Supreme court decision today

[rubicon04]

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 and by tracking the car, you are not tracking a person at all times. 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? Cars have windows and anyone can walk up and look inside. I think, conversely, if I walked up and started looking through your phone you would blow a gasket.

So, the lesser expectation of privacy where a vehicle, not a person is 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.

There are to many factors to compare tracking a car to tracking a phone. The phone can be left at home, stolen, left in the car, have the battery taken out, or be borrowed etc. I would argue tracking a car has less variables. It can be borrowed/stolen and thats about it.

The end goal seems to be the same for both. IMO The process to obtain that info should be the same

 

[jshen]

Phones

"The end goal seems to be the same for both. IMO The process to obtain that info should be the same".

...And that is just about where the law is at now. Remember with phones you have "content" of the calls, "phone numbers" and "location". To obtain phone numbers of target phone - pen register- requires warrant but quick and easy. Content- totally different- requiring Title III warrant and showing of "all less intrusive means of surveillance have been tried and failed and a showing why content will give you what you want. The location function is not so clear..so T-3 way to go..Bottom line..all now require warrant but some are quick and easy and some can be very complicated in practice.

 

[Fox Fan]

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

Are you sure they have to present it at all? They don't have to do it for wire taps.

 

[Fox Fan]

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

They did. The guidelines are to get a warrant. As a free citizen, I think it should be "a bit difficult to get one," before a police officer can simply decide to track my movements. Now, at least, a judge has to believe that the situation reasonably warrants it.

I am on the side of privacy. If that means that some guilty people go free, that's preferable than a slippery slope into a police state.

 

[jshen]

many police departments gps the police cars and keep track of them.

Yes- perfectly OK for govt to track their own cars.

Repo companies do it all the time, why cant the police to catch a murderer, a child rapist, terrorists?

Fourth Amendment applies only to government action- not to repos...same for bounty hunters.

 

[DaleM]

Sounds like the Counter-Narcotics guys and FBI just need to call up a judge at 2am and get 'er done.

 

[svtcop]

Sounds like the Counter-Narcotics guys and FBI just need to call up a judge at 2am and get 'er done.

Which really isn't all that difficult. :shrug:

Bang away at the keyboard for a few with the supporting facts, deliver to Judge...Presto...warrant in hand.

 

[rubicon04]

Sounds like the Counter-Narcotics guys and FBI just need to call up a judge at 2am and get 'er done.

Ding Ding Ding.

 

[jm35ny]

I`ve used Tracking devices or "Pucks" on vehicles before and I was always a little surprised that you didn`t need a warrant. This is nothing compared to what we can do with cell phones now thought!

 

[Lawfficer]

From Someone Smarter than I:

1/24/2012: United States v. Jones
(US Supreme Court decision of 1/23/12)

Synopsis of Opinion: This case dealt with the police making a warrantless installation of a GPS unit in the defendant’s jeep and monitoring his travel routes over a 28 day period. The investigatory technique led to substantial evidence against the defendant, which ultimately was suppressed by the high court. While the case was supposed to resolve privacy issues dealing with our travel routes, the court in effect ducked this important issue and held for the defendant primarily because of the intrusion into the jeep and not because of the technique of following someone around for a sustained period of time through technology.

The Opinion: Though unanimous in finding for suppression, the court is actually fairly divided. Justice Scalia and his three followers decided this case on simple constitutional grounds--the 4th amendment violation was the warrantless intrusion into the jeep and they leave the more interesting issue of whether we have privacy rights in our travel routes to another day. Justice Sotomayor joins them on the "trespass to jeep issue" giving them their majority but concurs because she wanted to ventilate on the privacy/travel issue, though she agrees with Scalia that a resolution of the issue is not necessary in deciding this case. The other four led by Justice Alito are not at all interested in the trespass to property issue, but felt that following the travel routes of a party for 28 days is sufficiently intrusive to require a warrant.

