The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Politics & RKBA => Topic started by: Rastus on May 10, 2009, 08:58:21 AM
-
Ain't this just peachy....... your very own secret police free to track anyone they want anywhere they want. But hey, it's just for the criminal types...you know. It's not for normal everyday people who obey the law and love big brother. You are a good citizen that supports your government in all it does, you are patriotic, aren't you? You do love big brother, don't you? You aren't one of those wacko extremist Homeland Security is talking about...are you?
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-ap-wi-gps-police,0,5890193.story (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-ap-wi-gps-police,0,5890193.story)
Wisconsin court upholds GPS tracking by police
By RYAN J. FOLEY | Associated Press Writer
2:42 PM CDT, May 7, 2009
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.
That means "police are seemingly free to secretly track anyone's public movements with a GPS device," he wrote.
One privacy advocate said the decision opened the door for greater government surveillance of citizens. Meanwhile, law enforcement officials called the decision a victory for public safety because tracking devices are an increasingly important tool in investigating criminal behavior.
The ruling came in a 2003 case involving Michael Sveum, a Madison man who was under investigation for stalking. Police got a warrant to put a GPS on his car and secretly attached it while the vehicle was parked in Sveum's driveway. The device recorded his car's movements for five weeks before police retrieved it and downloaded the information.
The information suggested Sveum was stalking the woman, who had gone to police earlier with suspicions. Police got a second warrant to search his car and home, found more evidence and arrested him. He was convicted of stalking and sentenced to prison.
Sveum, 41, argued the tracking violated his Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure. He argued the device followed him into areas out of public view, such as his garage.
The court disagreed. The tracking did not violate constitutional protections because the device only gave police information that could have been obtained through visual surveillance, Lundsten wrote.
Even though the device followed Sveum's car to private places, an officer tracking Sveum could have seen when his car entered or exited a garage, Lundsten reasoned. Attaching the device was not a violation, he wrote, because Sveum's driveway is a public place.
"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.
Although police obtained a warrant in this case, it wasn't needed, he added.
Larry Dupuis, legal director of the ACLU of Wisconsin, said using GPS to track someone's car goes beyond observing them in public and should require a warrant.
"The idea that you can go and attach anything you want to somebody else's property without any court supervision, that's wrong," he said. "Without a warrant, they can do this on anybody they want."
Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen's office, which argued in favor of the warrantless GPS tracking, praised the ruling but would not elaborate on its use in Wisconsin.
David Banaszynski, president of the Wisconsin Chiefs of Police Association, said his department in the Milwaukee suburb of Shorewood does not use GPS. But other departments might use it to track drug dealers, burglars and stalkers, he said.
A state law already requires the Department of Corrections to track the state's most dangerous sex offenders using GPS. The author of that law, Rep. Scott Suder, R-Abbotsford, said the decision shows "GPS tracking is an effective means of protecting public safety."
End of article.
If you support the wanton, wholesale and indiscriminate surveillance of innocent citizens you just are not American. There, I've said it. You might have been born here, but if you support this kind of stuff you must be descendant of Karl Marx, or Stalin, or Kruschev,...maybe you are Putin's cousin or maybe even Chavez's brother-in-law. If you can justify tracking citizens who are not legitimate suspects of a real investigation....you may just be a good candidate for the KGB or whatever it's called these days...maybe a good candidate for a North Korean job?
-
'The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.'
What part don't they understand? Who's minding the store?
-
"If you can justify tracking citizens who are not legitimate suspects of a real investigation....you may just be a good candidate for the KGB or whatever it's called these days..."
FSB, but do NOT ask me what it stands for , something like "Federal Security Bureau"
-
When a warrant, or even a showing of probable cause is required, is based on "a reasonable expectation of pivacy". The home enjoys the highest protection. It decrease the further afeild you go. Even in the home it varies. To tap your phone, pre-W at least, they needed a warrant. Howeveer if you were using a remote phone no. The rationale is that its just a radio trandmitter and if the cops want to park outside with a scanner, no problem. Likewise they can go through your trash, or peek over your neighbors fence (with his permission). I guess the rationale is that you can't expect where you drive on public street in a licensed vehicle to be private. It sucks but given the fact that Thomas, Scalia, Alito and even Breyer rarely met search they didn't like, I would think we're stuck with this one.
FQ13
-
Under current interpretation the fact that a search was illegal does not necessarily disqualify the evidence obtained in that search. Another interesting note, EZ pass toll records in Pa and NJ have been used in Divorce proceedings, guy claimed he was going to Philly but his wife's lawyer got EZ pass records that showed him being in NJ one exit from his girlfriends house .
