Supreme court decision today

[svtcop]

Two of my friends, and my Half-Brother lost their jobs, and my Father was suspended from the CFD with HALF BENEFITS for 1.5-2 Months prior to conviction. The City doesn't take kindly to City Employees breaking the law. However, I've known a few Chicago LEO's that have been pulled over while under the influence, and were never arrested, suspended, fired, etc. Not really relevant here, just commenting.

All except my Father was not fined/sentenced until AFTER conviction.

That's the point I'm trying to make here. AFTER conviction. Not before. You convicted the deputy before he got his day in court. I go back to my original statement. You say people are afforded the rights of Innocent until proven guilty. That would apply to everyone then, even off duty deputies, due process being afforded to him too

And just to let you know. Officers do pull people over that have had too much to drink and don't charge them. It happens all the time. They find a ride for them or if close enough to their house lock their car door and tell them to foot it home. Is that the best course of action? Maybe not, but officer still do it all around the country.

Not just other cops.

 

[svtcop]

Back on topic...

I agree with SCOTUS on this, believe it or not. Shouldn't have too much trouble finding a Judge to sign a warrant.

 

[Devious_Snake]

That's the point I'm trying to make here. AFTER conviction. Not before. You convicted the deputy before he got his day in court. I go back to my original statement. You say people are afforded the rights of Innocent until proven guilty. That would apply to everyone then, even off duty deputies, due process being afforded to him too

And just to let you know. Officers do pull people over that have had too much to drink and don't charge them. It happens all the time. They find a ride for them or if close enough to their house lock their car door and tell them to foot it home. Is that the best course of action? Maybe not, but officer still do it all around the country.

Not just other cops.

true statement, discretion is applied to everyone equally :beer:

 

[Grabber]

That's the point I'm trying to make here. AFTER conviction. Not before. You convicted the deputy before he got his day in court. I go back to my original statement. You say people are afforded the rights of Innocent until proven guilty. That would apply to everyone then, even off duty deputies, due process being afforded to him too

And just to let you know. Officers do pull people over that have had too much to drink and don't charge them. It happens all the time. They find a ride for them or if close enough to their house lock their car door and tell them to foot it home. Is that the best course of action? Maybe not, but officer still do it all around the country.

Not just other cops.

Fair enough. I've only had one time in my life where I saw an Officer grant someone a "pass" when they were well above legal alcohol limits.

I'll accept that, I did judge the officer prior to him appearing in court. You caught the tater!

Luckily, I don't drive after I've had more than 2 beers, or I wait it out for a few hours prior to driving. I have no reason to drink and drive, let alone cause any trouble for an officer trying to do his job.

If I came off as bashing, my apologies. I have the utmost respect for LEO's and for what they have to do on a daily basis.

Anyhow, go back to your wife, drinking your coke zero, watching porn and watching "Cops" and "Campus PD"

I keed I keed.

:thumbsup:

 

[svtcop]

Fair enough. I've only had one time in my life where I saw an Officer grant someone a "pass" when they were well above legal alcohol limits.

I'll accept that, I did judge the officer prior to him appearing in court. You caught the tater!

Luckily, I don't drive after I've had more than 2 beers, or I wait it out for a few hours prior to driving. I have no reason to drink and drive, let alone cause any trouble for an officer trying to do his job.

If I came off as bashing, my apologies. I have the utmost respect for LEO's and for what they have to do on a daily basis.

Anyhow, go back to your wife, drinking your coke zero, watching porn and watching "Cops" and "Campus PD"

I keed I keed.

:thumbsup:

Sounds like IL is pretty tough on DUI's. Good for them. No sense in taking that chance for many reasons.

:lol: Dude, I'm watching Pocoyo on Nick Jr. :bored: My brain hurts

Wife is at work. And I'm more of a The First 48 kinda guy.

 

[Devious_Snake]

Fair enough. I've only had one time in my life where I saw an Officer grant someone a "pass" when they were well above legal alcohol limits.

