GPS Tracking—Warrant or No Warrant?

[Lemur]

A judge just ruled that the police may attach a GPS device to your car in Wisconsin, and track your movements without a warrant. What do the Orgahs think? Should the police show probable cause to a judge, or is tracking your movements sufficiently innocuous that no warrant should be needed?

Wisconsin police can attach GPS to cars to secretly track anybody's movements without obtaining search warrants, an appeals court ruled Thursday.

However, the District 4 Court of Appeals said it was "more than a little troubled" by that conclusion and asked Wisconsin lawmakers to regulate GPS use to protect against abuse by police and private individuals.

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.

That means "police are seemingly free to secretly track anyone's public movements with a GPS device," he wrote.

[rory_20_uk]

Warrant. You can follow someone without easily enough. Oversight is required when you start tagging people more closely.

Next will be "tagging" phones without a warrant (or is this already done?)

[KukriKhan]

What do Orgahs thinK?

This one thinks: there's no legal expectation of privacy when travelling on public roads, so the tracking bit I'm OK wit; any tracker of me would be bored beyond tears.

But the placement, especially the secret placement, of a device might (and I think, should) constitute a "breaking" that some judge ought to be required to authorize beforehand, based on probable cause.

So, yeah... I vote: warrant.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

This one thinks: there's no legal expectation of privacy when travelling on public roads, so the tracking bit I'm OK wit; any tracker of me would be bored beyond tears.

But the placement, especially the secret placement, of a device might (and I think, should) constitute a "breaking" that some judge ought to be required to authorize beforehand, based on probable cause.

So, yeah... I vote: warrant.

Completely agreed.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

I wonder if there is an easy way to detect such a device - somehow picking up if a GPS is broadcasting in a small area, confirming that there is one on your car...

[drone]

I wonder if there is an easy way to detect such a device - somehow picking up if a GPS is broadcasting in a small area, confirming that there is one on your car...

Judging from the two articles, it sounds like they do not broadcast anything, they just store the GPS data for an extended period of time and the police recover the device at some point and plot the movement of the vehicle. You might be able to pick up a signal from the receiver oscillator (same concept as radar detector detectors), if not shielded well I would expect some noise around 1.5 GHz.

[KukriKhan]

I wonder if there is an easy way to detect such a device - somehow picking up if a GPS is broadcasting in a small area, confirming that there is one on your car...

http://customerhelp.us/interfaqs/adv...questionId=187

GPS "loggers" just record, not transmit, so you couldn't find them electronically, only visually.

GPS "trackers" broadcast/narrowcast a short burst every 20 minutes or so.

So far. The field is still emerging, tho'.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

No warrant. The information gained is the same as other information that could be obtained without a warrant--having an undercover car follow the person day and night.

[Andres]

I don't want devices attached to my property by the government to track my movements, thank you very much.

Privacy is a human right.

[Fragony]

Can't remember me getting a car from them

[Hosakawa Tito]

A warrant should be required.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Drives to the Canadian Ballet parking lot and places the tracking device on Beirut's car.

[Crazed Rabbit]

No warrant. The information gained is the same as other information that could be obtained without a warrant--having an undercover car follow the person day and night.

You could say the same thing about tapping a cell phone.

There should be a warrant.

From the article:

Meanwhile, law enforcement officials called the decision a victory for public safety because tracking devices are an increasingly important tool in investigating criminal behavior.

Screw you and your public safety. Public safety means nothing compared to our rights.

CR

[Sasaki Kojiro]

You could say the same thing about tapping a cell phone.

This is true, you could say the same thing. It's not exactly the same thing though. Lots of cell phone calls are private--but anywhere you go in your car is public.

[drone]

Warrant, if only to prevent widespread abuse. It's probably a rubber stamp for the judge anyway, but I don't see a reason why it should not need a warrant.

If I find one attached to my car during my weekly bug sweeps, that thing is going on a Metro bus.