Justice Department Insists It Should Be Able To Secretly Stick GPS Devices On Cars Without Warrants
from the privacy-is-dead dept
Back in August, we wrote about the (somewhat surprising) appeals court ruling in the District of Columbia circuit saying that longterm GPS tracking of someone by law enforcement required a warrant. The issues at play here certainly aren't entirely clearcut. After all, it does make sense that when you're in a public space, you have little expectation of privacy. But is that true when it comes to tracking everywhere you go in public? That seems a little more questionable, and it's clearly the part that the court had trouble with, noting that short bursts of surveillance don't require a warrant, but sustained surveillance gets past the expectation of privacy barrier and requires a warrant. While some worry that this is too vague, it does have a certain amount of logic to it.Either way, the Justice Department wants none of that, and is asking the full circuit to rehear the case and reverse the original ruling, saying that it should not require a warrant, suggesting that the sum of all our public travel does not deserve any privacy. While I do agree that the initial "rules" are vague, I have to agree that sustained, long-term tracking through a secretly installed GPS devices does seem to cross a line on the "expectation of privacy" spectrum.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: 4th amendment, gps, privacy, surveillance
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
If I remove it and throw it away, will I be charged with a crime?
I agree that the privacy considerations are the most important part, but there are many other problems with this 'idea'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fine
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fine
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fine
Given that, I'm not entirely sure we should have publicly viewable tracking devices on cop cars being that criminals might be able to use that information to know where various cops are located and evade law enforcement. Maybe if there was a day delay or something then it might be OK.
Then again, cop cars have lights, are specially colored, and have police inscription notices to indicate that they're cops. Perhaps having the tracking device on unless there is a good reason to turn it off, such as if they're in the middle of an important pursuit or stakeout or something similar.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Fine
Thankfully, a concerned citizen came forwards and said "Bull, at the time this cop is stating, he was getting food at a 7-11!" and the videotapes from the 7-11's surveillance proved the citizen right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fine
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Except for exigent circumstances, such as law enforcement needing to follow a person to save another person's life(such as in a kidnapping, etc), then I could see a reason the DoJ's point. The thing is, I still believe law enforcement always must follow the law, no matter the situation and there are already exigent circumstances exclusions to many laws today. The issue is that the U.S. Government is simply looking to erode the rights and protections U.S. Citizens enjoy to make their job easier. They(the U.S. Government) does not think, or at least discuss, the possible(and highly probable) abuses that such new power will introduce.
The other problem is that so many idiot voters either vote for the idiots that provoke these changes, or sit back and watch them(the bad politicians) rise to power.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
so
have a nice day tax payers ( suckers )
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: so
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Here's my take
2. A tracking device will track me even when I'm driving on private roads, where a cop car couldn't follow without cause.
3. Unlike a cop car, a tracking device is invisible. When I know I'm being followed I can adjust my behavior in order to protect my privacy; I can't do that when I don't know I'm being tracked.
4. Even if none of the above were true, retrieving the information collected by the tracking device is almost certainly a kind of search, and should therefore require a warrant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Both of these should utterly destroy the government's claim.
A person's car may be on public property. But their car is private property. The government should have no right to secretly, and without warrants, plant devices on people's private property. Does the government also claim a right to spray paint people's cars? Maybe draw big numbers on the roof so that the car can be tracked by air? It might seem like a ridiculous argument, but that is the logical extension of the government's argument, that it has the right to alter your vehicle without your knowledge, without your permission and without a warrant so long as they find it on public property.
And, as AC points out, the GPS doesn't stop tracking once it leaves public property. It tracks you everywhere, inside private parking lots, private roads, private corporate compounds, everywhere. That utterly refutes the government's bogus claims.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Anyway, the whole ruling was supposedly that people don't have a right to 'privacy' in cases where anyone can come onto their property and put something on something.
Load of bullcrap, to be blunt, but apparently the 9th Court was high that day and it got past them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It varies by state and county, but in WA state 3 years of unpaid property taxes means the county can auction off the property you own for the amount of tax you owe them (anything above and beyond the taxes owed they get to keep, and you lose your property... assuming you don't pay the taxes at the final notice). Now if you really owned the property and land, how could they do this? That's right, you only have a 'license' to use the land as long as you agree to follow the various state/county laws (is it really any surprise that corporate businesses want to have the same power over our property that the government claims?).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
In that ONE STATE (and that law could be challenged as giving rights to the federal government hat a regular citizen doesn't not have, which is ILLEGAL!)? Yeah, it's a license.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stalking is legal now? Awesome! Time to get those restraining orders overturned. Hell yeah.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
i) removed it or
ii) put it on another car instead ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I've also heard of people who keep past parking tickets on their windshield wipers to trick cops into thinking that this car already has a parking ticket from another cop so as to avoid getting another parking ticket. Won't work for something like street sweeping, obviously, but at the beach it might.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
NIche for scanning device
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
slightly off topic
So I guess in this country they don't really need to attach GPS devices and the use of CCTV and number plate recognition doesn't require any form of warrant at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: slightly off topic
Gun control in Britain being a PRIME example of this fact.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: slightly off topic
http://www.gun-control-network.org/CO18.htm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: slightly off topic
http://www.pr-inside.com/robb-hamic-has-a-new-article-r2072067.htm
If you count it in a much better manner - violent crimes - you will see that the UK is getting worse, not better.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: slightly off topic
And if gun control is so great, why do places like Mexico and Russia have such horrible amounts of violent crime when they have some of the most restrictive gun control laws?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: slightly off topic
It's also worth mentioning that while there were only 39 fatalities as you said, firearms only accounts for about 6% of homicides in Britain with the leading weapon of choice being sharp objects.
