Supreme court decision today
- Thread starter Devious_Snake
- Start date
Seems about right.
It would be easier if we just placed GPS trackers on everyone at birth. That way we could just track everyone at all times and police would have a much easier time solving crime. I wonder who should be in charge of the database?
I agree with the Supreme Court, you should have to have a search warrant, I mean your are searching correct? Also if you really think that cops shouldn't need a warrant for this, how about I attach a gps to your cop car and track it so you don't catch me? It works both ways, criminals need to be caught but it must be done in a manner that keeps police from infringing on rights in all cases.
I want more details.
Do the cops have to show the vehicle owner the warrant. And would this mean the registered owner or the holder of the pink slip?
Or do they just have to show it to the car?
Do the cops have to show the vehicle owner the warrant. And would this mean the registered owner or the holder of the pink slip?
Or do they just have to show it to the car?
many police departments gps the police cars and keep track of them. following a car and tracking its movements is not the same as searching for something. also this isnt just tracking anyone, its criminals persons of interest in active investigations. Repo companies do it all the time, why cant the police to catch a murderer, a child rapist, terrorists?
whatever, no skin off my back by all means let the savages roam free
well at this point im guessing like a normal search warrant you will have to go to a judge and give him the facts and what you have thus far; what you expect to discover and how it will help nail a certain criminal you are trying to get. if they decide that you have to present the warrant to the person you are following then you have alerted them to the investigation no? now they can take steps to cover up making the warrant useless...decisions like this put a stop to anything police are working on until they come out with some guidelines as far as GPS goes
Ever hear of innocent until proven guilty? Would you want someone tracking the exact whereabout of your son/daughter? Where would the line be drawn to determine if someone is to be a suspect? Lol just team up with Apple, you'd have the locations of at least a few million people.
unless you have a real understanding of police work and the hoops we have to jump through, say nothing! unfortunately for us, we are guilty until proven innocent thats just the truth. For the rest of society, sure all kinds of rights which many are fair and necessary! thats why there is a difference between just tracking everyone like apple does, and us tracking actual suspects with information we already have. And dont worry, with how crazy this world is, ill track my own kids to keep them safe because i wont need paperwork or permission to track their phone unlike us police who have to call apple, fill out paperwork, give them a reason we need to track someone and hope they comply(because they dont have to).
To simplify if your kid goes missing and you call the police, its going to be faster for you to track them than it will for us....there are many scenarios where tracking someone could save their life. Im hoping that they come out with some exceptions to this ruling then this way i wont have problem with the requirement for a warrant if we are just tracking a drug dealer. But there are some exigent circumstances that as a man, not an officer, i would want the cops to have the ability to do anything they can to catch a real criminal, regardless of any privacy issues
maybe you might wanna read the article about what he was arrested for...in short let me present this scenario however horrible: your kid dies in that guys nightclub, where he scored the drugs. Many other people have overdosed at the club...the police know this guy is moving/selling drugs through the club but when they go in, the drugs and cash are somewhere else...so what do we do at a dead end? we adapt and find a way to track this guy and see where hes keeping his stash and drugs. Bam we track him and get him, therefore getting the drug dealer partly responsible for your kids death off the street. Would you as a parent not feel some sense of justice? or would you rather me come to your house and say "well sorry we got no other info, and since they wont grant us permission to follow this guy, hes getting away scott free so sorry for your loss" would you then be satisfied with that? I know as a parent i wouldn't
just something to think about
But That's just one case and maybe the parents should think about why their kid is trying to score lethal drugs! Are all suspects guilty? No, then why should they all be treated as if they were? If someone robs my workplace, and I work there, does the Police automatically get to destroy my right to privacy and track me 24/7? That's insanity!
Last edited:
trust me, i know why people would say "yea the decision makes sense" and yes in many ways it does to prevent police abuse of power, or violating peoples civil rights, trust me im not in agreement with that kind of police work. However when we have something to build on and we need a little more on a specific person, a known criminal why cant we have just a little room to get more and nail the bastard? especially if we are mostly doing some surveillance to get info and possibly stumbling upon a crime ring? or when those special circumstances arise when we have missing children, a serial rapist, murderer? criminals have also adapted and gotten smarter over time, and police have to adapt in order to keep up with how these people get away with crimes...it sucks to look someone in the face and say "i wish i could do more, but my hands are tied"
so trust me im not advocating we follow anyone at anytime whenever we want, i just prefer that they lay out some guidelines and exceptions instead of these blanket decisions that leave us scrambling for answers...warrants arent always issued at will, its actually a bit difficult to get one and thats my major issue with this because in police work time can be your worst enemy or your greatest ally
so trust me im not advocating we follow anyone at anytime whenever we want, i just prefer that they lay out some guidelines and exceptions instead of these blanket decisions that leave us scrambling for answers...warrants arent always issued at will, its actually a bit difficult to get one and thats my major issue with this because in police work time can be your worst enemy or your greatest ally
Definitely a bad situation for sure, but my concern (as should be all citizens) is how do we guarantee that this is never abused, and where do we draw the line? Giving the gov't the ability to potentially track someones every move over suspicion is a scary thought. If there is probable cause, get a warrant. If there is an greater issue with obtaining warrants, then fix that part.
