GPS and Privacy :Laws

And they whine about drug problems in their backyards....

Search warrant for cell phone records. Search warrant for attaching the GPS to the vehicle. Should be common sense. Knowing the way the courts are these days, the police should have known (or at least suspected) that a warrant would be necessary to attach the GPS to the suspect's vehicle. Why didn't they check with the prosecutor first? Seems like bad police work to me.

I don't know... not so sure... cell phone use is private... car use is public. They don't need your permission to photograph you on the street. I'd want to hear or read court arguments on both sides before deciding this one.

Most of the "big" press, the New York Time, Washington Post, LA Times, and so on, when they talk about a recent court case, they provide a link to the actual opinion of the court. And if they don't, Google or Google Scholar is your friend and can find it for you.

Please, go read the opinion yourself!

Even if it's 137 pages, like Walker's opinion in California's Prop 8, you'll learn an incredible amount, even if you don't get all the ins-and-outs of the procedural aspects, or subtleties of the law (they're double spaced, and you can skip the footnotes the first time through).

By reading the opinion you'll at least have exposure to what the judge(s) in the case actually wrote -- and then you'll see that so many of the so-called "experts" and commentators pronouncing on these cases in the media haven't gotten within 20 yards of the actual opinion!

In the instant GPS case, the CADC ruled that the use of GPS trackers comes under the 4th amendment -- and since a warrant had not been obtained, the GPS results were the fruit of a poisoned tree, and must be excluded.

At least in that circuit -- there would seem to be a split of opinion on this issue among the different Federal Circuits. Which means there's more to come on this one, including perhaps a visit to the Supreme Court.

(Bob is a patent attorney.)

A very interesting situation - but I do not see any connection between this case and use of red light or speed cameras. With red light/speed cameras, the monitoring is of a public roadway and the photo is taken when certain parameters are breached. In this criminal investigation, the police were monitoring a single individual and then linking it back to illegal activities.

I am not a lawyer, but monitoring a private citizen would require some type of search warrant. If they were able to obtain such a warrant for this person's cell phone, I am not sure why they did not request a similar wqarrant for tracking his vehicle.

Sometimes the ENDS (capture of a criminal) do not justify the MEANS (invasion of privacy).

A very interesting situation - but I do not see any connection between this case and use of red light or speed cameras. With red light/speed cameras, the monitoring is of a public roadway and the photo is taken when certain parameters are breached. In this criminal investigation, the police were monitoring a single individual and then linking it back to illegal activities.

I am not a lawyer, but I would think that monitoring a private citizen would require some type of warrant or judicial permission. If they were able to obtain such a warrant for this person's cell phone, I am not sure why they did not request a similar warrant for tracking his vehicle.

Sometimes the ENDS (capture of a criminal) do not justify the MEANS (invasion of privacy).

This is a very slippery slope.

Would the police need a warrant to tail the subject's vehicle? I don't see a real difference, other than that the police technically trespassed when they attached the tracker to the vehicle.

I would think NO. It would seem that there's a big difference between tailing (following) a vehicle at a close distance.. and placing a tracking device on a vehicle and following it from a longer distance away without being seen.

Another way to look at it would be like someone listening to a person talking on the phone while standing just a few feet away.. or having a tape recorder hidden in another room listening to (taping) them on a phone extension.

Nuvi1300WTGPS

Precisely!

In that jurisdiction, you can bet they'll have the warrant next time - only one scumbag will sneak through that loophole.

Of course, The Washington Times is a criminal organisation with ties to that flim-flam man Moon, who is known for the Moonies.

Getting a warrant should not be "rocket science," but something the police are accustomed to doing.

Well, it looks like the police do NOT need a warrant to attach a GPS to a vehicle. At least not in Oregon!

http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/08/27/oregon.gps.surveillance/...

The DEA in Oregon attached a tracking device to a suspects car, just as they did to the vehicle in Washington DC. The information was used to identify grow-op locations.

Interesting issue - with LOTS of implications.

For around $40 one can buy a transmitter that generates GPS frequency and blocks all GPS reception within 10 feet radius. This would disable any tracking device attached to one's vehicle. But it would also disable the vehicle's own GPS navigation.

The FCC will definitely fine you for having an unregistered intentional radiator - transmitter - installed and/or operating. It is also against the rules and regulations to deliberately interfere with any lawful transmission. They really are serious about this and fines often start in the thousands.

I couldn't have said it better myself.

Isn't the FCC restriction only beyond a minimum power though. Small in home mike FM transmitters are no longer made but they used to be legal. Anyway, we don't know what transmitter Gary is talking about. It may be licensed...

There are many different parts to the FCC Rules and Regulations. Things like your cell phone and wireless mikes are referred to as registered devices. They have been tested by the FCC labs and found to operate within a narrow range and on specific frequencies. These devices are normally covered under Part 15. Transmitters, such as those used by cellular companies are under a different part, just as CB and amateur units all fall into different classifications. Jammers have never been type accepted and under administrative parts of the regulations are prohibited because they cause "harmful interference to an otherwise licensed service."

GPS satellites operate on frequencies not under FCC control, they operate in DOD frequencies which is overseen by the NTIA who is the FCC for the feds. GPS jammers would be in these frequencies (and a whole lot more). NTIA doesn't issue operating licenses to individuals, they are issued through the Interagency Radio Advisory Council (IRAC) and then to federal agencies such as the Department of Defense, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency (NOAA), FBI and others.

Because you are not a government agency, you would be operating a transmitter that is not licensed or type accepted regardless of the operating frequencies and therefore the FCC's Enforcement Bureau would be the one to levy fines and sanctions.

Your answer and data sounded pretty good to me.

When you are a James Bond, what do you care?

Seriously though, when a gadget is sold on ebay then most likely it is legal and approved by the people you and I elected to be your authority.

Really... I would highly doubt your assertation to be true. In fact, I'd bet a lot of that junk is not legal at all.

China doesn't have to conform to NA laws when it's the grey market like EBay. Why do you think it's there?

I detect a little sarcasm in that comment