So, what do we know? We know if you have to get into a vehicle to put in the GPS you need a warrant, even if the vehicle is found in a public place. In my view this case wipes out any flexibility to law enforcement State v Sveum might have offered on this question. If you are able to follow a vehicle through technologically advanced equipment, without actually having to go into a vehicle to install a unit, there remain a possibility that Justices Scalia, Kennedy, and Roberts might be OK with it, but this practice would still be problematic as Sotomayor and the other four might find it objectionable, particularly if the monitoring is over a period of time.

So I think a warrant is required if the police go into the vehicle to place a GPS vehicle and I wouldn't even risk doing so without a warrant under Carroll or consent grounds. If you have probable cause and want to monitor a vehicle through other technological means, not requiring intrusion into the vehicle, I would still strongly recommend getting the warrant.

 

[Devious_Snake]

From Someone Smarter than I:

hmm going INTO the jeep? i was thinking they just slapped something underneath the thing without going into the vehicle. Kind of changes my perspective on it.

 

[CPRsm]

Repo companies do it all the time, why cant the police to catch a murderer, a child rapist, terrorists?

Fourth Amendment applies only to government action- not to repos...same for bounty hunters.

Not quite the same. When a car is being repo'd, the vehicle doesn't belong to the individual to begin with. They are tracking the vehicle whereabouts, not the person. And that is just to make an easier grab when the owner isn't blockading it at their house because they know what is coming. Last I heard when I dabbled in it was they cannot track you either way. When you pull the device back off the vehicle, you can down load where the car went. But you cannot actively track it.


Agreed with DaleM. Seems like a waist of time fighting for something there is already an alternative to, and has been for years. Why is a warrant so out of the question? Did I miss that part ?

 

[jshen]

Not quite the same. When a car is being repo'd, the vehicle doesn't belong to the individual to begin with. They are tracking the vehicle whereabouts, not the person. And that is just to make an easier grab when the owner isn't blockading it at their house because they know what is coming. Last I heard when I dabbled in it was they cannot track you either way. When you pull the device back off the vehicle, you can down load where the car went. But you cannot actively track it.

Most cars are "owned" by lending companies until paid. Either way the person using that car has expectation of privacy from government intrusion. That expectation of privacy does not apply to repos.

As for tracking devices- they are real-time and accurate---very accurate. I don't want to have my Fed friends angry so I won"t elaborate, but the capabilities are really astounding.

 

[FordSVTFan]

Most cars are "owned" by lending companies until paid. Either way the person using that car has expectation of privacy from government intrusion. That expectation of privacy does not apply to repos.

Jeff, I would agree that leased cars are owned by the leasing company but with the vast majority of auto loan vendors. In the vast majority of cases, the borrower owns the vehicle and is titled in their name with the lender as a lien holder only.

As for tracking devices- they are real-time and accurate---very accurate. I don't want to have my Fed friends angry so I won"t elaborate, but the capabilities are really astounding.

Indeed they are.

People also need to read their contracts with OnStar and the like.

 

[Fox Fan]

Yeah, GPS always have been accurate to within a couple feet when they've got a good signal. Anyway, I'd have to agree with sotomayor. I think even following a guy for 28 days+ should require a warrant, because I think people are entitled to their own privacy. GPS or no GPS. At least without a GPS, I feel that the manpower doesn't exist to really cause a common problem. Police can buy thousands of GPSs and then stick them to people's cars regardless of whether they have any reason to do so, but there are not enough police to track all of those people manually. That forces police to stick to people worth tracking out of necessity due to manpower constraints.

 

[EvergreenSVT]

Lacking a standard in statutes for using these devices, court action was pretty much inevitable.

 

[Outlaw99]

the dealership I work at has a sub lot for people who cant do conventional financing, in other words, buy here pay here....there is a GPS device on every single car that leaves the lot. if the customer doesnt like it, then we send them packing. they have to sign a waiver acknowledging it.