The Conservative Cave
Current Events => Breaking News => Topic started by: Chris_ on April 29, 2011, 10:44:00 AM
-
(http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/ff68/kayaktn/US-CourtOfAppeals-7thCircuit-Seal.png)
The US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruled yesterday in favor of police officers who attach GPS tracking devices to vehicles without first obtaining a warrant. The three-judge panel insisted searches of this sort do not violate the Fourth Amendment after considering the case of Juan Cuevas-Perez.
On February 6, 2009, Phoenix, Arizona detective Matthew Shay attached a tracking device to Cuevas-Perez's Jeep Laredo while it was parked on the street. He did not bother to ask a judge for a warrant. By February 8, the device had tracked the Jeep driving through Missouri. After sixty hours of use the GPS battery died so Shay had other law enforcement agencies track the Jeep to its ultimate destination in Illinois. After following Cuevas-Perez for forty miles, an Illinois State Police pulled him over for "remaining in the left-hand passing lane," a violation almost never enforced by the department. A subsequent drug dog search uncovered nine packages of heroin.
Seventh Circuit already ruled in a 2007 case that secretly installing a GPS device on a vehicle did not constitute a search because the unit provided the same information that could be had from an officer physically following the car. In light of the November US v. Maynard decision from the DC Circuit striking down GPS searches lacking judicial approval (view ruling), the Seventh Circuit judges re-examined the issue. The judges concluded that the twenty-eight-day surveillance in DC could not be compared to the sixty-hour tracking in the present case.
"Unlike in Maynard, the surveillance here was not lengthy and did not expose, or risk exposing, the twists and turns of Cuevas-Perez's life, including possible criminal activities, for a long period," Judge Richard D. Cudahy wrote for the majority. "As the Maynard court noted, the chances that the whole of Cuevas-Perez's movements for a month would actually be observed is effectively nil -- but that is not necessarily true of movements for a much shorter period."
The Newspaper (http://thenewspaper.com/news/34/3467.asp)
-
I don't agree with the judges ruling at all.To me it is a clear violation of the constitution.It would be the same as placing a bug in someones house or on their person without their knowledge...we stand by and watch further erosion of our rights...amazing. :banghead: :banghead:
-
I don't agree with the judges ruling at all.To me it is a clear violation of the constitution.It would be the same as placing a bug in someones house or on their person without their knowledge...we stand by and watch further erosion of our rights...amazing. :banghead: :banghead:
Agreed. It's either illegal or it isn't. Get a warrant, or use the manpower to track the suspect.
I don't care if it's convenient. It's wrong.
-
I think not being GPS tracked falls under reasonable expectation of privacy.
-
I think not being GPS tracked falls under reasonable expectation of privacy.
que?
Could you restate that in English?
-
que?
Could you restate that in English?
I think he's stating it is a violation of the expectation of privacy that the Court has seen fit to interpret into existence. I happen to agree.
-
This opens up the possibility of planting tracking bugs on people or their belongings without a warrant. This should be an outrage. I guess not many people remember Benjamin Franklin's view of freedom versus security.
-
Bad ruling. Yeah, the guy was a doper, but who's to say what trumped up reasoning will be used for the next tracking device.
To remain a free country we have to assume some risks; that means the bad guys will win sometimes. I'd rather die than live under a suffocating blanket of alleged well meaning security.
-
I was watching an investigative report on TV.It was about counterfeiting I believe...anyway the Fed's got a judge to issue them a "sneak and peek" warrant, what a load of crap. LE can enter your home without your knowledge and snoop around all they want.WTF! :banghead:
-
AMERICA. The land of the free and home of the brave.
It was nice while it lasted.
-
"Judicial activism and tyranny never felt this good."
- source close to King Stinky
-
"Judicial activism and tyranny never felt this good."
- source close to King Stinky
I know you didn't get to interview the cat - the cat has already disowned Stinky as useless - so what in hell were you smoking in order to get the box of cat shits to talk to you?!?! :-)
-
They are never going to stop taking away our freedoms. This is not going to end well.
-
I disagree with the court.
The judges are partially correct, the Phoenix police could have followed him & achieved the same results.
But the Phoenix Police could not have followed him outside their jurisdictional limits. :hammer:
This guy was five states away when he was pulled over! :???:
The Judges here, as is often the case, are idiots.
-
I disagree with the court.
The judges are partially correct, the Phoenix police could have followed him & achieved the same results.
But the Phoenix Police could not have followed him outside their jurisdictional limits. :hammer:
This guy was five states away when he was pulled over! :???:
The Judges here, as is often the case, are idiots.
Phoenix police were working with ICE, and this case is not the first to set precedence. Here is the decision:
http://thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/2011/us-gps7.pdf
What the court found is that GPS surveillance equipment is the equivilant of surveillance cameras; it was attached to a vehicle which has no expectation of privacy; the actual search of the vehicle was done appropriately.
It's a stretch, but will need a SCOTUS review to parse it out.
-
Phoenix police were working with ICE, and this case is not the first to set precedence. Here is the decision:
http://thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/2011/us-gps7.pdf
What the court found is that GPS surveillance equipment is the equivilant of surveillance cameras; it was attached to a vehicle which has no expectation of privacy; the actual search of the vehicle was done appropriately.
It's a stretch, but will need a SCOTUS review to parse it out.
ICE should have applied for a warrant after it left Phoenix's jurisdiction.
-
So, essensially it will be legal unless the SCOTUS gets on their feet?
Lame. I guess I should stop trafficing heroin then... Oh well!