SCOTUS: Warrant needed for GPS tracking

[Stormwarden]

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57363918/high-court-warrant-needed-for-gps-tracking/

And it's unanimous, no less. Means that there isn't much room for doubt, at least for a while. First sane decision I've seen from the SCOTUS in a while. Hopefully the start of a trend.

[Smurfette Principle]

FUCK YEAH!

[Damen]

[erictheblue]

Huh. I'm kind of surprised, especially since (when you get down to it), GPS tracking is just the modern-day version of tailing a suspect. (As long as the suspect stays in public, no warrant is needed. If the suspect goes somewhere private, you just wait for them to come back out.)

[m52nickerson]

It should be noted that the decision is only for GPS devices placed on a person’s vehicle.  It does not cover, nor answers and questions regarding the use of cell phone or other types of tracking.

[Shane for Wax]

I think where I'm at you always had to do get a warrant to track someone's vehicle.

[StallChaser]

Huh. I'm kind of surprised, especially since (when you get down to it), GPS tracking is just the modern-day version of tailing a suspect. (As long as the suspect stays in public, no warrant is needed. If the suspect goes somewhere private, you just wait for them to come back out.)

Except tailing a suspect takes continuous manpower, and police wouldn't do it long term unless they *really* knew the guy was up to something.  As in probable cause enough to get a warrant.

[erictheblue]

Huh. I'm kind of surprised, especially since (when you get down to it), GPS tracking is just the modern-day version of tailing a suspect. (As long as the suspect stays in public, no warrant is needed. If the suspect goes somewhere private, you just wait for them to come back out.)

Except tailing a suspect takes continuous manpower, and police wouldn't do it long term unless they *really* knew the guy was up to something.  As in probable cause enough to get a warrant.

I know. Sorry, I didn't fully explain my though process.

You can tail someone without a warrant, so long as the person is in public (i.e. a place where an officer has a valid right to be). When it comes down to it, there is no difference (legally)* between tailing a person with a car and putting a GPS on their vehicle. In both cases, all that the police know is where the suspect is. A GPS actually provides less information, because the police cannot see what the suspect is doing, only that the suspect (or the suspect's car, anyway) is at a given location.


*OK, not anymore. The USSC has spoken. But that is the argument I have heard.

[Damen]

Huh. I'm kind of surprised, especially since (when you get down to it), GPS tracking is just the modern-day version of tailing a suspect. (As long as the suspect stays in public, no warrant is needed. If the suspect goes somewhere private, you just wait for them to come back out.)

Except tailing a suspect takes continuous manpower, and police wouldn't do it long term unless they *really* knew the guy was up to something.  As in probable cause enough to get a warrant.

I know. Sorry, I didn't fully explain my though process.

You can tail someone without a warrant, so long as the person is in public (i.e. a place where an officer has a valid right to be). When it comes down to it, there is no difference (legally)* between tailing a person with a car and putting a GPS on their vehicle. In both cases, all that the police know is where the suspect is. A GPS actually provides less information, because the police cannot see what the suspect is doing, only that the suspect (or the suspect's car, anyway) is at a given location.


*OK, not anymore. The USSC has spoken. But that is the argument I have heard.

The other problem with that argument, though, is that tailing a suspect doesn't require law enforcement officials to attach any foreign device to the suspect's car.