To: Zakeet
No one was “searching” or “seizing” here, just attaching and following.
4 posted on
08/08/2010 11:36:28 PM PDT by
rbosque
(11 year Freeper! Combat Economist.)
To: rbosque
There was no "following", the device compiled data while the cops were at the donut shop. Then the police used the data downloaded from the device as part of their case against the suspect - sounds like "Fruit of the poisonous tree" to me.
Now, had the cops planted a simple homing device which assisted them in following the suspect around, this ruling might've been different. The data-logging aspect seems to be the big issue here.
8 posted on
08/08/2010 11:50:38 PM PDT by
Charles Martel
("Endeavor to persevere...")
To: rbosque
I don’t want the damn gov’t attaching GPS systems to anybody’ vehicle without restrictions. I don’t care about this guy, but I don’t want them to be able to pull this crap on me.
They are “searching” for movements and they’re “seizing” that information.
To: rbosque
Did they even have to attach anything? *Onstar*, and all that.If it exists, subpoena the data and reopen the case with the new evidence.
35 posted on
08/09/2010 6:23:17 AM PDT by
Smokin' Joe
(How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing.)
To: rbosque
Heck isn’t that what they did to Scott Peterson’s truck after they suspected he killed Lacy?
40 posted on
08/09/2010 7:45:14 AM PDT by
Global2010
(Congratulations to Dware for the FR Mussel Eating Fundraiser.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson