Posted on 05/10/2009 7:57:22 AM PDT by mtrott
MADISON, Wis. - 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at chicagotribune.com ...
In all fairness I understand Rental car companies, but not on the car you own..
i don’t think these gadgets can broadcast information BACK. they only store changing location information for later retrieval when the device is retrieved. but if the gadget is tossed in trash (preferably not on your property) it can’t be retrieved or found.
I don't see what difference there is in this and many other unobtrusive surveillance techniques law enforcement uses. Why not require them to get a warrant to just follow a guy around and photograph his activities? Lots of valuable intelligence is obtained by monitoring the activities of persons acquainted with the target who are not believed to be involved in anything illegal themselves.
When people complained that the GPS thing was too big brotherish, our fine legislators came up with the idea of pushing it off on insurance companies, claiming that the insurance companies could reduce rates for people who didn't drive much. No one's falling for that one, either.
It IS a search in a broader sense, of where you travel to. Those “cops”stink!
If the POLICE can do it, based on no authority, then EVERYONE else can, too! We have THEIR same authority - NONE!
LOL. Let’s TRACK the “police”!
The quick answer to your question is YES.
You might want to stick it on a Fed-Ex truck, or city bus, tho, for fun!
Box it up and ship it to the Appeals Court.
Difference is, HE had done something WRONG to be booted. like unpaid traffffic fines, etc.
The difference is that,perhaps,one cannot reasonably expect to enjoy "privacy" while being anywhere to which the general public has access.....like public streets,certain buildings,etc,etc.OTOH,I think that an individual has the right to expect that no government entity (particularly the police) will be allowed to attach a device to his/her private vehicle without either his/her permission or a warrant from a court.
Don’t throw it down a drain. Affix it to any convenient cop car (donut shop parking lot).
Well said!
As long as we’ve already started sliding down this particularly slippery slope, we might as well get what enjoyment we can from the ride.
I’m thinking maybe I’d attach it my priest’s car for a week or two while I’m in Vegas.
Or mail it to my friend in Australia.
Or attach it to a NASCAR car.
Or have fun with hot air balloons, freight trains, etc.
Or drive to the river, hand it to my brother in his boat, drive the 30 miles downstream to cross the river by bridge, meet the boat directly across from where I’d left it and get the device, drive around MN for a while, do the boat exchange again going back and then park my car in the driveway with some sea weeds sticking out of the trunk.
Yes, and it would also make it easier for you to find the local Dunkin Donuts or Krispy Kream stores in any town too.
I would make one distinction: If it was a matter of hot pursuit of a crime an officer had witnessed, no problemo. He has probable cause to attach such a device. That way, the officer could tag the car and follow it to an accomplice.
"Hey", -- O-Ren Ishii, Kill Bill (Volume 2)
This is not any more disturbing to me. Why should anyone loose his rights, just because the police SUSPECT him? We are all innocent, until proved guilty. Being a suspect should not reduce your rights.
I didn't say I agreed with the premise that they did not need to obtain a warrant to track a suspect. I find that disturbing too.
THis came from another forum. It is basically a C&D letter to a website selling jammers:
VIA CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Shaker Hassan,
Sales Manager, Grand Trades Co.
4701 15th Avenue, N.E.
Apartment 108
Seattle, WA 98105
Re: File No. EB-05-SE-059
Dear Shaker Hassan:
This is an official CITATION, issued pursuant to Section 503(b)(5) of
the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (“Communications Act”), 47
U.S.C. § 503(b)(5), for marketing unauthorized radio frequency devices
in the United States in violation of Section 302(b) of the
Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. § 302a(b), and Section 2.803(a) of the
Commission’s Rules (“Rules”), 47 C.F.R. § 2.803(a). As explained
below, future violations of the Commission’s rules in this regard may
subject your company to monetary forfeitures.
By letter dated March 15, 2005, the Spectrum Enforcement Division of
the Commission’s Enforcement Bureau initiated an investigation into
whether Grand Trades Co. (“Grand Trades”) is marketing in the United
States unauthorized radio frequency devices, specifically, cell phone
jammers, wireless device jammers and long range cordless telephones.
At the time of that letter, March 15, 2005, we observed on your
website, www.grandtrades.net, your advertisement for sale of the
following radio frequency devices:
1. SH-066BM2 A/B-R cell phone jammer. The website indicated that there
were two models of this device available, including one for “USA/
Canada.”
2. SH066PL2A/B portable cell phone jammer. The website indicated that
there were two models of this device available, including one for “USA/
Canada.”
3. GT-200 cell phone jammer. The website indicated that there were two
models of this device available, including one for “USA/Canada.”
4. SRC300 cell phone jammer. The website indicated that there were two
models of this device available, including one for “USA/Canada.”
5. GT300 cell phone jammer. The website described this device as a
“Worldwide” cell phone jammer.
6. 2.4 GHz wireless jammer. The website stated that this device
interferes with the video signals of wireless cameras and blocks the
communications of wireless LANs and Bluetooth devices.
7. Senao 358 long range cordless phone. The website indicated that
this device has a range of 20 km.
8. Senao 668 long range cordless phone. The website indicated that
this device has a range of 128 km.
