OG_Loki
Title: *Pelvic Thrust*
Posts:
45,588
Registered:
Jan 26, '02
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 44,711
User ID: 632,990
|
Subject:
Supreme court rules police need a warrant to put a GPS device on your car
|
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012/01/23/145641693/supreme-court-rules-police-need-warrant-for-gps-tracking?ft=1&f=1001
The Supreme Court has just ruled that police need a warrant if they want to place a tracking device on a suspect's vehicle. The court's decision was unanimous.
NPR's Nina Totenberg says that this debate has been a contentious issue in the digital age. Here's how she explained it to newscaster Paul Brown:
Nina Totenberg and Paul Brown
At issue here is the case of Antoine Jones, a Washington, D.C. night club owner. Police put a GPS tracking device on his car for 30 days. That helped authorities find a stash of money and drugs.
The Supreme Court decided today that placing a GPS device on a vehicle constitutes a search, so they need a warrant. The AP reports that Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the court's main opinion:
"'By attaching the device to the Jeep' that Jones was using, 'officers encroached on a protected area,' Scalia wrote.
"All nine justices agreed that the placement of the GPS on the Jeep violated the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable search and seizure. ...
"Justice Samuel Alito also wrote a concurring opinion in which he said the court should have gone further and dealt with GPS tracking of wireless devices, like mobile phones. He was joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan.
Wired's Threat Level blog says the last time the court considered a blockbuster Fourth Amendment case like this one was a decade ago.
"... The justices ruled that the authorities must obtain search warrants to employ thermal-imaging devices to detect indoor marijuana-growing operations, saying the imaging devices carry the potential to 'shrink the realm of guaranteed privacy,'" Wired reports.
Jones' life sentence had been overturned by an appeals court. The Supreme Court upheld that decision.
-----signature-----
|
|
Link to this post
|
Bork_the_orc
Posts:
6,876
Registered:
Jun 15, '01
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 6,654
User ID: 158,189
|
Subject:
Supreme court rules police need a warrant to put a GPS device on your car
|
-----signature-----
Happily ensconced in the top quintile.
|
|
Link to this post
|
aon_mixed
Title:
Pirate Kitty
Posts:
97,492
Registered:
Aug 19, '02
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 96,153
User ID: 707,392
|
Subject:
Supreme court rules police need a warrant to put a GPS device on your car
|
|
this'll shoot down the NYPD's use of infra-red scanning for weapons on random people
-----signature-----
may contain partial nudity
|
|
Link to this post
|
combat_mage_sc
Title: Hi. My name is Combat and i'm an alcoholic.
Posts:
41,508
Registered:
Jul 20, '01
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 40,845
User ID: 266,617
|
Subject:
Supreme court rules police need a warrant to put a GPS device on your car
|
Wow, suprised it wasn't a 5-4 vote.
-----signature-----
.................._@@@__
......_____//____?___\________
- ---o--------BEER-POLICE----@)
-----`--(@)======+====(@)--
|
|
Link to this post
|
NonOffensiveName
Title: Touching people in special places all day long
Posts:
27,882
Registered:
Oct 7, '01
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 27,531
User ID: 444,059
|
Subject:
Supreme court rules police need a warrant to put a GPS device on your car
|
|
this is a lose/lose situation...I dont like the fact that its easier for criminals to not be apprehended because of some legal bs warrant but at the same time I wouldnt like it that the government/police can freely track anyone anywhere without their knowledge with no one to answer to. Guess you cant have your cake and eat it too.
-----signature-----
Q: What's an AW?
A: A whore that likes attention
|
|
Link to this post
|
Aerlinthian
Posts:
66,222
Registered:
May 7, '01
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 65,491
User ID: 94,919
|
Subject:
Supreme court rules police need a warrant to put a GPS device on your car
|
The court's decision was unanimous.
I could cry, there is hope for this country yet. Now if we could just get the Citizen's United fiasco straightened out.
-----signature-----
(none)
|
|
Link to this post
|
OG_Loki
Title: *Pelvic Thrust*
Posts:
45,588
Registered:
Jan 26, '02
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 44,711
User ID: 632,990
|
Subject:
Supreme court rules police need a warrant to put a GPS device on your car
|
NonOffensiveName posted:
herp derp
You make no sense and contradict yourself. Get a life moran.
-----signature-----
|
|
Link to this post
|
AliHajiSheik
Posts:
3,162
Registered:
Jan 5, '03
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 3,145
User ID: 755,560
|
Subject:
Supreme court rules police need a warrant to put a GPS device on your car
|
OG_Loki posted:
NonOffensiveName posted:
herp derp
You make no sense and contradict yourself. Get a life moran.
