Wisconsin court upholds GPS tracking by police

[lib2DaBone]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/technology/chi-ap-wi-gps-police,0,5867383.story

(snip)

MADISON, Wis. - Wisconsin police can attach GPS to cars to secretly track anybody's movements without obtaining search warrants, an appeals court ruled Thursday.

However, the District 4 Court of Appeals said it was "more than a little troubled" by that conclusion and asked Wisconsin lawmakers to regulate GPS use to protect against abuse by police and private individuals.

As the law currently stands, the court said police can mount GPS on cars to track people without violating their constitutional rights -- even if the drivers aren't suspects.

Officers do not need to get warrants beforehand because GPS tracking does not involve a search or a seizure, Judge Paul Lundsten wrote for the unanimous three-judge panel based in Madison.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

... The police would never abuse this... They would never open e-mail, listen in on phone calls or ask how much cash I put in the bank.

Just go ahead and inject the microchip in my arm already..

[madaboutharry]

1. It will be interesting to see how this

plays out as it moves up further in the appeals process. It would seem likely this is headed for the SC.

[RaleighNCDUer]

2. I'm not sure I like it either, but technically it is correct.

There is no provision in the constitution that the government can't have you followed in public places, and a tracking device does even less than that because it does not follow the person around, but only the vehicle.

There is a potential upside for such a ruling - if a guy is a stalker and his victim has a protection order against him, this could give evidence (though not proof) that he is driving past her place ten times a day, is parking for long stretches a block from her place, etc.

[AndyTiedye]

5. The GPS Will Also Report Your Vehicle's Whereabouts on Private Roads, Driveways, Garages, etc..

There is no provision in the constitution that the government can't have you followed in public places

The GPS doesn't know the difference between public and private roads and places.
Once the vehicle leaves the public road, they are violating our privacy rights by tracking without a warrant.

[RaleighNCDUer]

8. Good point - I had not thought it through on all points.

If someone was tailing you on the public road they could see you pull into a garage or behind a house on private property and know you were there, so the GPS wouldn't give any excess information in that case. But there are private roads and, particularly outside the congestion of the East Coast, very large private properties where anyone tailing would be stopped at the property entrance, and that would constitute an unwarranted search, IMO.

There is also the complication of unjustified searches being prompted by this - the DEA finds a large patch of marijuana growing 100' off the road. Your GPS shows you parked on that road in the middle of nowhere. Would that be considered evidence enough to issue a search warrant for your car? Maybe you had a flat, or needed to take a piss, or just wanted to spend 5 minutes looking at a hawk perched on a fence post. Or maybe you wanted to check on your crop. The GPS can't tell WHY you stopped - only that you did.

Perhaps, like wiretaps, a judge should authorize GPS tracking - if someone IS a stalker, it would be a good way to help make sure that person is not violating court orders without draining manpower, which is the single biggest problem dealing with violators - you just can't physically watch potential problems ALL the time. At the same time it would prevent fishing expeditions - just like any other warrant there would have to be a well-founded suspicion of illegal behavior before a judge would allow it. That would then allow the tracking onto private property.

[AndyTiedye]

11. Judicial Oversight is Needed, in the Form of a Warrant

I would have no problem with this, pursuant to a warrant duly issued by a judge.
That is how the boundary between proper police work and privacy rights has been establshed.

[Freddie Stubbs]

14. So, any evidence of movements on private roads may be inadmissible without a warrant, but

on public roads it would be ok.

[cabluedem]

22. Seconded. Invasion of privacy too becuase a car is private property. Pot-frog-slow-boil. nt

[dysfunctional press]

25. not at all.

parking lots and drive-thru restaurants are also private property- and people can be followed/observed when in those places.
also- a gps unit on a car tracks a car, not a person- and i'm not aware of cars having any constitutional rights.

[wuvuj]

29. The cops can and will....

...get into your car on these properties...they do this on the flimsiest excuses. You won't know it has happened...because they don't want people to generally know this is going on. They will typically have a key to your car and can disable your alarm if needed.

[dysfunctional press]

30. they can easily cut a key from your vin number.

i had to call a locksmith once when i locked my keys in the car in a parking lot a ways from home- he had a key cut in just a couple minutes, right there on the spot.

[wuvuj]

37. They can also....

...cut a "bad" blank when you have a key made...once you are gone they can use this to make a functioning key.

[varkam]

26. The Constituion doesn't say anything about many rights we are presumed to have.

The right to privacy, for example, is something that the founding fathers were mum on, but which has been read into the Constitution via cases like Roe v Wade.

IOW, just cause the Constitution doesn't explicitly say anything about a given right or whatnot doesn't mean that it isn't there.

[jsamuel]

3. This is a good case of the law being correctly interpreted, but needing change or definition.

[SteelPenguin]

4. Here's why I don't like this ruling....

Police can follow anyone they want without a warrant. I've talked to more than one police officer who has said something to the effect of "If you follow anyone long enough they'll break SOME law and you can pull them over."

