no physical invasion of the camera on the street.
Kagan then pointed out that there are so many cameras in London that the police should be able to put together snapshots of where everyone is located.
Leka replied, "it's terrible.
I don't want to live in London in this situation.
"At this point, Judge Antonin Scalia said with a sudden surprise:" Well, if this is terrible, it must be against the constitution.