I'll accept that, I did judge the officer prior to him appearing in court. You caught the tater!

Luckily, I don't drive after I've had more than 2 beers, or I wait it out for a few hours prior to driving. I have no reason to drink and drive, let alone cause any trouble for an officer trying to do his job.

If I came off as bashing, my apologies. I have the utmost respect for LEO's and for what they have to do on a daily basis.

Anyhow, go back to your wife, drinking your coke zero, watching porn and watching "Cops" and "Campus PD"

I keed I keed.

:thumbsup:

lol...this is fair

:lol: Dude, I'm watching Pocoyo on Nick Jr. :bored: My brain hurts

Wife is at work. And I'm more of a The First 48 kinda guy.

yea me too, and southland, criminal minds....whatever lol

 

[Grabber]

Sounds like IL is pretty tough on DUI's. Good for them. No sense in taking that chance for many reasons.

:lol: Dude, I'm watching Pocoyo on Nick Jr. :bored: My brain hurts

Wife is at work. And I'm more of a The First 48 kinda guy.

They definitely are.

I had a good friend killed by a drunk driver that I grew up with. Haven't really gotten over it yet.

First 48 is some good stuff for sure!

:beer:

 

[esqeddy]

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

Sorry, I didn't have time to read the entire thread, but did want to comment based on the posts above.

First, I am very familiar with what police work entails.

Second, the scenario you present is not realistic. If you "know" the drug dealer is moving/selling drugs, then you have enough probable cause to get a search warrant, unless you "know" based on virtually no evidence. If "they went" into the club and did a search, then they must have already had a search warrant, absent consent or exigent circumstances. If you could get the search warrant to go in, then you could have gotten one for GPS and you should have tracked him a few days before going in, the search warrant wont be stale yet. If they went in and didn't get the search warrant to track him and do so first, well that's just shaby police work.

Although I haven't read the decision, yet, I will be very surprised if they changed decades of decisions that hold that if there are exigent circumstances, a search warrant isn't needed.

If you are a cop with any appreciable experience, you know cops exceed their authority often enough. You also know that the SCOTUS has been leaning hard in favor of law enforcement with its decisions for decades. So, in my humble opinion, your complaints aren't justified.

That not withstanding, pklease keep up the good work and know that your service is highly appreciated, especially by us attorney's who do criminal defense.

 

[Devious_Snake]

Sorry, I didn't have time to read the entire thread, but did want to comment based on the posts above.

First, I am very familiar with what police work entails.

Second, the scenario you present is not realistic. If you "know" the drug dealer is moving/selling drugs, then you have enough probable cause to get a search warrant, unless you "know" based on virtually no evidence. If "they went" into the club and did a search, then they must have already had a search warrant, absent consent or exigent circumstances. If you could get the search warrant to go in, then you could have gotten one for GPS and you should have tracked him a few days before going in, the search warrant wont be stale yet. If they went in and didn't get the search warrant to track him and do so first, well that's just shaby police work.

Although I haven't read the decision, yet, I will be very surprised if they changed decades of decisions that hold that if there are exigent circumstances, a search warrant isn't needed.

If you are a cop with any appreciable experience, you know cops exceed their authority often enough. You also know that the SCOTUS has been leaning hard in favor of law enforcement with its decisions for decades. So, in my humble opinion, your complaints aren't justified.

That not withstanding, pklease keep up the good work and know that your service is highly appreciated, especially by us attorney's who do criminal defense.

though you are correct in certain assessments, im not complaining, but merely giving food for though, because the law is written one way but doesn't account for every situation. Intepretation is needed often at a moments notice, so though you are likely well versed in laws and procedure, you still don't "know" what police work entails. Having time to dissect a case inside of a courtroom is alot different than being on the street doing it. Trust me i know its not easy for lawyers either. Im not going to argue law with you or anything else, but im sure we can agree we are different kinds of players on huge chess board...and yes SCOTUS has sided with law enforcement over the years, as of late some things have been changed that take away from law enforcement (arizona v. gant) im not saying im disagreeing buts thats just one example that removes some old school procedures.