QFT
-----signature-----
*yawn*
|
|
Link to this post
|
Unarmed-Yarr
Title: Pirate of Harrrvestgain
Posts:
22,020
Registered:
Feb 23, '00
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 20,021
User ID: 12,032
|
Subject:
Supreme court rules police need a warrant to put a GPS device on your car
|
Bork_the_orc posted:
-----signature-----
Old Fogie (4,297 days old), East Sider, Pirate
Unarmed Yarr, Dissilspilg, HOH 4 life (12-15-00)
Passersby were amazed by the unusually large amounts of blood.
|
|
Link to this post
|
Ah-Schoo
Title: Fuzzy Caterpillar of Friendliness
Posts:
71,317
Registered:
Aug 11, '00
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 68,974
User ID: 39,247
|
Subject:
Supreme court rules police need a warrant to put a GPS device on your car
|
Aerlinthian posted:
The court's decision was unanimous.
I could cry, there is hope for this country yet. Now if we could just get the Citizen's United fiasco straightened out. Plus the illegal alien invaders, neocons, cultural marxists, gays, welfare, education, Muslims and the HYPER ZIONISTS!
You forgot black people.
-----signature-----
.
Opinion = fact. Anecdote = proof. Political label more important than either of those.
Welcome to ACF, where debate goes to die.
.
"fascist totalitarian secular progressive Zionist intellectually challenged Christian puppets." - Aerlinthina
|
|
Link to this post
|
Gaevren
Title: Wat do?
Posts:
18,183
Registered:
Sep 15, '04
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 17,906
User ID: 967,012
|
Subject:
Supreme court rules police need a warrant to put a GPS device on your car
|
|
I'm both surprised, impressed and pleased by this decision and especially that it was unanimous.
-----signature-----
There are no automatic doors, just very polite ninjas
|
|
Link to this post
|
Hawkson
Title: I AM AN ASSASSIN (SHH)
Posts:
30,565
Registered:
Oct 23, '01
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 30,208
User ID: 478,685
|
Subject:
Supreme court rules police need a warrant to put a GPS device on your car
|
combat_mage_sc posted:
Wow, suprised it wasn't a 5-4 vote.
That's a stupid response.
NonOffensiveName posted:
this is a lose/lose situation...I dont like the fact that its easier for criminals to not be apprehended because of some legal bs warrant but at the same time I wouldnt like it that the government/police can freely track anyone anywhere without their knowledge with no one to answer to. Guess you cant have your cake and eat it too.
Way to be entirely contradictory.
This is a 100% clear cut 4th amendment issue. Placing a tracking device is a search.
P.S. That "legal bs warrant," requirement is what kept many homosexuals out of jail prior to Lawreence v. Texas
Nailer2357 posted:
The Court's decision was mainly grounded on physical trespass - the fact that the police officers had to commit a trespass in order to install the tracking device. Stated another way, here's what Justice Scalia said: "The Government physically occupied private property for the purpose of obtaining information. We have no doubt that such a physical intrusion would have been considered a 'search' within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment when it was adopted."
This still leaves the door open to other kinds of tracking. Say, for instance, New York places license plate readers all over the states and records everyones' movements. Or the federal government decides to use satellites to record a specific car's position. This decision says nothing about these similarly intrusive cases.
Ars (as usual) has a pretty good write up on the decision.
This is spot on - because this case is clear 4th amendment, but it's physical trespass.
Edit 2- Scalia always cracks me up - he's the only justice on the court who is 100% predictable, because of his originalist stance.
-----signature-----
Hawkson, Esq.
Nothing is true, everything is permitted.
|
|
Link to this post
|
JD_HOGG
Posts:
19,975
Registered:
Mar 18, '08
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 19,893
User ID: 1,285,011
|
Subject:
Supreme court rules police need a warrant to put a GPS device on your car
|
Ah-Schoo posted:
Aerlinthian posted:
The court's decision was unanimous.
I could cry, there is hope for this country yet. Now if we could just get the Citizen's United fiasco straightened out. Plus the illegal alien invaders, neocons, cultural marxists, gays, welfare, education, Muslims and the HYPER ZIONISTS!
You forgot black people.
And statists. How can you leave out statists? And fiat currency.
-----signature-----
(none)
|
|
Link to this post
|
Sith_Mauler
Posts:
24,642
Registered:
Dec 21, '02
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 24,438
User ID: 750,977
|
Subject:
Supreme court rules police need a warrant to put a GPS device on your car
|
At least these people still knows whats up with the constitution.
Scalia has become probably my favorite justice, protecting the constitution.
-----signature-----
Well I ain't first class
But I ain't white trash
I'm wild and a little crazy too
I have seen a lot of things in my life time.
That is why I walk the line I walk.
|
|
Link to this post
|