-
I believe that the vehicle I'm driving in to be private property even when it's conveying my fat ass to and from whereever I'm taking the aformentioned fat backside. My personal effects are MY property and are covered under the 4th IMO. My garbage that I've turned out into the street is considered "common garbage", thus the origination of the term and no longer my property.
My automobile is one of the effects that the 4th mentions, though at the time of ratification, that conveyance may have been a cart or buggy or any wagon considered such by the men that penned the ammendment. The authorities have no right to touch it, period!
The Patriot Act was a hasty piece of paper written under the duress of angry frightened men and should be ammended.
-
I believe that the vehicle I'm driving in to be private property even when it's conveying my fat ass to and from whereever I'm taking the aformentioned fat backside. My personal effects are MY property and are covered under the 4th IMO. My garbage that I've turned out into the street is considered "common garbage", thus the origination of the term and no longer my property.
My automobile is one of the effects that the 4th mentions, though at the time of ratification, that conveyance may have been a cart or buggy or any wagon considered such by the men that penned the ammendment. The authorities have no right to touch it, period!
The Patriot Act was a hasty piece of paper written under the duress of angry frightened men and should be ammended eliminated.
Had ta fix that for ya. ;)
-
Had ta fix that for ya. ;)
Thanks....your right, again....!!! :)
-
What happens if you find this device and remove or destroy it? What happens if you find they are using your On-Star or similar device and disconnect it?
If you are being "observed" and evade, I guarantee you will be treated as if guilty. If you protect yourself from this type of intrusion won't you be treated the same?
-
Tim, It's the "plain sight" detail. If a Cop comes to your door and with out entering can see a pile of drugs on your coffee table, that gives him "probable cause" for a search warrant. Same with your vehicle,when they stop you they always ask if they can search and you should always say NO as it is private property and also subject to the laws of the state it is registered in,NOT the state you are driving through , but if you have a rocket launcher on your back seat that gives him his probable cause.
They are basing this ruling on the fact that your vehicle is "in plain sight" they could get the same information by simply following you.
Just because I understand the reasoning does NOT mean I approve.
Haz, I disagree with you on the Patriot Act, it should not be eliminated, it SHOULD be specifically targeted at Muslims and those with provable connections to terrorist organizations like Wm. Ayers and B O .
-
Is there any thing that blocks GPS like you can get a cell phone blocker (yes, I know it's not legal).
-
Subversion of the law to make it appear reasonable is wrong. I understand the probable clause, plain sight, etc.... This intrusion to apply a device unknown to me, without my permission is wrong. The fact that I've nothing to hide is immaterial.
I don't know how reasonable men can debate and misconstrue the document that allows them to debate, speek their minds freely and have the choice to formulate their own opinion and shout it to the world.
I've been the victim of illegal search, thankfully aquited of all charges. It SUCKS and sometimes the damage cannot be reversed.
-
Yea, but is getting a lot of gum mags thru the USPS considered probable cause to keep track of someone? You can bet your friendly post "person" knows.
Richard
-
Yea, but is getting a lot of gum mags thru the USPS considered probable cause to keep track of someone? You can bet your friendly post "person" knows.
Richard
Mine is a pretty good guy who, if anything, reads them first. ;D
Subversion of the law to make it appear reasonable is wrong. I understand the probable clause, plain sight, etc.... This intrusion to apply a device unknown to me, without my permission is wrong. The fact that I've nothing to hide is immaterial.
I don't know how reasonable men can debate and misconstrue the document that allows them to debate, speek their minds freely and have the choice to formulate their own opinion and shout it to the world.
I've been the victim of illegal search, thankfully aquited of all charges. It SUCKS and sometimes the damage cannot be reversed.
That's the problem, we are not dealing with "reasonable men" but self righteous power hungry political elitist a$$holes.
Is there any thing that blocks GPS like you can get a cell phone blocker (yes, I know it's not legal).
Being out of the line of sight of the satellites, in a valley where Satellite TV is not available for example.
-
I believe that the vehicle I'm driving in to be private property even when it's conveying my fat ass to and from whereever I'm taking the aformentioned fat backside. My personal effects are MY property and are covered under the 4th IMO. My garbage that I've turned out into the street is considered "common garbage", thus the origination of the term and no longer my property.
My automobile is one of the effects that the 4th mentions, though at the time of ratification, that conveyance may have been a cart or buggy or any wagon considered such by the men that penned the ammendment. The authorities have no right to touch it, period!
The Patriot Act was a hasty piece of paper written (long ago and waiting for the appropriate moment) under the duress willfulness of angry frightened (of us) men and should be ammended eradicated along with its authors and ultimate perpetrators..
Haz fixed the wrong part.
-
Is there any thing that blocks GPS like you can get a cell phone blocker (yes, I know it's not legal).
Why bother? If you find it, just place it under a delivery truck, say your friendly local USPS truck?
-
Why bother? If you find it, just place it under a delivery truck, say your friendly local USPS truck?
Or a cop car.... ;D Seriously if its pasive (just reciving) as this one seemed to be, I doubt you could find it even if you were paranoid to buy a bug detector and sweep every day. Although, a gps unit has to have a clear sight line to sats. You couldn't put in a wheel well without an aerial, TWyacht would be our go to guy, but I used to have trouble with mine when I was in grown over hung mangrove creeks.
FQ13
-
I did not post this either....
http://www.spygearco.com/blog/index.php/how-to-block-a-gps-tracker-using-gps-jammers/
I know nothing,....... 8)
-
Why bother? If you find it, just place it under a delivery truck, say your friendly local USPS truck?
I think I woul have to put it on the cheifs/sheriffs car.
-
I understand the sentiments conveyed here, but what is the difference between not noticing being followed and a GPS transmitter than (and here's a shocker) a lazy police force?
-
The simple fact its a machine doing it not a person.
-
The simple fact its a machine doing it not a person.
It's not the fact that it is a machine. What bothers me is that it can be done without a warrant and without my knowledge. Minnesota had the "photo cop" installed on traffic lights in the Twin Cities, and it was thrown out because it was not a person. Didn't bother me, because it only took pictures of cars when they ran a red light and it got the car the license plate and the light. This thing is being put on cars to see if you are going somewhere rather than catching you there.
If it is that important, go through the warrant procedure, or stay off my property (and the car is my private property)!
-
It's not the fact that it is a machine. What bothers me is that it can be done without a warrant and without my knowledge. Minnesota had the "photo cop" installed on traffic lights in the Twin Cities, and it was thrown out because it was not a person. Didn't bother me, because it only took pictures of cars when they ran a red light and it got the car the license plate and the light. This thing is being put on cars to see if you are going somewhere rather than catching you there.
If it is that important, go through the warrant procedure, or stay off my property (and the car is my private property)!
police can fallow you anytime they want, does not take a warrent. Infact I wish I could get them to fallow me in about a month. I'll be doing a comm'l remodel in a area that is known for gang violance.
-
Let them follow. However, if they want to come on or in my property without probable cause they need a warrant. That is what the Constitution says ... One State court may not agree, but I'll bet on appeal it will eventually change.
-
Even though the device followed Sveum's car to private places, an officer tracking Sveum could have seen when his car entered or exited a garage, Lundsten reasoned. Attaching the device was not a violation, he wrote, because Sveum's driveway is a public place.
This is the part that bothers me the most, besides violating the 4th amendment, the driveway is usually part of someone's private property! Since when is my driveway a public place? Yes it can be seen from public view, but that does not make it a public place. Now, after having said that, the cops could have just followed him and waited for him to go to a public place to attach the GPS to his car. I still don't like it but it can be done that way too.
-
I wonder if they would consider your garage a "public place" if the door wasn't closed. I mean, hell, if the guy's driveway is a public place, why not his open garage?
Makes me wonder how long it'll be before "Big Brother" requires each of us to have a GPS tracking device implanted in our persons.
-
I wonder if they would consider your garage a "public place" if the door wasn't closed. I mean, hell, if the guy's driveway is a public place, why not his open garage?
Makes me wonder how long it'll be before "Big Brother" requires each of us to have a GPS tracking device implanted in our persons.
I remeber after McVeigh was convicted he did a jailhouse interview for Time. He had this quote where he was accusing DOD of doing all this experenmentation on him, including implanting a tracking chip (Operation:Follow the Redneck, later deemed a failure). The funny part was that some wise ass in advertising had placed a half page ad for those chips you can get implanted in your dog on the facing page. At the time I read it I was ROFL. Now, it seems a bit less funny.
FQ13
-
I know that Oregon and North Carolina were talking about putting GPS in everyone's car to track the mileage each car traveled in the state and then the owner of the car was taxed based on the miles driven. This was to raise money for the highway fund to repair and build roads. I know it got a lot of opposition here, haven't heard too much about it lately.
If this were to be implemented, then the LEO wouldn't need to tag your car, they could just access the DMV database that would be set up to keep records of everyone's mileage.
-
Lowjack anti theft system is the same thing.
-
I wonder if they would consider your garage a "public place" if the door wasn't closed. I mean, hell, if the guy's driveway is a public place, why not his open garage?
Makes me wonder how long it'll be before "Big Brother" requires each of us to have a GPS tracking device implanted in our persons.
If your window shades are open, anything that happens in view of the window is fair game for the cops. So is an open garage door.
And in answer to your last question, 20 years, no more, maybe less.
-
The reason that I asked the question I did was the use of technology. 200 years ago you didn't have high powered binoculars to observe someone unseen. If you break the basics down here, it is just another technological leap, in essence, a higher powered binocular. I am as libertarian as they come, but I don't see a GPS as an unwarranted search. I would have a problem, however, with a GPS on or in a person without his personal consent.
I'm not attempting to be contrary, but I just don't see the the unwarranted search, because it is in "plain sight", so to speak. Help me out here brethren.
-
Remember the voluntary consumer that gets the Northstar system, Lojack, hell, cell phones have them. There is AIS (Automated Identification System), gives you the name of the vessel on any screen in the marine industry, consumers sign up for the chance to be tracked, monitored, and sometimes INVESTIGATED; divorce cases have used this data to prove infidelity, work vehicles (my work van has one), to check on lunch breaks, actual travel time etc,...
DSC, (Digital Selective Calling), They know who, what, and where through a subscriber number we voluntarily sign up for. Sure it helps and saves lives in an emergency. BUT,there is something "unnerving" about how much to give "them" access to.
Back in the day, when my old Mustang overheated back in the days before cellphones, it would have been nice to push a button and reach out and touch someone, myself, like a lot of members here, I did it the "old fashioned way". Fixed it on the side of the road in a McGyver kind of way, bummed a ride, walked...
Consumers opened the door for the convenience, now the marketing has taken it to truly be Big Brother.
Where were you at 5:53 p.m. April 10th?,..... Can't remember?,..... No problem,..... We'll find out.
Makes me a little wary, and I install and service in this stuff....
-
That's it, we will lose the last vestiges of our privacy and liberty not to oppression, but to consumer products and "safety devices". Look at cell phones, 20 years ago they were an idea,nowadays we have people stumbling around who can not function without an earbud stuck in their head.
-
There is AIS (Automated Identification System), gives you the name of the vessel on any screen in the marine industry,
there's concern that terrorists, pirates whatever try to use this stuff. you can find out where most commercial vessels are within a few hours and where they've been just by lookin it up on the internet. makes you nervous when you contract out to the gov. and so make yourself a nice target. I can see the lo-jack etc.. stuff being abused this way in the future. hope not though.
-
That's it, we will lose the last vestiges of our privacy and liberty not to oppression, but to consumer products and "safety devices". Look at cell phones, 20 years ago they were an idea,nowadays we have people stumbling around who can not function without an earbud stuck in their head.
You hurt my bluetooth's feelings. He is sensitive.
-
The reason that I asked the question I did was the use of technology. 200 years ago you didn't have high powered binoculars to observe someone unseen. If you break the basics down here, it is just another technological leap, in essence, a higher powered binocular. I am as libertarian as they come, but I don't see a GPS as an unwarranted search. I would have a problem, however, with a GPS on or in a person without his personal consent.
I'm not attempting to be contrary, but I just don't see the the unwarranted search, because it is in "plain sight", so to speak. Help me out here brethren.
Good points, but legally (at least up here) you cannot use binoculars to peer into a window where the shades had been pulled down so only a small opening exists. Same thing as not walking up to the window and trying to peer in. Plain sight actually has a legal definition apparently, and it has to do with not having to take any action to actually be able to see, like using binoculars, trespass, etc.
Sticking a gps recorder out of sight on personal property definitely violates that no action clause, court ruling to the contrary.
-
Good points, but legally (at least up here) you cannot use binoculars to peer into a window where the shades had been pulled down so only a small opening exists. Same thing as not walking up to the window and trying to peer in. Plain sight actually has a legal definition apparently, and it has to do with not having to take any action to actually be able to see, like using binoculars, trespass, etc.
Sticking a gps recorder out of sight on personal property definitely violates that no action clause, court ruling to the contrary.
This says what I could not.
-
I just found out I can use my phone for posts. I blame it on the GPS.
I have a better idea of "plain sight" if the above definition is to be believed (Reagan taught me to trust but verify). That wad more along the lines of what I was looking for.
It is an erosion of rights and needs to be pursued further.
Oring