In short I think it's fair to say that the British gun control reduces death at the expense of allowing greater criminal activity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: slightly off topic
The ONLY reason that the crime rate is now going DOWN is because the VIOLENT gun criminals are being put in? PRISON! For 20-life or longer!
No, getting rid of the guns in society made society MUCH LESS SAFE. How? By making criminals not take that second to think about "Oh, I might get shot and killed if I break into a person's home!"
NON-gun crime in Britain: home invasions without guns, break-ins, etc. have gone UP since gun control was passed, not down, buddy boy!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
recording
These laws pertain to recording someone on the phone, but they are really not specific enough.
What happens when i cross state lines? Will it become a federal issue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I bet the gps doesn't turn off when I start driving on private property either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Besides how difficult is to jam civilian GPS signals?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gold Star
That's how HITLER tracked the Jews.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Electronic Gold Star
I can track you with $350.00 and an internet connection....
You cant tell me Law Enforcement doesn't use this tool all the time.
Just a thought..... ill shut up now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Electronic Gold Star
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Electronic Gold Star
I hear this all the time, but never saw any proof.
Do you have any reliable source saying that a phone TURNED OFF will keep in contact with the cell phone infrastructure?
Even when one of the reasons for turning off a cell phone is when you are in an airplane, where having the cell phone transmit to the base stations is FORBIDDEN?
And you cannot say that the phone passively listens for a magic message. On airplanes, even receive-only gadgets like a GPS receiver are often forbidden too, at least while taking off and landing. And without the phone transmitting, the cell phone infrastructure cannot know which location area it is in to transmit said magic packet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Electronic Gold Star
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Electronic Gold Star
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Electronic Gold Star
I love how you guys just make this stuff up.
Do you wear tinfoil hats too?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Keep in mind that the feds can already do this in all fifty states. This case was only in D.C. so it only applies there.
The holding of the D.C. Circuit was that the feds couldn't put a GPS on your car and record the information for 28 days straight. Nothing says they can't it for 27 days or less.
Most states require that state-level law enforcement officers do need a search warrant first. So while your local police or sheriff's office would need a warrant, the feds would not. This is nothing new.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Gotta be honest here Joe, I find your blind faith in the feds to not abuse this a little repulsive. The feds have already shown that they regularly abuse the warrentless wiretapping. They will abuse this just as much.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Do you have any evidence that the feds are abusing GPS tracking? If not, you're just letting your bias and emotions do your thinking.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Of course I realize that there will always be people who abuse their authority. I don't have the blind faith you impute me with. You're barking up the wrong tree if you think I'm not a realist. I don't find you to be a very thoughtful person, so I'm not surprised you've mislabeled me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Around the clock surveillance in any form doesn't fit the bill. That is what warrants are for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
GPS tracking is a search, and for a search to be reasonable there must be probable cause (or exigent circumstances).
Go read a ton of Fourth Amendment law and get back to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If they have probable cause, why can't they get a warrant? I have no beef with the police GPSing a car, as long as it is not solely based on the judgement of the police officer and there is probable cause.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm not aware of any other circuit where they have such a restriction, and there are three that I know of that have held they don't need a warrant for such searches.
I agree with the D.C. Circuit that these other circuits are misreading the Supreme Court's decision in Knotts--they should have to get a warrant. I don't like the thought of the feds tracking me for days on end without a warrant.
The Fourth Amendment only says that if they get a warrant, it must be based on probable cause. It doesn't say they need a warrant in the first place. That's the problem.
I hope this case goes to the Supreme Court. Now that there is a genuine split in the circuit courts, I think Supreme Court review is likely.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
When something is of IMMEDIATE necessity to take action on, like you hear gunshots or someone screaming "DON'T KILL ME!".... okay, that is probable cause.
Following someone everyone they go based on a SUSPICION that they are doing something illegal? Hell no, that is called 'gut instinct' and it was MANY MANY MANY MANY MANY MANY times in courts called NOT PROBABLE CAUSE!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
It does not matter if they are going for a conviction or not. It should be by the books and require a warrant period. If they did not, and I find the box, that means it is a gift to me and I will do whatever I want with the box since it is attached to my personal property.
Right after criticizing me for not trusting them to not abuse it, you go and admit that you realize there will always be people who abuse it. Okay, now that seems slightly contradictory.
They can't just go out and do this to everyone--not without probable cause.
