Norway To Digitize All Norwegian Books, Allowing Domestic IP Addresses To Read All Of Them, Irrespective Of Copyright Status

Feds Won't Challenge Ruling That Says It Needs A Warrant To Put GPS Devices On Cars... For Now

Privacy

from the but-we'll-see-if-that-stays dept

Tue, Dec 10th 2013 7:57pm — Mike Masnick

Back in October, we wrote about the Third Circuit appeals court ruling that attaching a GPS device to someone's car required a warrant. While the Justice Department is now challenging the part of that decision which said that the evidence obtained via the warrantless GPS use must be sustained (the government is arguing for a "good faith exception" to let it use the information under the belief that it was collected legally -- basically saying if they knew it required a warrant they would have gotten one), it has decided to not challenge the larger point that a warrant is needed to attach a GPS device to a car. That's good news, but it's only a little bit of good news.

The government does say that it "respectfully disagrees with the Court's requirement of a warrant to install and use a GPS device" but isn't seeking a review of that ruling. That, most likely, means that it's just waiting for another court to rule on the matter in a different circuit (and hoping for a better outcome) and can pit those two circuits against each other in a Supreme Court review. So, basically, it's just avoiding the issue for the time being.

189271187 Petition en Banc (PDF)189271187 Petition en Banc (Text)

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: doj, gps, location, privacy, warrant

16 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anon E. Mous (profile), 10 Dec 2013 @ 8:19pm

Why would that challenge it? They don't follow the law anyway or there wouldn't have been the need for someone to challenge it.

Does anyone here believe the Feds will actually start now? Look for them to come up with another loophole to not have to abide by the courts ruling.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Dec 2013 @ 10:35pm

The FBI should just hire the NSA they'll do it then classify it to level that requires the rubber stamp court to even look into it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That One Guy (profile), 10 Dec 2013 @ 11:09pm

Re:
'Requires a warrant for GPS tracking'...

Hmm, I wonder wherever they would manage to find a court that approves almost every single surveillance request put in front of them, plays fast and loose with legal wording to allow far more than any sane person would think is reasonable, and is used to making decisions based entirely on what little data they are handed?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That One Guy (profile), 10 Dec 2013 @ 11:12pm

Re:
If they were partnering with the NSA, they wouldn't need to place anything on the vehicles themselves, the NSA is already tracking phone location data, so as long as the suspect doesn't leave their phone at home, they'd be able to track them that way.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Dec 2013 @ 12:58am

They have so many ways of illegally tracking people's location at this point. That's why they aren't bothering.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Andy, 11 Dec 2013 @ 5:12am

Rules for Feds?
When was the last time the feds followed rules? They are not contesting because it simply doesn't matter to them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Dec 2013 @ 5:44am

Why would they bother? They're already getting all the location data they need from tower dumps and RFID toll badges (like EZPass).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Dec 2013 @ 6:38am

No big deal
they will just get a warrant 'ex post facto' despite any contrary laws to that and a judge will roll over anyways. Or the will just wash all of the data and say it came from phone company or street cameras or some little green leprechaun recently gang-pressed into employment, none of which will be rejected by the court.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Dec 2013 @ 7:01am

Why would they need to challenge the requirement for a warrant if another part of the same law would allow a good faith provision to skip getting it? As I see it, that is the perfect scenario for the feds. Project the illusion that the warrant is needed - yet no need to get it based on their say so.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Dec 2013 @ 7:13am

Didn't the Supreme Court already rule they need a warrant to do this? I recall one of the government lawyers said right to the court's face that in their opinion it would be perfectly legal for the government to put a GPS tracking device on the cars of all the Supreme Court Justices without a warrant.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PlagueSD (profile), 11 Dec 2013 @ 8:12am

All newer cars already have a GPS tracker
Why would the feds need to put a GPS tracker on your car? All they need to do is contact the company that already has this tech installed in your car (onStar, Sync, LoJack, etc.) and force them to hand over the records...like they do with the phone companies.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
btrussell (profile), 11 Dec 2013 @ 8:51am

Re: Re:
I am the only one left on earth who doesn't own/use a cellphone?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
btrussell (profile), 11 Dec 2013 @ 8:54am

"That, most likely, means that it's just waiting for another court to rule on the matter in a different circuit (and hoping for a better outcome) and can pit those two circuits against each other in a Supreme Court review. So, basically, it's just avoiding the issue for the time being."

Are there other cases pending? Or are they just going to ignore this ruling and wait until they are caught again for the next case? That isn't avoiding. It is ignoring.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chris Brand, 11 Dec 2013 @ 11:06am

Good faith
The assumptions behind this idea are backwards. It comes from the assumption that anything is fair game without a warrant unless there's some law or precedent requiring one. It should be the other way round - if there's no law or precedent saying you *don't* need a warrant to get at the information, assume you need one. That's the only way to keep us safe because technology evolves far faster than the law.
If some molecular sniffer thing is developed that can track you from the traces of scent you leave behind as you travel, we shouldn't have a period of time when law enforcement considers it fair game until Congress and the courts actually look at it and saw "you need a warrant for that".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Dec 2013 @ 11:50am

They Don't Need It
If I understand the current state of automotive control electronics, the Feds aren't complaining because all new cars INCLUDE GPS tracking as part of the package. They really don't need to attach devices.
.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 12 Dec 2013 @ 9:23am

Re: All newer cars already have a GPS tracker
Maybe because lots of people disable these systems on their cars. One might expect that people engaging in criminal activities are even more likely to disable them than the average person.
[ link to this | view in thread ]