FBI Turns Off About 3,000 GPS Devices Following Supreme Court Ruling
from the why-not-just-get-a-warrant? dept
Back in January, we wrote about a quite limited ruling by the Supreme Court in the Jones case, which said that placing a GPS device on a car represented a search and was trespassing. Where the court held back was in discussing the reasonableness of the search, and whether or not it was actually constitutional to do so without a warrant. Some expect that a future case might rule that those searches are reasonable and don't need a warrant, but apparently the FBI isn't taking any chances. It's supposedly shut down 3,000 such devices -- and is now having trouble retrieving many of them since it doesn't know where they are (it's apparently asked courts to allow it to turn the devices on solely for the sake of retrieving them). Of course, this raises a bigger question that isn't answered: why didn't the FBI just get a warrant to use those devices in the first place? If it had done that, then there wouldn't be any issue to deal with here at all... It seems that the only reason not to get a warrant is because they're conducting fishing trips, rather than targeting those where there's probable cause.
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, fbi, gps, privacy, trespassing
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Wet keyboard LOL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wet keyboard LOL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Wet keyboard LOL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Wet keyboard LOL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Wet keyboard LOL
(on a role play focused forum i frequent it stands for 'secret in character', that is, from a narrative and 'making the game run properly' stand point the reader/player needs to know it, but from a game stand point none of the other Characters are aware of it. ... somehow i don't think that's what it's being used for here (that's usually also in all caps) :D)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wet keyboard LOL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
@FBI: Need your devices back? Just get a warrant to use them properly.
After all, they must have been using those devices for a good reason. They were tracking some real bad guys who were a menace to society... right? They weren't just frivolously wasting taxpayer dollars, devoting manpower and equipment to track people who don't really need to be tracked. Right???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: @FBI: Need your devices back? Just get a warrant to use them properly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: @FBI: Need your devices back? Just get a warrant to use them properly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: @FBI: Need your devices back? Just get a warrant to use them properly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: @FBI: Need your devices back? Just get a warrant to use them properly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: @FBI: Need your devices back? Just get a warrant to use them properly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: @FBI: Need your devices back? Just get a warrant to use them properly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Here's a tip for the FBI (and other law enforcement for that matter)...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Here's a tip for the FBI (and other law enforcement for that matter)...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Here's a tip for the FBI (and other law enforcement for that matter)...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Here's a tip for the FBI (and other law enforcement for that matter)...
It should be noted they didnt just leave it, like i leave a lighter at a friends house...they hid it, underneath a car..lmao.
On the plus side, if you happen to think the FBI might want to follow you, check under your car; if its there, ebay FTW.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Here's a tip for the FBI (and other law enforcement for that matter)...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Here's a tip for the FBI (and other law enforcement for that matter)...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Here's a tip for the FBI (and other law enforcement for that matter)...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Possession_is_nine-tenths_of_the_law
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"HAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Warrants???
And how could the FBI prove the devices belonged to them? Do they have "property of the US government" on them? What if they were stolen? Does someone go to jail for theft of property? bah
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Only reason? Maybe they don't want to devote the internal lawyers, agents and DoJ's time to file for a warrant when none was needed?
Naw, that'd be inconsistent with the Techdirt narrative. Sorry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
So they thought they were going through the proper channels. The real problem as I see it is that people in law enforcement are a bit too eager to believe that they can do things which makes everyone else raise an eyebrow.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
**GPS tracking didn't just become a search a few weeks ago when the SCOTUS confirmed this observation. It always was a search, and a proper warrant has always been necessary.**
Perhaps this is hard to understand because your narrative is: "Everybody's stealing something so we need to spy on everyone all the time." [Still dreaming of that erstwhile SOPA deep packet inspection clause perhaps?]
The FBI has just been practicing the time honored method of: "Proceed until apprehended. If caught, apologize and go to plan B."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So you're okay with them cutting corners and ignoring the constitution? And you don't see how that's likely to be abused?
Holy crap. Please get out of my country.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Of course, that is part of the problem. The culture in law enforcement should be to seek judicial review whenever there is a grey area rather than only doing so when you are sure it is absolutely necessary.
I'm just saying, it's not necessarily all nefarious.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
It is one thing to have your FBI agent have strong reasons to suspect criminal activity and choose to use GPS to help them track a suspect. It is quite different to toss out 3,000 devices to see what you can maybe find.
If they had not tried to go fishing with the things they never would have had a problem because each case they used it in they would be able to show probable cause justifying their search.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Citation needed.