I will say this, thanx for the attaboy, even if it is coming from a defense attorney. :beer:

 

[esqeddy]

though you are correct in certain assessments, im not complaining, but merely giving food for though, because the law is written one way but doesn't account for every situation. Intepretation is needed often at a moments notice, so though you are likely well versed in laws and procedure, you still don't "know" what police work entails. Having time to dissect a case inside of a courtroom is alot different than being on the street doing it. Trust me i know its not easy for lawyers either. Im not going to argue law with you or anything else, but im sure we can agree we are different kinds of players on huge chess board...and yes SCOTUS has sided with law enforcement over the years, as of late some things have been changed that take away from law enforcement (arizona v. gant) im not saying im disagreeing buts thats just one example that removes some old school procedures.

I will say this, thanx for the attaboy, even if it is coming from a defense attorney. :beer:

We both have a job to do. If either of us fail to do ours right, the system doesn't work as designed and then fails to be fair one way or the other. I've prosecuted and been involved in police work from one end of the case through the other. Certainly that doesn't make me a LEO, but I understand what you do. I have a great appreciation for the fact that you have a lot to think about and do and often little time to do either.

You are going to make mistakes. I don't hold those against you.... until we get into court! :bash: ;-)

:beer:

 

[Devious_Snake]

We both have a job to do. If either of us fail to do ours right, the system doesn't work as designed and then fails to be fair one way or the other. I've prosecuted and been involved in police work from one end of the case through the other. Certainly that doesn't make me a LEO, but I understand what you do. I have a great appreciation for the fact that you have a lot to think about and do and often little time to do either.

You are going to make mistakes. I don't hold those against you.... until we get into court! :bash: ;-)

:beer:

better not make a mistake around me or :kaboom:

 

[esqeddy]

better not make a mistake around me or :kaboom:

HAHAHA

Fortunately, I don't make those kind of mistakes.

 

[jshen]

My 2 cents

I have experience as LE 14 years- as well as prosecuting attorney 26 years-with emphasis on drug work. This was the correct decision in my humble opinion and though it is limited- it opens the door on other devices that do not require a "trespass". Rarely do we not have time for a warrant w/o an exigent circumstance. In my area most officers are not in court- sequestered- during a motion to suppress and therefore not present when a case "goes south". I can say the four most hated words to LE..."You need a warrant".

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled unanimously Monday that police must get a search warrant before using GPS technology to track criminal suspects.

The ruling represents a serious complication for law enforcement nationwide, which increasingly relies on high tech surveillance of suspects, including the use of various types of GPS technology.

A GPS device installed by police on Washington, D.C., nightclub owner Antoine Jones' Jeep helped them link him to a suburban house used to stash money and drugs. He was sentenced to life in prison before the appeals court overturned the conviction.

Associate Justice Antonin Scalia said that the government's installation of a GPS device, and its use to monitor the vehicle's movements, constitutes a search, meaning that a warrant is required.

"By attaching the device to the Jeep" that Jones was using, "officers encroached on a protected area," Scalia wrote. He concluded that the installation of the device on the vehicle without a warrant was a trespass and therefore an illegal search.

All nine justices agreed that the GPS monitoring on the Jeep violated the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable search and seizure.

Scalia wrote the main opinion of three in the case. He was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Sonia Sotomayor.

Sotomayor also wrote one of the two concurring opinions that agreed with the outcome in the Jones case for different reasons.

Justice Samuel Alito wrote, in the other concurring opinion, that the trespass was not as important as the suspect's expectation of privacy and that the long-term duration of the surveillance impinged on that expectation of privacy. Police monitored the Jeep's movements over the course of four weeks after attaching the GPS device.

"The use of longer term GPS monitoring in investigations of most offenses impinges on expectations of privacy," Alito wrote in an opinion joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan. Sotomayor in her concurring opinion specifically said she agreed with Alito on this conclusion.

Alito added, "We need not identify with precision the point at which the tracking of this vehicle became a search, for the line was surely crossed before the four-week mark."

Regarding the issue of duration, Scalia wrote that "we may have to grapple" with those issues in the future, "but there is no reason for rushing forward to resolve them here."

Alito also said the court should address how expectations of privacy affect whether warrants are required for remote surveillance using electronic methods that do not require the police to install equipment, such as GPS tracking of mobile telephones.
A federal appeals court in Washington had overturned Jones's drug conspiracy conviction because police did not have a warrant when they installed a GPS device on his vehicle and then tracked his movements for a month. The Supreme Court agreed with the appeals court.

The case is U.S. v. Jones, 10-1259.

 

[rubicon04]

Seems as the topic has ran its course. I will however offer my 2 cents. I agree with the decision of the Justices. The important thing is if there is enough evidence to support a warrant for a Gps tracking device then it will be granted. It may take more time which is an extremely valuable asset in the line of investigative police work but this decision protects both the citizens and leo's.

I dont believe the Constitution has room for any grey areas whatsoever when it comes to illegal search and seizure and this decision reinforces my stance

 

[Lawfficer]

I have never in my 6+ years on the road, nor will I ever give someone a pass on an OWI.

Driving into work at the City, and listening to the County working the Double fatal accident of your friends is something I never want to experience... again.

Back to the Original Post…. In my opinion, using GPS the way it should is not an invasion of one’s privacy. The way the courts had viewed this before these east coast LEO’s screwed it up was as a manpower multiplier. What I mean by that is, the GPS did nothing that a Cop with a pot of coffee and a full tank of gas couldn’t do. A cop in a car could follow your car around all day if they wanted to, as it’s in public and it’s something that is readily visible to the average Joe meaning there is no expectation of privacy. As long as the GPS is battery powered, applied to the car in a public place, and self powered there was no big deal. Hooking the GPS into the cars power was seen as a seizure of property.
Now, if you are talking about GPS a person, than yes I agree that a warrant is needed. For example, using a phones GPS capability to track a person is in my opinion a violation of a person rights.

 

[Devious_Snake]

I have never in my 6+ years on the road, nor will I ever give someone a pass on an OWI.

Driving into work at the City, and listening to the County working the Double fatal accident of your friends is something I never want to experience... again.

Back to the Original Post…. In my opinion, using GPS the way it should is not an invasion of one’s privacy. The way the courts had viewed this before these east coast LEO’s screwed it up was as a manpower multiplier. What I mean by that is, the GPS did nothing that a Cop with a pot of coffee and a full tank of gas couldn’t do. A cop in a car could follow your car around all day if they wanted to, as it’s in public and it’s something that is readily visible to the average Joe meaning there is no expectation of privacy. As long as the GPS is battery powered, applied to the car in a public place, and self powered there was no big deal. Hooking the GPS into the cars power was seen as a seizure of property.
Now, if you are talking about GPS a person, than yes I agree that a warrant is needed. For example, using a phones GPS capability to track a person is in my opinion a violation of a person rights.

good points, i agree :beer:

 

[Rossim22]

I have never in my 6+ years on the road, nor will I ever give someone a pass on an OWI.

Driving into work at the City, and listening to the County working the Double fatal accident of your friends is something I never want to experience... again.

Back to the Original Post…. In my opinion, using GPS the way it should is not an invasion of one’s privacy. The way the courts had viewed this before these east coast LEO’s screwed it up was as a manpower multiplier. What I mean by that is, the GPS did nothing that a Cop with a pot of coffee and a full tank of gas couldn’t do. A cop in a car could follow your car around all day if they wanted to, as it’s in public and it’s something that is readily visible to the average Joe meaning there is no expectation of privacy. As long as the GPS is battery powered, applied to the car in a public place, and self powered there was no big deal. Hooking the GPS into the cars power was seen as a seizure of property.
Now, if you are talking about GPS a person, than yes I agree that a warrant is needed. For example, using a phones GPS capability to track a person is in my opinion a violation of a person rights.

