Supreme court decision today

[silver03svt]

IMO, I think it'll work just as geting a search warrant to "ping" a person's cell phone. We already have to jump through that hoop. This will be no different. If I am looking for a person for whatever reason, and the judge sees fit to agree with my PC for needing that person, he can issue that warrant for the cell phone track. I don't have to notify the owner of the phone. Just the service provider.

More specifically, this GPS issue will work just like the old telephone taps. We had to get warrants to tap somebody's home telephone. We didn't need to notify them of it. Just get the judge to agree with the PC we had and get him to sign the paperwork. The actual search warrant is public record at the courthouse.

Both sides are getting worked up here. It is for the good of the people where abuse of police powers are concerned. It can also be detrimental (sp) in a circumstance where somebody's life may be immediately in danger.

 

[Devious_Snake]

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.

absolutely, which is why we have a checks and balances system. I consider myself to be a fair cop who plays by the rules without bending them too much....however not everything is black and white and in police work we often have to work in the "gray" area, which is where discretion comes in. Most people dont realize that...its tough, trust me

 

[Devious_Snake]

IMO, I think it'll work just as geting a search warrant to "ping" a person's cell phone. We already have to jump through that hoop. This will be no different. If I am looking for a person for whatever reason, and the judge sees fit to agree with my PC for needing that person, he can issue that warrant for the cell phone track. I don't have to notify the owner of the phone. Just the service provider.

More specifically, this GPS issue will work just like the old telephone taps. We had to get warrants to tap somebody's home telephone. We didn't need to notify them of it. Just get the judge to agree with the PC we had and get him to sign the paperwork. The actual search warrant is public record at the courthouse.

Both sides are getting worked up here. It is for the good of the people where abuse of police powers are concerned. It can also be detrimental (sp) in a circumstance where somebody's life may be immediately in danger.

very well put :beer:

i wouldnt say we getting worked up, its a good educational discussion and lets us see different points of view and see things a little differently...i think its a healthy discussion, at least no one started throwing names and curses around...we being adults lol

 

[silver03svt]

absolutely, which is why we have a checks and balances system. I consider myself to be a fair cop who plays by the rules without bending them too much....however not everything is black and white and in police work we often have to work in the "gray" area, which is where discretion comes in. Most people dont realize that...its tough, trust me

This is a fair post.

 

[PSUCOBRA96]

the Supreme Court got this one right, you don't bend the constitution because it fits that situation, we have the 4th amendment for a reason and allow judges with the proper education on how to apply the law to determine fairly whether or not to allow in this case GPS is a go. You allow one type of search or seizure to get through you open the flood gates for poor interpretation.

 

[Devious_Snake]

the Supreme Court got this one right, you don't bend the constitution because it fits that situation, we have the 4th amendment for a reason and allow judges with the proper education on how to apply the law to determine fairly whether or not to allow in this case GPS is a go. You allow one type of search or seizure to get through you open the flood gates for poor interpretation.

when it comes to judges, im not so quick to agree with that...plenty of them insert their own biases and beliefs into decisions. Happens often, unfortunately they are pretty much untouchable

 

[txyaloo]

+1 to SCOTUS for getting one right.

 

[olefafl]

absolutely, which is why we have a checks and balances system. I consider myself to be a fair cop who plays by the rules without bending them too much....however not everything is black and white and in police work we often have to work in the "gray" area, which is where discretion comes in. Most people dont realize that...its tough, trust me

More info please.....


If you give a mouse a cookie..........

 

[Devious_Snake]

More info please.....


If you give a mouse a cookie..........

:bored:

 

[silver03svt]

More info please.....


If you give a mouse a cookie..........

You have a mouse eating a cookie?

 

[dumbstixlars]

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

Ah yes. The old, "lets throw kids into the example so that we can sway you to our side with emotion instead of facts" argument.

I'm very glad you aren't in charge of deciding what rights I can and cannot have.

 

[olefafl]

You have a mouse eating a cookie?

It's a book, if you have kids ask them.

 

[Grabber]

Civil rights, we don't need them, theey are such a waste.

Last I checked, all "criminals" are innocent until proven guilty.




Sent via morse code through a fax machine.

 

[EvergreenSVT]

It appears that the court restricts the police consistently because it is their role to restrain the government after it over reaches-not to reaffirm the powers of the state which are already defined.

You should need a warrant. Then you need the concurrence of a second branch of government to track someone with a gps. Without some restraint what is to prevent the police from putting tracking devices on any car they choose?

Remember that we have a due process system, not a justice system.

Would you object to me putting a GPS tracker on your teenaged daughters car? After all, the reasoning is its just a more practical way to follow someone without actually having to follow them.

 

[Lt. ZO6]

Last I checked, all "criminals" are innocent until proven guilty.

When and what exactly did you "check"?

 

[S8ER01Z]

Civil rights, we don't need them, theey are such a waste.

Last I checked, all "criminals" are innocent until proven guilty.




Sent via morse code through a fax machine.

That's just lawyer talk...

 

[Grabber]

When and what exactly did you "check"?

I was responding to Devious_stangs comment about "Guilty until proven Innocent"

Under the term "Presumption of Innocence"

 

[Devious_Snake]

guilty until proven innocent applies to cops is what i said....your in the wrong place if your think your teaching me something new...im well aware of what due process is, and what citizens rights are! if you actually read what i wrote, cops are NOT entitled to the same rights and freedoms that you enjoy and take for granted. Everytime you see a cop "get caught" doing something in the news, the immediate response from everyone is that hes guilty and even if hes acquitted, hes going to pay for it. Unlike regular folk who very easily walk right out of court and its all good... geez

 

[Grabber]

guilty until proven innocent applies to cops is what i said....your in the wrong place if your think your teaching me something new...im well aware of what due process is, and what citizens rights are! if you actually read what i wrote, cops are NOT entitled to the same rights and freedoms that you enjoy and take for granted. Everytime you see a cop "get caught" doing something in the news, the immediate response from everyone is that hes guilty and even if hes acquitted, hes going to pay for it. Unlike regular folk who very easily walk right out of court and its all good... geez

For a LEO, you are very mature :shrug:

Go ahead and assume I take my freedoms for Granted.

Actually, do some reading on SVTP in regard to the threads where cops try and go above the law. Did you see the one where a Deputy was nearly 2 times over the legal alcohol limit and crashed into a house? The fact that he still has a job is beyond me. Based on what I read, he was suspended WITH Pay.

It goes either way. I'm not here to argue. I just commented on your comment, nothing more.

Based on what you've said with this GPS issue, looks to me that you want the US to turn into a Communist State where no one has free rights, and this is no longer the land of the free.

 

[dtheo]

I am very happy with this decision, the High Court, which we all regard as the leading authority with the constitution rules on a law, and now we all complain about its decision. So it makes it difficult for law enforcement, what the heck do you think they did BEFORE gps was invented? We are trying to build a republic here guys, not majority rule bullsh*t.