Do you think they picked names out of a hat?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Your country Chubby? Please don't make me laugh.
ignoring the constitution
"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."
Who was searched? Who was seized? Do the police need a warrant to follow me walking down the sidewalk to see where I go? Can they follow my car without a warrant? Why is following me electronically any different? Are you suggesting that my car is my "effects". And if following me on foot or in another car without a warrant is not unlawful, does following me electronically rise to the level of "unreasonable"? I haven't read the decision yet but absent a clear determination from the court, I don't see how this is another sinister plot that you've uncovered here. Better loosen the brim on your tinfoil hat Masnick, it's cutting off the circulation to your pea brain.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Just a tip. When calling someone a "pea brain," you might not want to do that to the person who ran circles around you and made you look silly on your last big lobbying campaign.
Remember when you introduced legislation that you insisted was a slam dunk and continually taunted over how you were going to pass it easily... and then you flopped like a dying fish? Yeah. Good times.
Just saying, if I'm a "pea brain" but made you look so ridiculous earlier this year, what's that say about you? I'm fine with being a pea brain if you're the "best" of what I have to deal with in opposition.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I see. So YOU are now taking the credit? Figures. The contrived self-importance certainly suits you. As you know, that was but a skirmish in a large campaign, albeit an important one. It was no Dien Bien Phu, and you are certainly no General Giap, more like a hapless Gomer Pyle.
I'd say overall, your side's done nothing but cede ground since. With the existing enforcement tools, private agreements between corporations, international treaties and US control over key internet architecture the opportunity exists to obtain the same result in other ways. Actually, I think your side would have been happier with their lot under the final, negotiated version of SOPA than the extra-legislative solutions that will become increasingly apparent. We'll have to see. For now, enjoy basking in the reflected glory of those who were actually doing the heavy lifting. One day you'll wake up to the fact that you were a mere hanger-on, not the architect.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Ad Hominem, *snore*.
"I'd say overall, your side's done nothing but cede ground since."
Thanks for your (ignorant) opinion. The death of SOPA/PIPA would like to say : HAI!
"With the existing enforcement tools, private agreements between corporations, international treaties and US control over key internet architecture the opportunity exists to obtain the same result in other ways."
So, It's OK if large corporations buy legislation. Glad to know that you're OK with the (fucked up) status quo.
And you're saying we already have the appropriate laws in place to deal with this, we don't need any more?
Glad to see you realize this: welcome to our side.
"Actually, I think your side would have been happier with their lot under the final, negotiated version of SOPA than the extra-legislative solutions that will become increasingly apparent."
By "extra-legislative" you mean "outside of the Constitution" right?
If not, please explain.
"One day you'll wake up to the fact that you were a mere hanger-on, not the architect."
This "architect" you speak of - is it the very people who built the internet? The ones who will ALWAYS be one step ahead of you (or anyone like you), who thinks that they can conform the 'net to their will?
If so, the biggest surprise awaits you! ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If they really were tracking such horrible people and were simply taking a shortcut in the process then they would have no problem finding the devices. All they need to do is get a warrant to turn it back on. That should be easy now that they have the data they gathered before they turned it off.
Oh, wait, that would mean they had to be using them on actually criminals not just NORMAL CITIZENS caught in a fishing trip.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Are you seriously contending that there are legitimate instances when a warrant isn't necessary?
I don't want to live in your country. I'd rather live in mine where law enforcement needs a warrant to take a leak.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Sure. A cop stops a shady character's car for a traffic violation after leaving a neighborhood known for drug trafficking. Cop gets drug sniffing dog out of the back of the patrol car. Dog alerts and establishes probable cause for warrantless search.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You need to pirate a few seasons of "COPS" to see how it works. That is not how it happens at all. The motorist is detained while the dog is brought out. If the dog alerts, then the search begins. If contraband is discovered, then he's arrested.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Are you seriously contending that there are legitimate instances when a warrant isn't necessary?"
The answer is yes, and in far more instances than the one I cited. I was reminded of this when I saw a cop and his black lab working a traffic stop of an Escalade the other day. Fact is it is perfectly legal. I don't know about your claims. Do you have a citation?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The humour that can be mined from this is huge!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
FBI Fails... Again.
Well, as usual. Someone from FBI's I.T. department will be fired for this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
FBI Can' Get Them Back
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
FBI Can' Get Them Back
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
BUSINESS AS USUALLY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]