Skip to comments.
Supreme Court Rules that Warrants Needed for GPS Tracking (Scalia writes 4th amendment ruling!)
DCist ^
| 1/23/12
| Martin Austermuhl
Posted on 01/23/2012 9:47:35 AM PST by Recovering_Democrat
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-100 next last
To: Recovering_Democrat
I suspect that Scalia is concerned about the rights of citizens against illegal search and seizure, whereas Sotomayor is probably concerned about the rights of illegal immigrant drug dealers.
Never mind, the decision is correct. If the law wants to track drug dealers, they should get a warrant.
21
posted on
01/23/2012 10:28:24 AM PST
by
Cicero
(Marcus Tullius)
To: Recovering_Democrat
Thank God! I was really worried about this one. It could have been 5-4 against, and one or two of “our guys” could have gone against. This gives me some hope that sanity may be restored some day.
To: redgolum
Me too. Especially in the unanimity of the court in protecting constitutional rights.
This is another personal blow to obama and I think we will see an ultimate smackdown in the obamacare case when his own justices vote aginst his so called landmark legislation.
23
posted on
01/23/2012 10:42:46 AM PST
by
SpringtoLiberty
(Liberty is on the march!)
To: Recovering_Democrat
This is the second unanimous vote in as many weeks. I’m blown away.
24
posted on
01/23/2012 10:48:41 AM PST
by
douginthearmy
(Obamagebra: 1 job + 1 hope + 1 change = 0 jobs + 0 hope)
To: Pan_Yan
25
posted on
01/23/2012 10:48:58 AM PST
by
Pan_Yans Wife
("Real solidarity means coming together for the common good."-Sarah Palin)
To: 353FMG
Why the concern for the privacy of local drug dealers when the privacy of law abiding citizens is daily violated? http://neighbors.whitepages.com/ What else do they know about us?Are you implying that http://neighbors.whitepages.com/ is run by government authorities?
Who is 'they'?
26
posted on
01/23/2012 10:49:53 AM PST
by
The Electrician
("Government is the only enterprise in the world which expands in size when its failures increase.")
To: Myrddin
My thoughts also...
Things like "it's my car, it's my data".
The idea that they can have my driving info, or cell info and use it against me..well, it denys the right to take the fifth.
But the bottom line is usually MONEY...like insurance companies.
To: businessprofessor
The difference between car and phone in this instance is the phone does not hold the gps coord unless there was an app placed on the phone. Good luck telling me i have to add a app to let the police keep up with me.
28
posted on
01/23/2012 10:58:26 AM PST
by
Baseballguy
(If we knew what we know now in Oct would we do anything different?)
To: Recovering_Democrat; P-Marlowe
I have mixed feelings on this one since a warrant had previously been issued for an area and an amount of time.
I don’t think police should randomly be permitted to track people. At the same time, they must have had enough evidence to convince a judge to give them the initial warrant.
As near as I can tell, the judge erred on the side of geography and duration, and I find it odd that the druggie was comfortable after that time and in a different location.
Moreover, we are now 100% CERTAIN that the guy was traffiking drugs. There is no doubt. He is guilty as sin of the charge.
Therefore, the police were reasonable in their suspicions.
29
posted on
01/23/2012 11:00:28 AM PST
by
xzins
(Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Pray Continued Victory for our Troops Still in Afghan!)
To: Recovering_Democrat
On the other hand, tracking the GPS in his cell phone is a different matter. He is broadcasting his location to the world and the world can track him
30
posted on
01/23/2012 11:04:08 AM PST
by
bert
(K.E. N.P. +12 ..... Crucifixion is coming)
To: Cicero
31
posted on
01/23/2012 11:09:21 AM PST
by
Qbert
("The best defense against usurpatory government is an assertive citizenry" - William F. Buckley, Jr.)
To: WOBBLY BOB
Okay. Fair enough. But your scenario involves law enforcement officials committing perjury, which is already against the law.
Setting aside for a moment the things dishonest people can accomplish when they decide to lie under oath, the supreme court's decision in this case is very good news for the people of the United States and for the 4th Amendment. It certainly beats the alternative.