9. Senao 869 long range cordless phone. The website indicated that
this device has a range of 20 km.
Your advertisement of these products specifically listed shipping
costs to customers in the United States. Your website also listed your
“USA” business address as 4701 15th Avenue, N.E., Apartment 108,
Seattle, Washington 98105, and your “USA” fax number as (206)
309-0271. Furthermore, your website stated that “[w]e run the business
from more than one location in Taiwan, Egypt & USA” and that “we
gladly served many customers worldwide from USA, UK, Canada, Germany,
Ireland, France, Italy, Portugal & more.”
In response to our letter of inquiry, you sent us two undated written
responses by facsimile, one received on or about March 20, 2005 and
one received on or about March 30, 2005. In these faxes, you claimed
that your company is based in Taiwan and Egypt, that you don’t have
any import or export business activity or distributors inside the
U.S., and that you don’t have an office or branch of Grand Trades or
hold any inventory in the U.S. You further claimed that Grand Trades
is “not directing our business to USA.” Nevertheless, you admitted
that since Grand Trades began its business about five months ago, it
has sold about 10 cell phone jammers, two video jammers, and four long
range cordless telephones to U.S. customers. You did not provide FCC
Identification numbers or other documentation showing that the devices
have been certified in accordance with the Commission’s equipment
authorization requirements. Finally, you stated that you do not
manufacture the devices and are not aware of the regulations of each
country.
Section 302(b) of the Act provides that “[n]o person shall
manufacture, import, sell, offer for sale, or ship devices or home
electronic equipment and systems, or use devices, which fail to comply
with regulations promulgated pursuant to this section.” Section 2.803
(a)(1) of the Commission’s implementing regulations provides that:
no person shall sell or lease, or offer for sale or lease (including
advertising for sale or lease), or import, ship, or distribute for the
purpose of selling or leasing or offering for sale or lease, any radio
frequency device unless … [i]n the case of a device subject to
certification, such device has been authorized by the Commission in
accordance with the rules in this chapter and is properly identified
and labeled as required by § 2.925 and other relevant sections in this
chapter.
Pursuant to Section 15.201(b) of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 15.201(b),
intentional radiators must be authorized in accordance with the FCC’s
certification procedures prior to the initiation of marketing in the
U.S. Based on your failure to provide FCC Identification numbers or
other documentation showing that the jammers and cordless telephones
marketed in the U.S. by Grand Trades have been certified, as well as
our review of the Commission’s equipment authorization database, it
appears that these devices have not been certified. Moreover, it does
not appear that these devices are capable of receiving a grant of
certification. In this regard, the main purpose of cell phone and
other wireless jammers is to block or interfere with radio
communications. Such use is clearly prohibited by Section 333 of the
Act, 47 U.S.C. § 333, which states that “[n]o person shall willfully
or maliciously interfere with or cause interference to any radio
communications of any station licensed or authorized by or under this
Act or operated by the
United States Government.” A device such as a jammer which
intentionally interferes with radio communications is not eligible for
certification. Similarly, considering the long ranges cited in your
advertisements for the cordless telephones, it appears that they do
not comply with FCC technical requirements and therefore could not
receive a grant of certification. Accordingly, it appears that Grand
Trades has violated Section 302(b) of the Act and Section 2.803(a) of
the Rules by marketing in the United States the nine unauthorized
radio frequency devices listed above. Finally, we note that the
evidence before us contradicts Grand Trades’ claim that it is not
directing its business to the United States. In this regard, we note,
among other things, that Grand Trades’ website advertised “USA/Canada”
models of several of its cell phone jammers, listed shipping costs to
the United States for its products, and stated that “[w]e run the
business from more than one location in Taiwan, Egypt & USA” and that
“we gladly served many customers worldwide from USA, UK,
Canada . . .”
If, after receipt of this citation, you violate the Communications Act
or the Commission’s rules in any manner described herein, the
Commission may impose monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for
each such violation or each day of a continuing violation.
You may respond to this citation within 30 days from the date of this
letter either through (1) a personal interview at the Commission’s
Field Office nearest to your place of business, or (2) a written
statement. Your response should specify the actions that you are
taking to ensure that you do not violate the Commission’s rules
governing the marketing of radio frequency equipment in the future.
The nearest Commission field office appears to be the Seattle District
Office, in Kirkland, Washington. Please call Katherine Power at
202-418-0919 if you wish to schedule a personal interview. You should
schedule any interview to take place within 30 days of the date of
this letter. You should send any written statement within 30 days of
the date of this letter to:
Kathryn Berthot
Deputy Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division
Enforcement Bureau
Federal Communications Commission
445-12th Street, S.W., Rm. 7-C802
Washington, D.C. 20554
Under the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(e)(3), we are
informing you that the Commission’s staff will use all relevant
material information before it, including information that you
disclose in your interview or written statement, to determine what, if
any, enforcement action is required to ensure your compliance with the
Communications Act and the Commission’s rules.
The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the
concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is
punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. § 1001.
Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation.
Sincerely,
Kathryn Berthot
Deputy Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division
Enforcement Bureau
Federal Communications Commission
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.