You can say that, but we both know it isn't true and that isn't how they work. Their own track record speaks to support my side. Sorry if I mislabeled you but I still stand completely by what I think the feds will do with this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
We are however protected by the exclusionary rule and the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine. Evidence culled from an illegal search is not admissible. That protection goes a long way.
I do think that the vast majority of feds play by the rules, so I'm not really too worried about it. The judges, lawyers, cops, prosecutors, and feds that I know all go to great lengths to get everything right. Don't go around thinking they're all bad apples, because they simply are not.
That said, I'm clearly of the opinion that they should have to get a warrant for such searches. I hope the Supreme Court takes this case and lays down some new rules that protect our privacy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I would love to see that happen. But with the way things have been going over the past 10 years I do not think I will hold my breath. The Patriot Act was a huge slam to my opinion of the government.
And I do acknowledge that they are not all bad apples. I just do not like how the bad apples never seem to be removed. They are always covered for by the others, or we get laws passed that retroactively say it was okay to break the law. That is what my government has shown me over the past years since I became old enough to pay attention.
I feel like the 4th amendment is dead and our government does not care. I write letters to my state and federal representatives but it is an extremely rare case I get anything other than a "thank you for writing" auto reply. And even when they do reply I feel like they are not so much listening as just saying "Thank you for your opinion but I have already made up my mind and will not listen, here is what I will do or have done:"
One could say I am disenchanted with the system. It is this feeling that the government does not care about those it claims to represent that I am all for civil disobedience (going back to some of our prior conversations).
Sorry, think I went a bit off topic there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Meaning, good behavior over a period of time.
With the police? I tell everyone I know to NOT distrust them and to basically hate them.... by showing them the NUMEROUS instances where the police have overstepped their bounds in the mind of the regular American (not the criminal American) and not been punished for it.
To be blunt: I am more frightened of the freaking police than I am of a child forcible rapist, serial killer, etc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
At least I don't need a tinfoil hat to get through the day. ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Why be more frightened? At least I can hope for temporary insanity verses the pedophile or serial killer to meet a just end. With cops you hope for a L.A. Riot.
Pretty clear to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
GPS Tracking
Let's just get private detectives to secretly place GPS tracking devices on the cars of all congressmen and use the data for blackmail at the appropriate time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Danielle Citron's analysis of two conflicting rulings
http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2010/09/freiwald-on-much-anticipated-cell-location-pr ivacy-decision.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Danielle Citron's analysis of two conflicting rulings
That one is about what the feds need to get a warrant to access historical cell-site data. It's a bit more complicated since there is a statute at issue.
This case is about whether or not the feds need a warrant to do GPS surveillance over an extended period.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Technology Abuse
If the courts continue to approve of fourth amendment violations how long will it take for the government to require everyone to have an RF ID implanted in their bodies. The governments alibi this time will be that the RF ID is to protect citizens by storing all of the citizens medical records in case they cannot provide proper identification when they are admitted to a hospital. The government will not reveal that the RF ID will also store all other personal history! Do not forget Logan's Run! If your are bad the government will turn you into Soylent Green!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Technology Abuse
Frankly, there is a FREAK-TON of stuff that 'society' says is 'bad' that I do not agree is bad, and I have very good arguments for why those things are not bad until SOCIETY butts their pointed, 3 foot long noses into a person's business.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No need to involve cops for GPS
They might monitor the signal but monitoring is airwave stuff.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No need to involve cops for GPS
Think about it. How are they going to explain to the judge that they just so happen to be tracking the GPS on the suspect's car? The judge would obviously know they were in on it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No need to involve cops for GPS
They tried that bullcrap in California awhile ago, and the judges were not buying it.
In fact, one prosecutor was put into jail for contempt for a few days for trying that argument.
Judge made it VERY clear: if the police ask a private citizen or private corporation to do something and then that corporation or citizen asks ANOTHER person to do something else that is CONNECTED with the thing the cops asked the first person to do?
THROWN OUT EVIDENCE, unless the cops have a warrant, because those people are working ON BEHALF OF THE POLICE... i.e. they are deputized officers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No need to involve cops for GPS
They very much do not do that - well maybe if necessary "we were tracking the cell phone". If they have something with serious short term implications they will see the judge. If they're tracking and building a map of activity to learn what's going on they use a variety of methods. With the right GPS stuff they can track all day and look at the pattern on the computer at night. Then look for matches/overlays between different people. That's just watching, linked to neighbourhood watch.
Another thing that happens is with charged people. Police often want to avoid trial, so the normal way is to give the accused at "a hard time" so they will give up and arrange something. The GPS allows 'following' without following, and hard time activites.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Warrantless GPS surveillance
I doubt the Justice Department is all that interested in where you go in "public"; you can go to private places in a car, and I think that is their interest. Remember, J. Edgar Hoover had surveillance on people (Martin Luther King, John Kennedy - the list goes on and on) and the prize items were not things in learned (and documented) about them in "public" places.
I think it would be VERY unwise for a court to allow this!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
warrantless GPS devices
[ link to this | view in chronology ]