Posted on 01/21/2005 11:01:49 AM PST by CrawDaddyCA
Cops without a warrant can secretly attach Global Positioning System devices to a suspect's vehicle, according to a federal judge - who said using the gadgets is virtually the same thing as following a car along a road.
The decision handed down by U.S. Judge David Hurd in upstate Utica last week could give law enforcement officials another high-tech weapon to catch criminals, but is troubling to privacy advocates.
Hurd ruled that Robert (Bugsy) Moran, a Hells Angel member and defense attorney accused of conspiring to distribute methamphetamine, had "no expectation of privacy in the whereabouts of his vehicle on a public roadway."
"Law enforcement personnel could have conducted a visual surveillance of the vehicle as it traveled on the public highways," Hurd wrote.
Assistant U.S. Attorney David Grable, who is prosecuting Moran, strongly backed the ruling.
"Your movements on a highway aren't private," he said. "You don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy, which is a Fourth Amendment test."
But civil liberties advocates said the decision opens the door to increased government surveillance.
Miniature GPS receivers are now available for about $1,000 and can be affixed to the undercarriage of vehicles in minutes.
Hurd's ruling is only binding in his upstate courtroom, said law Prof. Barry Kamins, but other judges will likely consult it.
"It's kinda scary," said Christopher Dunn, associate legal director of the New York City Liberties Union. "If this ruling applied to New York City, the NYPD would be free to go out and attach these devices to cars and track people without any showing of wrongdoing."
In the Laci Peterson murder case, California detectives got court permission to hide the devices on three of Scott Peterson's vehicles. They showed Peterson visited a marina they had searched several times.
Not all judges agree with the most recent federal ruling.
Last year, Nassau County Court Judge Joseph Calabrese said attaching a GPS device to a car amounted to a search and seizure. "At this time, more than ever, individuals must be given the constitutional protections necessary to their continued unfettered freedom from a 'big brother' society," he wrote.
Time to start selling a GPS jammer, maybe broadcast static at 1575.42 and 1227.60 MHz.
If they can take the time to get one of these devices and install it on a car, I don't think it can be seen as an undue burden to law enforcement to also require a warrant.
From what I gathered in the story, the judge might respond by pointing out that the police don't need your permission to follow your vehicle.
"... the NYPD would be free to go out and attach these devices to cars and track people without any showing of wrongdoing."
Really? Does that also mean the cops can follow you without any just cause? If so, color me surprised. This I did not know.
I have to admit, on some level, their attaching a GPS to a vehicle would seem to be not much different than their following the same vehicle 24x7 with the world's smallest, most maneuverable helicopter. It still doesn't seem right, though.
"Must attach Bat-Tracker to the back of the villians' getaway car..."
Just damn.
If you want on the list, FReepmail me. This IS a high-volume PING list...
If the battery is in it, connected, it's still "doable."
Typical NY State crap!
Since you mentioned that you may be the person who can answer this question for me.
Is it true that for certain models of cell phones the cell phone provider can send it a message to wake up/power on when it's turned off?
Slightly off-topic, but I also read that you can open your locked car door by calling home and having somebody press the button on another fob into your cell phone while you hold the phone up to the car. Sounds great - true, anybody?
I've heard that but can't confirm it. If an individual presses the power button to turn it on, it seems that a device, not unlike a remote, could turn it on.
I don't know if you were aiming your comment towards me, or towards the judge whose line I quoted... I was pointing out that his logic was skewed, even if that held true.
Don't know if it's true but you hooked me so I'll probably wind up trying it. Lol.
Keep the cell phone battery unhooked....
Now you've got it!
True. But in conducting the visual surveillance, the cop wouldn't have had to place his hands on the vehicle without a warrant or the owner's consent to install the tracking device.
BTW, this is why I will never have Onstar or Easypass. How could I seriesly argue that I have an expectation of privacy if I've authorized GM to track my every move?
Holy Homing Device, Batman! :-)
Wow, many ideas going through my mind now.
Same here. I've heard/read it in a few different places but haven't found anything written where someone comes clean about it.
It certainly sounded possible to me as well.
Not. Your fob sends a radio signal to your vehicle, while a cell phone can only "hear" audio frequencies. I'd bet $100 it doesn't work.
Ahhhh, no. I can turn it on remotely. You might want to take the battery out...
Ping to #39. It would seem we have our answer.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.