Quote :

"MADISON, Wis. - Wisconsin police can attach GPS to cars to secretly track anybody's movements without obtaining search warrants, an appeals court ruled Thursday. As the law currently stands, the court said police can mount GPS on cars to track people without violating their constitutional rights -- even if the drivers aren't suspects. Officers do not need to get warrants beforehand because GPS tracking does not involve a search or a seizure, Judge Paul Lundsten wrote for the unanimous three-judge panel based in Madison. "We discern no privacy interest protected by the Fourth Amendment that is invaded when police attach a device to the outside of a vehicle, as long as the information obtained is the same as could be gained by the use of other techniques that do not require a warrant," he wrote. Larry Dupuis, legal director of the ACLU of Wisconsin, said using GPS to track someone's car goes beyond observing them in public and should require a warrant. "The idea that you can go and attach anything you want to somebody else's property without any court supervision, that's wrong," he said. "Without a warrant, they can do this on anybody they want.""

http://www.chicagotribune.com/technology/chi-ap-wi-gps-police,0,5867383.story

We don't need no stinkin' warrants!

Why not attach some GPS units to police cars as long as it's ok to fish for criminal activity?

5/11/2009 11:04:32 AM

this will be abused tremendously

5/11/2009 11:05:29 AM

I don't see the problem. If you aren't a criminal, you have nothing to worry about.

5/11/2009 11:34:08 AM

A small part of me thinks, "Well yeah, the police could just tail you everywhere around town." But they wouldn't. And you'd likely notice them if they did. Which does kind of seem to make an important difference.

This kind of remind me of that case back several years ago about infrared searches - the Supreme Court found that you do need a warrant for those, even though the EM radiation is "outside the house." (That is, it's emitted through the walls). Surprisingly, this is one of the places Scalia sided with civil liberties. This case strikes me as remarkably in the same vein.

5/11/2009 11:38:13 AM

if they already had evidence that someone was into devious things and was a criminal i wouldnt have a problem with it but i see this

Quote :

"abused tremendously"

5/11/2009 12:57:35 PM

...so the court said it was perfectly alright for police to attach something to your personal property for the objective of tracking your movements...without a warrant?

5/11/2009 1:01:02 PM

Does this mean we can put GPS units on patrol cars? Could be handy in avoiding speeding tickets around town.

5/11/2009 1:02:19 PM

Haha I was thinking the same thing.

5/11/2009 1:21:12 PM

This is horrible, but I'm not surprised. Nearly all cops don't give a fuck about your rights.

5/11/2009 1:40:54 PM

Quote :

"I don't see the problem. If you aren't a criminal, you have nothing to worry about."

No need to worry about Big Brother, especially if you aren't a criminal. Oh wait, anyone can have the privilege of being a criminal if the government comes up with a couple of charges that make you into one. Sounds pretty simple with the use of the GPS device. Now they can see that you were speeding from one location to another, etc. It's the next step towards a police state, for sure. If this is no big deal to you, then you need to be gone my son. BE GONE.

5/11/2009 1:57:10 PM

Quote :

"Why not attach some GPS units to police cars as long as it's ok to fish for criminal activity?"

You laugh, but check out what happened to the police chief in Greensboro for doing just that... Granted, outrage was ginned up on racial grounds by the News and Record, but still...

^ dude, he was trolling

5/11/2009 7:55:11 PM

So question:

if you find one of these on your car, you can just take it off and sell it on ebay, right?

5/11/2009 10:55:45 PM

I would guess you could. As long as there wasn't anything that said "this belongs to the police, mang," then I'd say you could sell it on eBay

5/11/2009 11:00:49 PM

Quote :

"if you find one of these on your car, you can just take it off and sell it on ebay, right? "

...or stick it onto someone else's car.

5/11/2009 11:05:47 PM

If I found one of those on my car I would put it into a FedEx box and mail it to China.

5/11/2009 11:56:39 PM

nah, I think it would find itself at the bottom of the nearest deep body of water

5/12/2009 12:03:03 AM

[Edited on May 12, 2009 at 12:05 AM. Reason : L]

5/12/2009 12:03:34 AM

warrant should be required

if they do not find the crime serious enough to stake you out or get a warrant than they should be doing something more productive

between debit cards and cell phones big brother can track all of our movements anyway........that is here to stay

5/12/2009 12:48:54 AM

Quote :

"The ruling came in a 2003 case involving Michael Sveum, a Madison man who was under investigation for stalking. Police got a warrant to put a GPS on his car and secretly attached it while the vehicle was parked in Sveum's driveway. The device recorded his car's movements for five weeks before police retrieved it and downloaded the information. The information suggested Sveum was stalking the woman, who had gone to police earlier with suspicions. Police got a second warrant to search his car and home, found more evidence and arrested him. He was convicted of stalking and sentenced to prison. Sveum, 41, argued the tracking violated his Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure. He argued the device followed him into areas out of public view, such as his garage. The court disagreed. The tracking did not violate constitutional protections because the device only gave police information that could have been obtained through visual surveillance, Lundsten wrote. Even though the device followed Sveum's car to private places, an officer tracking Sveum could have seen when his car entered or exited a garage, Lundsten reasoned. Attaching the device was not a violation, he wrote, because Sveum's driveway is a public place. "We discern no privacy interest protected by the Fourth Amendment that is invaded when police attach a device to the outside of a vehicle, as long as the information obtained is the same as could be gained by the use of other techniques that do not require a warrant," he wrote."

Sounds like in this case they obtained warrants and used it to catch a crook......not just a crook but a scumbag one.

5/12/2009 12:53:08 AM

I'm sorry, but did they or did they not obtain a warrant? It would seem like the objection over warrants would be moot if they did, yet the case specifically decided that the police do not require warrants.

Furthermore, the man's objection was on fourth amendment grounds; therefore, something tells me this news report isn't exactly accurate. Otherwise, where would the case even come into play? Again - I doubt there'd be any constitutional argument at all if the police actually had a warrant to install and use the device on his car.

I mean, unless the objection is that it was a secret search - i.e., not being notified of the device is the matter at issue. Which is still not made very clear.

[Edited on May 12, 2009 at 1:19 AM. Reason : .]

5/12/2009 1:17:46 AM

A driveway is a public place? ORLY?

5/12/2009 6:58:24 AM

^ For the purposes of observation, yes. If you walk up and down your driveway in leather underwear, and people walking down the street take pictures, they aren't violating your privacy, as your driveway is viewable from the road without needing to circumvent privacy measures (i.e. a privacy fence). Doesn't make it public from the standpoint of anyone can use it like a playground, but for the purposes of observing you it most certainly is public.

5/12/2009 7:44:45 AM

[Edited on May 12, 2009 at 7:45 AM. Reason : m-m-m-multipost]

5/12/2009 7:44:45 AM

Quote :

"not just a crook but a scumbag one."

So everyone's privacy and liberty should be reduced even further..just because there are a few scumbag crooks out there? Is there a way to catch criminals without having to become a totalitarian state?

5/12/2009 10:37:48 AM

The story is the op is poorly written, is there another source? Either they had a warrant to do the gps tracking, in which case i dont see a problem with it, or they didn't have a warrant in which case its bad.

If they did have a warrant, as the story claims, why would he sue?

5/12/2009 10:42:36 AM

Quote :

"Is there a way to catch criminals without having to become a totalitarian state?"

Good police work.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[Edited on May 12, 2009 at 10:46 AM. Reason : c]

5/12/2009 10:46:42 AM

really

do most police forces have the resources to do this to everyone?

Hell, most are underbudget these days and hurting to be able to just patrol the streets

5/12/2009 10:51:25 AM

Leave it to me do do your research for you:

http://www.wicourts.gov/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=36414

Court documents for the appeal in question.

Quote :

"As part of their investigation, police sought and received a warrant authorizing them to covertly attach a GPS device to Sveum’s car in order to track it. Based in part on tracking information retrieved from the GPS device, the police obtained a warrant to search one of Sveum’s residences and his car.[1] The search revealed additional evidence incriminating Sveum, along with evidence confirming his sister’s involvement. "

WTF is the writer at the Tribune smoking? They got a warrant. OOHHH, he was an AP writer.

[Edited on May 12, 2009 at 11:01 AM. Reason : AP]

5/12/2009 10:51:59 AM

So the guy in the tribune is just an idiot.

5/12/2009 10:57:38 AM

Quote :

"Is there a way to catch criminals without having to become a totalitarian state?"

Sure, just hire a team of people to tailgate suspicious people 24/7 for weeks on end. How much does that cost versus the gps?

In this instance, for all we know, the life of a woman was saved thanks to the GPS device catching this sick man before he took his stalking to the next level.

5/12/2009 11:02:54 AM

I dont think anyone is arguing against GPS tracking with a warrant, but gps tracking without one would definitely be a violation. Its the same as a warrantless wiretap.

5/12/2009 11:08:04 AM

Reading his stupid article further his issue is the wording that the judge used indicating that they do not need a warrant, even though in this case they got one. Reading the court documents indicate this as well. I'm the idiot this time.

The guy was trying to appeal the warrant and the judge said, "appeal it? they didn't even need it!"

[Edited on May 12, 2009 at 11:18 AM. Reason : appeal]

5/12/2009 11:17:11 AM

Quote :

"Its the same as a warrantless wiretap."

YOU MEAN THE WARRANTLESS WIRETAPS THAT HAVE SAVED BILLIONS OF AMERICAN LIVES?!?!

5/12/2009 12:07:57 PM

Quote :

"Reading his stupid article further his issue is the wording that the judge used indicating that they do not need a warrant, even though in this case they got one. Reading the court documents indicate this as well. I'm the idiot this time. The guy was trying to appeal the warrant and the judge said, "appeal it? they didn't even need it!""