I have no problem with this, though if the police are doing that just to be dicky...well that's abuse of power imho...but I don't have a problem with them following people.

Tagging cars though... It's an invasion of privacy.

Why can't the police 'bug' a house with a listening device without a warrant. If they were able to stand outside the house, on public property, and hear the conversation inside the open window it would be legal for them to use what they hear. Just like if someone left that house and drove away they'd be able to follow them to where they were going. However, it's another level to place a bug in the house itself in order to 'enhance' the conversation.

If it's legal to do tag a car they're placing something on or in your car, without your permission mind you, that enhances their tracking of you.

What's the difference between putting it on your car or in your purse, in your cellphone, on your person? If they can legally tag your car without your knowledge why not your cellphone, as you carry that with you even outside the car, and it's not "you" it's just a piece of technology you take with you like your car.

if they dont' need a warrant, what would prevent this ruling from leading to a world where the police are able to constantly track every cellphone location?

The arguments of 'well if you're not guilty of something then what's the difference?' are moot. They've been rolled over with listening devices. It's an invasion of privacy. Period.

I don't like where this is going....

[Eric J in MN]

6. I consider it a search.

Of course they can obtain more information this way then by following a car around. That is the whole point.

[Jeep789]

7. Hmm, does that mean we can attach GPS devices to

police cars and track them too?

[BR_Parkway]

12. We would have more right to - as taxpayers, we do technically own

them. UPS is free to use GPS to track their own fleet, I don't see why we wouldn't be - even before this ruling

[petronius]

9. Even if it's not a 4th Amendment issue, how about the 5th?

The police claim that the GPS gave them nothing that a witnessing officer wouldn't have seen, but by causing the suspect to haul around the tracker, they turned him into the witness (albeit an anknowing one)...

[unblock]

13. ding ding ding ding ding! we have a winner!

just as there is a big legal difference between call phone calls and landline calls because the technology is different (broadcast vs. point-to-point), there is a big legal difference between inducing someone to transmit incriminating information vs. obtaining that information independently.

e.g., if they were to monitor your car's movements from a satellite or helicopter or trailing vehicle or cameras at intersections or some other technology that wasn't bound to your vehicle, then there would be no legal problem.

but if they attach a devise to your car, then YOU are providing the information that may incriminate you.

[dysfunctional press]

18. how is it any different than 'being tailed' by an unmarked car...?

[varkam]

28. The only problem with that is that the 'witness' doesn't have to do anything affirmative.

All they have to do is what they would normally do.

[Toucano]

10. How is tracking someone's movements with satellites NOT searching for them?

Surveillance is a type of search.

[dysfunctional press]

17. technically- you're tracking the car's movements.

[Toucano]

19. I accept that argument.

As long as the state wants to know where the car is, and, if appropriate, they file charges against the car using the evidence obtained via this type of SEARCH, that'yd be cool.

[DCKit]

15. I wonder if you'd be held liable if you found and destroyed the GPS unit. n/t

[dysfunctional press]

16. use of cars on public roads is licensed by the state...

legally, i don't see how this is materially any different than "putting a tail" on a suspect. :shrug:

[Fumesucker]

20. As pointed out up above..

Would a tail be legally entitled to go onto private property while following a suspect?

[dysfunctional press]

24. of course.

shopping mall parking lots are private property, for instance- as are drive-thru restaurants. and they'd have no problem following them there.

[Fumesucker]

27. *Any* private property?

How about somewhere posted "no trespassing"?

[dysfunctional press]

32. it would probably depend on the circumstances.

"reasonable suspicion" is a large blanket.

plus- the gps unit is tracking a car, not a person. do cars have rights?

[Fumesucker]

33. Nice dodge..

And a tail is tracking a car too..

Edited to add: Or at least I can easily think of scenarios where that would be the case, it's not always possible to know whether a given person is in a given car even if you are tailing it.

[dysfunctional press]

34. nice one yourself.

on edit, that is.

[Fumesucker]

35. So you think it's possible to always know when someone is in a given vehicle?

That's not a dodge, it's a fact of life.

Just this morning I took my grandkids to school, the rear windows on my truck are medium tinted, the teacher who opens the doors didn't see my grandkid in the rear seat even though she was standing close enough to open the doors.

[Vickers]

21. I would totally fuck one of those things up if I found one on my car.

"Hey, it fell off!"

:rofl:

[Vidar]

23. We are a police state.

[Soylent Brice]

31. K&R

a must-read for everyone.

[Ezlivin]

36. GPS Scrambler - $99.95

I've found my next business!

Just like the firms that make radar detectors, I'll make my money from selling GPS Scramblers. After all, it's not illegal to block or interfere with GPS signals reaching your car.

Do I have any partners?