This site uses cookies to offer you a better browsing experience. Find out more about how to manage cookies, or dismiss this message and continue to use cookies.

US argues to preserve GPS tracking

Boyd 1974 Points
edited November -1 in GPS Discussions
From Friday's Wall Street Journal

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303552104577438570632493222.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
The government maintains "that a warrant is not needed for a GPS search, as the Court…did not resolve that question," a Justice Department spokeswoman said. Nevertheless, she said, the department has "advised agents and prosecutors going forward to take the most prudent steps and obtain a warrant for new or ongoing investigations" in most cases.

The government's awkward position—saying search warrants are not needed but advising agents to seek warrants anyway—highlights the unanswered questions about digital tracking techniques that remain in the wake of the court's privacy decision in U.S. v. Jones in January.

Comments

  • patruns 10 Points
    More reporting just muddying the waters further. I was under the impression the court was fairly clear in that they ruled it involved a case of tresspass because the feds attached a tracking device to personal property and that they did not rule on whether tracking through other means required a warrant as they did not need to to address the case at hand.

    Of course, maybe I am now muddying the waters..... :P
  • Seldom 0 Points
    From the same article Boyd cited.
    Because of the way the government framed the argument in the lower courts—that GPS tracking wasn't a search at all—the justices did not consider another Justice Department argument. In that argument, the government said that such tracking is a reasonable search that does not require a warrant, because police could accomplish the same goal through another method that requires no warrant—physically following a suspect's vehicle around the clock.
  • Boyd 1974 Points
    From the article
    Susan Freiwald, a professor at the University of San Francisco School of Law who studies electronic surveillance, said the government's arguments violate "the spirit, if not the letter, of the Jones decision."

    But other experts say the government could argue that GPS installation falls into the small category of exceptions to the search-warrant requirements. Some searches at border crossings, in schools and stop-and-frisks have been exempted from the warrant requirement.
  • cuc tu 91 Points
    It's all a total and complete disregard for the US constitution. What else is new? Just the rate of devolution here...

    The US military is now actively engaged in surveillance for and in support of local law enforcement using drones in the US.

    Roughly 18,000 police agencies are now gearing up for domestically deployed drones...

    There is a program to install two way audio/video surveillance on just about every dense street corner from coast to coast.

    Every act now seems justified as an exception or falls under the rule of homeland security and the patriot act.

    I'm very pessimistic about "our" direction and future...
  • babj615 41 Points
    It's all a total and complete disregard for the US constitution. What else is new? Just the rate of devolution here...

    Every act now seems justified as an exception or falls under the rule of homeland security and the patriot act.

    I'm very pessimistic about "our" direction and future...
    Agreed!

    Future's gonna get a lot darker before it gets any brighter...
Sign In or Register to comment.
↑ Top