32
posted on
01/23/2012 11:16:49 AM PST
by
WayneS
(Comments now include 25% MORE sarcasm for no additional charge...)
To: sam_paine
What? Didn't you hear?!
High speed internet service has been deemed a basic human right!
That being the case, it goes without saying that 'smart' utiltiy meters are unconstitutional...
; - )
33
posted on
01/23/2012 11:20:48 AM PST
by
WayneS
(Comments now include 25% MORE sarcasm for no additional charge...)
To: Myrddin
This was a good ruling, IMHO. As others have noted, the fact that the ones executing the search warrant that _was_ issued violated it from Day 1 according to the article.
You said, "I would like to see this extended to include the GPS data coming from my cell phone. Monitoring the GPS coordinates coming from my cell phone is no different than conducting a wire tap. Use of that data in a legal context should require an explicit warrant before the data is admissible as evidence in a legal proceeding."
Do you mean extending it to the point that not even the cell companies can keep track of the "pings" and can only turn that ability "on" when they are presented a search warrant, or do you mean that the police can only access the data with a warrant? I think the cell companies keep a pretty tight rein on the data they do get from your phone "pinging" towers, at least it sure seems that way with the amount of time it takes to actually OK releasing "last ping" data for some active missing persons cases I've read about in the last few years.
I'm wondering if according to your thinking unless there was a search warrant obtained to get the "last ping" info. if it would then be inadmissible in any subsequent trial of suspected perpetrators and such (sometimes used for placing the victim in the same vicinity as the kidnapper/murderer or establishing a more accurate timeline).
I definitely agree that there absolutely needs to be a search warrant before police should be able to use any type of GPS tracking on anyone suspected of a crime. I'm just wondering what kind of restrictions or allowances should be made in specific circumstances.
To: WayneS
true- 4th Amendment win!
luvs me some Scalia.
35
posted on
01/23/2012 11:24:32 AM PST
by
WOBBLY BOB
(Congress: Looting the future to bribe the present.)
To: SpringtoLiberty
This is another personal blow to obama and I think we will see an ultimate smackdown in the obamacare case when his own justices vote aginst his so called landmark legislation. And hopefully too some Republicans as well. Like the ones who support keeping databases on law abiding persons purchases or the ones who want black boxes or {snitch boxes} installed in vehicles. Just because we possess the technology to do something does not mean government needs it as a tool to use on us without Constitutional limitations including probable cause and proper use of a warrant.
36
posted on
01/23/2012 11:25:06 AM PST
by
cva66snipe
(Two Choices left for U.S. One Nation Under GOD or One Nation Under Judgment? Which one say ye?)
To: Myrddin
Are you engaged in illegal activities?
37
posted on
01/23/2012 11:25:16 AM PST
by
verity
(The Obama Administration is a Criminal Enterprise.)
To: goldi
Last week they refused to hear a couple of cases against public school students who wrote objectionable comments about their principals on a website. The lower courts upheld the students rights and the Supreme Court refused to hear the cases, but my newspaper said the Court issued a statement warning the states not to interfere with students First Amendment rights. I was amazed because the students actions were pretty outrageous. Outrageous or not, they're still allowed to express themselves, as long as they weren't using school equipment to do so, it's really no business of the school. If they were engaging in libel, that might be a different story, but that's not what they were accused of, was it?
38
posted on
01/23/2012 11:37:27 AM PST
by
kevkrom
(Note to self: proofread, then post. It's better that way.)
To: Recovering_Democrat
wait till obamacare, that is where they ware waiting to rule.
Then there is now forcing religious institutions to do abortions, contraceptives etc
39
posted on
01/23/2012 11:37:38 AM PST
by
manc
(Marriage is between one man and one woman.Trolls get a life, I HATE OUR BIASED LIBERAL MEDIA.)
To: Recovering_Democrat
What a muddle this ruling seems to be - 4 weeks of 24x7 GPS tracking is not okay, but some lesser amount of GPS tracking might be okay? What huh?
40
posted on
01/23/2012 11:40:49 AM PST
by
mvpel
(Michael Pelletier)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-100 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson