Court Decides Cops Need No Warrant To Place GPS Trackers

A Wisconsin Court ruled that the police did not need a warrant to put a GPS tracker on anyone’s vehicle. The case involved a man who was accused of stalking a person and the police obtained a warrant and placed a GPS on his car. They were able to determine that he was in fact stalking. So far, so good because they got a warrant.

The stalker, Michael Sveum, went to court to argue that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated and that police were able to track him in the privacy of his home (his car was parked in a garage). The court ruled that the tracker was not a search or seizure so Sveum’s rights were not violated. They did have a warrant for the tracker. So far, still so good.

Then the court ruled that a warrant was not necessary to put a GPS tracker on a vehicle even if the person who owns the car is not under suspicion of anything. In essence, if the cops want to track you they can even if they have no reason. The court ruled that the tracker does not provide any more information than the police could obtain by observing a person.

Does this mean they no longer require warrants to tap a phone? The tap does not provide any more information than the cops could have obtained if they were there listening.

The police should have some probable cause to follow a person and this includes putting trackers on cars. If there is no probable cause then they should not be allowed to place tracking devices on vehicles. This is why warrants are necessary. The warrants ensure that the police have a valid reason for tracking people (or listening in on them). There are laws that cover surveillance where a warrant is not needed but, in general, GPS trackers would not fall into that category.

This ruling is moronic and it opens the process to great abuse. Police officers could use trackers to track a person for profit (as in following some guy for a wife who thinks he is cheating). The police could put trackers on cars and then wait until they are parked at bars. They could then send police officers to follow the car when it leaves and invent probable cause to pull the person over and see if he has been drinking.

The process is in place to ensure the rights of the people. The guy in this case had no ground to stand on because the police had a warrant but the ruling now gives police officers greater access to the public and provides a greater possibility of abuse.

If I ever found a tracker on my car I would take it off and put it on a freight train heading across the country.

It is a sad day in America when a court decides that the police can tamper with private property whenever they want.

I wonder what will happen when a cop is placing one of these in the middle of the night and gets shot as a suspected car thief…

Could happen.*

*This was edited to remove words that conveyed a different thought than intended.

Big Dog

[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]

Do They Really Need a Warrant?

Some groups are up in arms (pardon the pun) because the Boston police want to search homes for guns without a warrant. On the surface this sounds like a bad thing and if this were the whole truth it would be. The article goes on to describe that police want to search homes without a warrant after asking permission from the homeowner. If a police officer asks if he may search your home and you say yes he does not need a warrant. You are free to say no.

I will admit that the plan to search children’s bedrooms has flaws. The idea is that parents are so fed up and afraid of the gun violence that they will allow the searches and a warrant will not need to be obtained. In order to get a warrant the police would need probable cause, if they ask the homeowner and are allowed to search they do not need the warrant or probable cause. I would not allow the police to search my home without a warrant. I have nothing to hide but I will not give them access without probable cause and they need that to get a warrant. What will happen to the homeowner if they have other illegal items? Suppose they illegally copy DVDs and they are in the open? A warrant would specifically state what is to be searched and what they may look for. If the homeowner lets them in they can arrest for anything they find. I don’t condone illegal activity but I do not condone bypassing the rights people have. Of course, if someone is not bright enough to know his rights or to exercise them, perhaps he gets what he deserves. In any event, using fear to search a house is not a good way to conduct business.

The bigger issue here is why are there so many illegal guns in Boston and why are there so many shooting? Massachusetts has very tough gun control laws and the gun grabbers all tell us that the way to get guns off the streets by having these kinds of laws. If they are correct then there should be very few guns and very little gun violence. Perhaps there is some realization that criminals do not obey the law. As Thomas Jefferson noted in his Commonplace Book (quoting Cesare Beccaria), ‘Laws that forbid the carrying of arms… disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes… Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.’ [Federalist Patriot]

So how do so many guns end up in a state or a city in that state when the gun control laws are so strict that people get jail time for having BB guns? Obviously those who have little or no regard for the rule of law will not follow the law.

There are two issues here. Should the police be allowed to search without a warrant? No, unless of course the homeowner gives permission and only a fool would do that. Secondly, why is there a problem if gun control laws really work?

The founders recognized that we had an inherent right to carry arms in order to defend ourselves against invaders, the lawless and a tyrannical government. This is undeniable and clearly explained in their writings on the issue. We are also protected against unlawful search and seizure so it would be in the best interest of Boston homeowners to just say no…

Big Dog