In your opinion, what differentiates between tracking one's personal car and tracking one's personal cell phone? Why would only one of those be a violation of my rights? And if all of this was to help you (or whatever LEO) investigate, why couldn't you wait until a judge issued a warrant? If you have sufficient evidence to feel the need to track someone's whereabouts in the first place, why would a warrant not be issued?

 

[jshen]

In your opinion, what differentiates between tracking one's personal car and tracking one's personal cell phone? ?

The Court's ruling appears to have drawn the line at the "trespass" i.e. the attachment to the vehicle infringed on def. Having been in this biz for years, I have been expecting a ruling on this issue and I am ok with limited holding here. The cellphone issue is different and I am anxiously awaiting a ruling there.

 

[Lawfficer]

In your opinion, what differentiates between tracking one's personal car and tracking one's personal cell phone? Why would only one of those be a violation of my rights? And if all of this was to help you (or whatever LEO) investigate, why couldn't you wait until a judge issued a warrant? If you have sufficient evidence to feel the need to track someone's whereabouts in the first place, why would a warrant not be issued?

Because it's a vehicle you are actually tracking and not the person, which one could argue a cellphone is more like.

The reason being this, a cell phone unlike a car, is something that is carried on the person and therefore is more likely to go with the person at all times. So, you are using a device to track a person weather they are driving down the road, walking around in a building, or sitting in a field. The cellphone is also something a reasonable person has a higher expectation of privacy on naturally.

Now compare that to a car. A person does not have to use a car to move around and by tracking the car, you are not truely tracking the person. You can go to the store without using a car, walk around in a building without a car, etc. Also, one has less of an expectation of privacy in a car vs a cellphone.

I agrue this point with reasonable facts and observations. When is the last time you went to Walmart and left your phone in a big pile with other phones outside unattended? Cars have windows and anyone can walk up and look inside, or reach inside if they are open. People just accept the fact that we can see into a car. I think, conversely, if I walked up and started looking through your phone you would blow a gasket.

So, the lesser expectation of privacy of a vehicle vs a person being tracked and the way people treat them puts a hugely different twist on the concept of a seizure/warrant.

With all that being said, I'm big on getting consent or a warrant first if reasonable even if current case law says it's not necessary. For example, I could have all the justification in the world to search a car, but I would still ask for consent first. It goes back to the hierarchy of searches and the challenges that can be brought forth in court.

 

[rubicon04]

I have never in my 6+ years on the road, nor will I ever give someone a pass on an OWI.

Driving into work at the City, and listening to the County working the Double fatal accident of your friends is something I never want to experience... again.

Back to the Original Post…. In my opinion, using GPS the way it should is not an invasion of one’s privacy. The way the courts had viewed this before these east coast LEO’s screwed it up was as a manpower multiplier. What I mean by that is, the GPS did nothing that a Cop with a pot of coffee and a full tank of gas couldn’t do. A cop in a car could follow your car around all day if they wanted to, as it’s in public and it’s something that is readily visible to the average Joe meaning there is no expectation of privacy. As long as the GPS is battery powered, applied to the car in a public place, and self powered there was no big deal. Hooking the GPS into the cars power was seen as a seizure of property.
Now, if you are talking about GPS a person, than yes I agree that a warrant is needed. For example, using a phones GPS capability to track a person is in my opinion a violation of a person rights.

Your altering a persons vehicle the minute you attach the Gps unit to it. There may be no expectation of privacy on public roads but a vehicle has a subjective expectation of privacy, which is the same reason you need a warrant to search one without probable cause.

This ruling maintains that subjective expectation of privacy, tracking a car to track a person or tracking a phone to track that same person serves the same purpose and the precedent has clearly been set now.