Police Using GPS To Track Suspects, Without a Warrent

[dc dalton]

Came across this today ... something I hadn't heard of before. While I think the use of a GPS device to track a suspect is a great and inexpensive idea I really have to disagree with the courts when they say police don't need a warrant to attach a GPS device to the suspect's vehicle. I have to agree with the one defense lawyer quoted in the story when he argues the practice can be considered "illegal search and seizure"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...l?hpid=topnews

Opinions?

[Intolerantbobj]

Hello D C D,

I know P S P has been utilizing GPS since the early '80's ... they tracked a ' Work Release ' employee at a place I worked at ... and then linked him to home invasions.

Work Comp and similar wannabe Detects. use it often also ..

I have heard that you can purchase a ' Detector ' that will display GPS or Remote-Cameras often used Illegally on your personal property to monitor your movements ... never seen what they look like.

It doesn't really matter if they are a violation of our 4th Rights ... if the Insurance Company or Homeland Sec. says they want them, they'll never be outlawed ... and I think they should be ILLEGAL !

[ThomasJ]

Came across this today ... something I hadn't heard of before. While I think the use of a GPS device to track a suspect is a great and inexpensive idea I really have to disagree with the courts when they say police don't need a warrant to attach a GPS device to the suspect's vehicle. I have to agree with the one defense lawyer quoted in the story when he argues the practice can be considered "illegal search and seizure"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...l?hpid=topnews

Opinions?

How could this be considered illegal search and seizure? I don't see this as much different than trailing a suspect or a stake-out.

[Swarner793]

Work Comp and similar wannabe Detects. use it often also ..

Not in PA we don't, it is a criminal violation. It is a crime under the same chapter as wiretapping (see below). Also, the OP was in VA I believe. The use of GPS Technology requires a court order in PA.

I happen to disagree with it. I think the technology should be open. As mentioned, why is it different if I pay one of my investigators to follow and observe the subject, or do it electronically? Again, I am professionally impacted by the law, that is why I dislike it.


Be safe (and look over your shoulder).

Scott



§ 5761. Mobile tracking devices



(a) Authority to issue.--Orders for the installation and use of mobile tracking devices may be issued by a court of common pleas.


(b) Jurisdiction.--Orders permitted by this section may authorize the use of mobile tracking devices within the jurisdiction of the court of common pleas, and outside that jurisdiction but within this Commonwealth, if the device is installed within the jurisdiction of the court of common pleas.


(c) Standard for issuance of order.--An order authorizing the use of one or more mobile tracking devices may be issued to an investigative or law enforcement officer by the court of common pleas upon written application. Each application shall be by written affidavit, signed and sworn to or affirmed before the court of common pleas. The affidavit shall:

(1) state the name and department, agency or address of the affiant;

(2) identify the vehicles, containers or items to which, in which or on which the mobile tracking device shall be attached or be placed, and the names of the owners or possessors of the vehicles, containers or items;

(3) state the jurisdictional area in which the vehicles, containers or items are expected to be found; and

(4) provide a statement setting forth all facts and circumstances which provide the applicant with a reasonable suspicion that criminal activity has been, is or will be in progress and that the use of a mobile tracking device will yield information relevant to the investigation of the criminal activity.


(d) Notice.--The court of common pleas shall be notified in writing within 72 hours of the time the mobile tracking device has been activated in place on or within the vehicles, containers or items.


(e) Term of authorization.--Authorization by the court of common pleas for the use of the mobile tracking device may continue for a period of 90 days from the placement of the device. An extension for an additional 90 days may be granted upon good cause shown.


(f) Removal of device.--Wherever practicable, the mobile tracking device shall be removed after the authorization period expires. If removal is not practicable, monitoring of the mobile tracking device shall cease at the expiration of the authorization order.


(g) Movement of device.--Movement of the tracking device within an area protected by a reasonable expectation of privacy shall not be monitored absent exigent circumstances or an order supported by probable cause that criminal activity has been, is or will be in progress in the protected area and that the use of a mobile tracking device in the protected area will yield information relevant to the investigation of the criminal activity.

[dc dalton]

How could this be considered illegal search and seizure? I don't see this as much different than trailing a suspect or a stake-out.

Well that's the fine line there ... following a suspect is one thing BUT isn't attaching this device similar to tapping a phone? Again I'm torn with this one somewhat.

[LittleRedToyota]

How could this be considered illegal search and seizure? I don't see this as much different than trailing a suspect or a stake-out.

i see it as very different because they are actually attaching something to your vehicle without you knowing it--they should need a warrant for that. i actually don't see that as much different from injecting you with one of those tiny GPS trackers they use in pets without your knowledge--and i doubt too many people would be OK with that (er, well, actually, the sad thing is most americans prolly wouldn't care).

the police have a right to be out in public and watch whatever they want to watch...they don't have a right to attach stuff to your property without your knowing it unless they have a warrant.

littleredgettingneartimetolinethetoyotawithaluminu mfoil

[Swarner793]

I have heard that you can purchase a ' Detector ' that will display GPS

Two (2) different methods are used. On is real time and requires actual communication, i.e., cellphone, radio, satellite. This communication is what would be detected.

The other method is passive. It rides on the vehicle for an amount of time and is later removed. The data is then downloaded indicating where the device has traveled. This method will not brodcast a detectable signal.

The technology is cheap and readily available, but like covert recording devices, it is their use that is criminal.

Some Private Detectives feel if the vehicle is mutually owned, then the co-owner can grant permission to track the "vehicle" not the operator. This is only really needed in domestic cases. I have never used one in my business practices because we do not do domestice/fidelity cases

Be safe.

Scott

[Koli01]

I suppose a court order would be needed to track you off of your cell phone gps. I understand that the gps is funtional even if the phone is turned off. So long as the battery is in it.

[ThomasJ]

Well that's the fine line there ... following a suspect is one thing BUT isn't attaching this device similar to tapping a phone? Again I'm torn with this one somewhat.

No, it's not similar at all. Can you explain how this is a fine line or how this is illegal search and seizure?

i see it as very different because they are actually attaching something to your vehicle without you knowing it--they should need a warrant for that. i actually don't see that as much different from injecting you with one of those tiny GPS trackers they use in pets without your knowledge--and i doubt too many people would be OK with that (er, well, actually, the sad thing is most americans prolly wouldn't care).

the police have a right to be out in public and watch whatever they want to watch...they don't have a right to attach stuff to your property without your knowing it unless they have a warrant.

Ok, I think the analogy tack runs the risk of getting carried away. A GPS or radar device is not analogous to tapping a phone line or to injecting some traceable isotope into one's veins or planting a microchip under your pet's skin. Hell, the parking ticket peeps run around in a little golf cart making chalk marks on people's tires. I'm a staunch libertarian, but I don't think the above comparisons are valid.

[LittleRedToyota]

Ok, I think the analogy tack runs the risk of getting carried away. A GPS or radar device is not analogous to tapping a phone line or to injecting some traceable isotope into one's veins or planting a microchip under your pet's skin. Hell, the parking ticket peeps run around in a little golf cart making chalk marks on people's tires. I'm a staunch libertarian, but I don't think the above comparisons are valid.

i think they are.

what is the difference between attaching a tracking device to you versus attaching a tracking device to your car?

what if they attach the tracking device to your shoes? would you support that?