So basically it's the judge that's retarded. The cops followed procedure, did good police work, and a judge basically stepped outside the bounds of his authority (i.e., whether the warrant is "necessary" is not the grounds of contention in this case, but whether the warrant was properly secured), and then declared something retarded as a result.

Bravo, judge.

5/12/2009 12:37:27 PM

Can someone please show me an instance when this has been abused, as opposed to an instance where a womans life was likely saved or prevented from being raped?

5/12/2009 12:47:06 PM

^
Ends don't justify means. Even though the stalker was caught, his right to privacy was trampled.

5/12/2009 12:58:00 PM

no it wasn't you retard. they got a warrant.

5/12/2009 1:03:40 PM

At some point the libertarians have to stop crying about the eroding of liberties until it has been shown that the powers are in fact being abused. And please don't tell me "by then it will be too late".

This lady had a good suspicion, them putting a GPS on his car was no different than paying outrageous sums of money to track him for 5 weeks.

What does a cop make, 45k a year, so his total cost of employment is in the 80k range, and you'd need at least three of them to tail 24 hrs a day. So we're talking nearly 20 grand devoted to this guy versus a few hundred dollar GPS device.

I say hooray technology. I'll get outraged when the cases of abuse start happening, until then, I have other stuff to be pissed about.

5/12/2009 1:03:47 PM

Again, there's nothing to complain about if they got a warrant. And in this case, it sounds like they did. Nobody's complaining about that.

What's at issue is when they do it without a warrant.

You know, with, without. Kind of a big difference.

5/12/2009 1:06:50 PM

Quote :

"no it wasn't you retard. they got a warrant"

Ah, now that I read the thread...
But still, if they hadn't got a warrant, what I said would apply... and I'm not sure Fail Boat gets that... I suppose he's a torture defender...

5/12/2009 1:18:50 PM

Quote :

"At some point the libertarians have to stop crying about the eroding of liberties until it has been shown that the powers are in fact being abused."

Huge potential for abuse somehow doesn't justify not enacting a particular policy? It has to get abused first?

Why? What about that makes any sense to you?

[Edited on May 12, 2009 at 1:21 PM. Reason : .]

5/12/2009 1:20:56 PM

^
Very good point.

5/12/2009 1:30:08 PM

Quote :

"^ dude, he was trolling"

................................

Quote :

"BE GONE."

5/12/2009 1:33:16 PM

Quote :

"stop crying about the eroding of liberties until it has been shown that the powers are in fact being abused. And please don't tell me "by then it will be too late"."

The Framers wrote the Constitution to prevent the erosion of liberty and rights by limiting the gov't. They understood that history shows clearly that, over time, all govenrments tend to reduce individual liberty and grow gov't power.

You have to be ever-vigilant about any increase in gov't power and reduction of individual liberty, because we know that it will be abused further in the future. Gov'ts rarely voluntarily give back any liberty they take away. If you don't stop the little tyrannies, they will become big.

Government policies which curtail freedom but sound reasonable at the start, without any critical challenge, will always become unreasonable. And by then, my friend, it will always be too late.

5/12/2009 1:34:34 PM

Quote :

"if they already had evidence that someone was into devious things and was a criminal i wouldnt have a problem with it but i see this the police will be able to obtain a warrant"

5/12/2009 1:47:51 PM

Quote :

"Government policies which curtail freedom but sound reasonable at the start, without any critical challenge, will always become unreasonable. And by then, my friend, it will always be too late."

For my ignorance, can you give me any in the past 30-50 years that I should know about?

5/12/2009 1:49:05 PM

I'm almost certain if warrant-less GPS made it to the Supreme Court it would be thrown out. It doesn't apply to this case since they did have a warrant. Ergo, until someone actually is convicted based on a warrant-less GPS, and then the conviction is upheld by the Supreme Court, the libertarians can unwad their panties.

5/12/2009 1:56:38 PM

Quote :

"nah, I think it would find itself at the bottom of the nearest deep body of water"

Personally, I think it would be more entertaining to send it to Alaska via UPS Ground. Seriously though, I echo everyone else: if they properly acquired a warrant, I see no problem with using GPS tracking. If they didn't, then its a violation of rights.

5/12/2009 2:32:40 PM

Quote :

"For my ignorance, can you give me any [government policies which curtail freedom but sound reasonable at the start] in the past 30-50 years that I should know about?"

Really?
To name a few:
a ban on the sale of lawn dart games
a ban on selling ephedra-containing dietary supplements
bans on selling horse meat for human consumption
bans on tobacco smoking in privately owned businesses

[Edited on May 12, 2009 at 2:44 PM. Reason : ]

5/12/2009 2:44:00 PM

Quote :

" For my ignorance, can you give me any in the past 30-50 years that I should know about? "

the patriot act

[Edited on May 12, 2009 at 2:51 PM. Reason : a]

5/12/2009 2:51:00 PM