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.
I’m going to quibble with you on that for exactly the reason I mentioned.
“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.”
I say that, due to economics at least, there are NO “other techniques” available to determine where a certain car has been every second of the day for an indefinite period of time.
As an earlier poster asked, how much of a step is it to be forced to wear one on your ankle, because by the same reasoning they could be following you “in person” every time you walk out your front door.
Well, maybe. There is a limit to what laws can or should be upheld by the courts. It is not automatic or mandatory that the court takes this position with every statute. Yes, in general, the courts are to interpret and apply the laws, but laws that violate constitutional protections should be struck down by courts. violation? Does this violate the right to free association, that is if your whereabouts are being tracked, are you free?
hell must be about to freeze over because i actually agree with something gondring said. would it were that all courts would settle their “bothers” this way rather than smothering it in the legalese and fudging the decision.