The gov't has a terrible track record when it comes to protecting our rights. Little by little our rights are whittled away, and I am not comfortable with where this country is heading I don't trust the gov't, and that will never change.
Last edited:
Of course warrants aren't issued at will... that's what they're for. If you have enough evidence to be issued a warrant, you should be allowed to track your suspect.
wow i mean seriously? re read what i wrote, i said "partly responsible" because yea maybe the kid made the decision to use the drugs, but the drug dealer provided it, brought them into a club where people go to have fun, not die! you think you as a parent can control your kid 24/7? did you not remember being young?
and if someone robs your workplace, why would the police track YOU? are you thinking before you speak? unless they think it was an inside job and you are a suspect? plus you have no right to privacy at your workplace, your boss could give us permission to search, your just an employee you dont live there! come on bro just stop...:nonono:
ok i can agree with you on the government part, cuz quite frankly im not a fan either of how things are going...however im talking about police, not the feds. at the local level...as i said a warrant is not that easy to get, through some surveillance we might be able to add more therefore getting us a warrant to conduct a search...if we simply follow the guy present our facts and say" were pretty sure this is the stash house" the judge might be inclined. I understand your concern and im with you on it, thats why I stated some guidelines be put in place to be sure it is not misused...im not advocating a police type state
probable cause is not always available or obvious, thats why we are allowed to use "reasonable suspicion" which allows us to dig further and obtain probable cause...there are steps we have to take
if you think citizens have less and less rights, imagine cops? we have less rights than citizens, not entitled to certain protections or freedoms believe it or not...and criminals can get away with far too much with all the technicalities and liberal BS
Last edited:
Let's break it down..
You can easily enter a club to have fun, be offered drugs to PURCHASE and say no. However, if you go to said club, snort a line of cocaine followed by a large dose of MDMA and whatever else the line of dealers threw into it, then you die and the dealer is the one at fault? And my rights should be infringed on now? If I eat 24 Big Mac's and die, should the cashier at Mickey D's be charged for manslaughter?
If the dealer is caught handing drugs and receiving money, by all means track him! But if there's a rumor that a tall kid named John is selling drugs so we're going to track all 6ft+ John's in the area... that's no bueno.
Basically, you shouldnt have to track your kids 24/7 as long as you know they understand the consequences of taking certain drugs.. or doing anything illegal.
Now on my example of my workplace being robbed and me being tracked is that since I work there, I could be considered a possible suspect. And if I'm a possible suspect I could then be tracked... again no bueno.
I'm just a little conservative on this one I guess. Great topic nonetheless
It's a sticky situation for sure. I guess since we are a civilized society, with personal freedom being a big part of it, we need to err on the side of caution here, even if that means putting some things at a disadvantage. The gov't is the gov't. Local, state, federal are all the same to me. If one level can bend or twist the laws, they all can. Just on a different scale. It's a very slippery slope.
Listen i understand what your saying, because quite frankly many people cause themselves to be victims based on their stupid decisions! However a club owner who is also a drug dealer is not a good guy, hes exposing people to the illegal drugs a serious problem that will never go away. People know you can die from the use of these, including a drug dealer knows that! yet he keeps selling it, never thinking twice about how many lives are ruined on account of him hustling and making his paper? i find it that to be a problem, and if we can at least eliminate him then we prevent someone making a stupid decision and purchasing the drugs and dying from them. Yes people are stupid I know, thats why we have to keep things away from them so they dont mess up their lives! get it? all the drug education in the world wont stop someone from at least trying them. So comparing that to someone who dies from a heart attack eating big macs everyday is not the same, mcdonalds isnt illegal, yet lol.
its the same difference as someone who performs euthanasia, a person is sick, wants to die, needs help doing so. there wish is granted but the person helping them gets charged with murder? why? if we can charge them with murder for contributing to the death, why cant we charge the drug dealer, he also contributed to the death didnt he?:shrug:
yea you shouldnt have to track your kids, but the world is changed alot in the past 20 years....seems like a smart thing to do now to me
im not saying they should track you in your example if your a suspect, they are going to investigate and dig, and more than likely get you to crack during an interview anyway. So no im not they should immediately do that, but it could be a last resort, maybe following you would lead them to where you are hiding the 10 mil you took??
the surveillance should be on a case by case basis and under certain circumstances and after some criteria has been met...so like i said "guidelines"
yes a good topic i think, good info for both sides, LEO's and citizens...this is why i posted it to make everyone aware of it
Users who are viewing this thread
