Do Police Need a Warrant for GPS Tracking?

In a Time essay, Adam Cohen notes a circuit split on the question of whether police need a warrant to "put a GPS device on the bottom of your car and keep track of everywhere you go." Last January a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit unanimously ruled that DEA agents did not violate the Fourth Amendment rights of a suspected marijuana grower by electronically tracking his Jeep, even when they snuck onto his property in the middle of the night to plant a GPS device on the bottom of the car. This month the full court declined to rehear the case, a decision from which Chief Judge Alex Kozinski passionately dissented:

Having previously decimated the protections the Fourth Amendment accords to the home itself, our court now proceeds to dismantle the zone of privacy we enjoy in the home's curtilage and in public. The needs of law enforcement, to which my colleagues seem inclined to refuse nothing, are quickly making personal privacy a distant memory. 1984 may have come a bit later than predicted, but it's here at last....

The modern devices used in Pineda-Moreno's case can record the car's movements without human intervention—quietly, invisibly, with uncanny precision. A small law enforcement team can deploy a dozen, a hundred, a thousand such devices and keep track of their various movements by computer, with far less effort than was previously needed to follow a single vehicle. The devices create a permanent electronic record that can be compared, contrasted and coordinated to deduce all manner of private information about individuals. By holding that this kind of surveillance doesn't impair an individual's reasonable expectation of privacy, the panel hands the government the power to track the movements of every one of us, every day of our lives.

As Cohen notes, Kozinski also objected to the panel's conclusion that the DEA did not need a warrant to enter the suspect's driveway, part of the traditionally protected area around the home known as the "curtilage," because he had not put up a fence. Kozinski suggested this reasoning betrays a class bias:

The very rich will still be able to protect their privacy with the aid of electric gates, tall fences, security booths, remote cameras, motion sensors and roving patrols, but the vast majority of the 60 million people living in the Ninth Circuit will see their privacy materially diminished by the panel's ruling...

There's been much talk about diversity on the bench, but there's one kind of diversity that doesn't exist: No truly poor people are appointed as federal judges, or as state judges for that matter. Judges, regardless of race, ethnicity or sex, are selected from the class of people who don't live in trailers or urban ghettos. The everyday problems of people who live in poverty are not close to our hearts and minds because that's not how we and our friends live. Yet poor people are entitled to privacy, even if they can't afford all the gadgets of the wealthy for ensuring it.

Cohen, who seems surprised to hear such arguments from "a leading conservative, appointed by President Ronald Reagan," notes that "judges appointed by Presidents Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush and Bill Clinton" joined a unanimous decision in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit recently concluded that the Fourth Amendment does impose restrictions on the use of GPS devices. The August 6 opinion (PDF) was written by Douglas Ginsburg, another libertarian-leaning Reagan appointee (who, you may recall, missed his shot at the Supreme Court because he smoked pot as an assistant law professor at Harvard in the '70s). Like Kozinski, Ginsburg distinguished GPS tracking from tailing a car with the assistance of a surreptitiously placed radio transmitter ("beeper"), a practice the Supreme Court has said does nor require a warrant:

The Court explicitly distinguished between the limited information discovered by use of the beeper—movements during a discrete journey—and more comprehensive or sustained monitoring of the sort at issue in this case....Most important for the present case, the Court specifically reserved the question whether a warrant would be required in a case involving twenty-four hour surveillance, stating, "if such dragnet-type law enforcement practices as respondent envisions should eventually occur, there will be time enough then to determine whether different constitutional principles may be applicable."

Ginsburg noted that the capabilities of modern tracking technology far outstrip what can feasibly be accomplished by human observers in public:

We hold the whole of a person's movements over the course of a month is not actually exposed to the public because the likelihood a stranger would observe all those movements is not just remote, it is essentially nil. It is one thing for a passerby to observe or even to follow someone during a single journey as he goes to the market or returns home from work. It is another thing entirely for that stranger to pick up the scent again the next day and the day after that, week in and week out, dogging his prey until he has identified all the places, people, amusements, and chores that make up that person's hitherto private routine.

More on warrantless electronic tracking here, here, and here.

[Thanks to Tricky Vic for the tip.]

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    thread jack,

    LAT needs some corrections on WoD
    http://www.latimes.com/news/op.....1241.story

  • ||

    Reason ought to do an H&R thread on the editorial you linked to.

    The reader comments in response to the LAT editorial are pretty heartening.

  • ||

    agreed, it's at least 10 to 1 in favor of legalization.

  • ||

    Wow that was quick.

  • Barely Suppressed Rage||

  • Warty||

    Are you talking about the Bangbus?

  • Joshua||

    I wish there was a like button on Reason Hit&Run; comments.

  • ||

    Someday...

  • EscapedWestOfTheBigMuddy||

    X-ray back scatter is a slightly different critter than the mm-wave back scatter machines at the airports.

    You know, that tiny, unimportant detail of ionizing versus non-ionizing radiation?

    'Course, putting a mm-wave machine is a truck wouldn't help. It's got damn all penetration capability through conductors.

  • ||

    Judge Kozinski needs to run for president Supreme Overlord. ASAP.

  • FreeLibertine||

    The DEA should be abolished.

  • ||

    Sooo, if the police have the right to plant a GPS tracker on our vehicles, do we have the right to detect and remove them? Or even better, plant them on a cab or city bus?

    I'm seeing a market for sweeping devices taking off.

  • ||

    the problem is that GPS receivers don't emit. it would be difficult to detect one.

  • ||

    So do they have to retrieve it to get the data?

  • ||

    It can be both. Mostly it's that it's a passive device. It doesn't transmit unless you "ping" it and then it only transmits for a few seconds.

    They'll be in all cars soon anyway. They will use the 911 excuse.

  • ||

    They are probably using a transceiver. It recieves the GPS signals for the sat, and the sends the data via RF.

    ""They'll be in all cars soon anyway. They will use the 911 excuse.""

    They can track your cell phone. In reality, they are trying to track people, not cars.

  • ||

    Ah, but then why not track the phones now, instead of sneaking onto your property to attach a device?

    10/15 years until every little kid is getting tagged with something implantable "to stem the tide of child abduction!"

  • robc||

    My kid will have a nice scar where its cut out.

  • DesigNate||

    Ditto that.

  • Abdul||

    Think for a second: If you cut out the RFID tag and tattoo over the bar code, how will he get his nationalized health insurance? Will he pay in cash, like some wild, pre-2015 savage?

  • ||

    ""My kid will have a nice scar where its cut out.""

    But he will still care a communication device, which is good enough.

  • ||

    ""Ah, but then why not track the phones now, instead of sneaking onto your property to attach a device?""

    Beats me, maybe they just can't pass up an opprotunity to sneak onto your property.

  • juris imprudent||

    Actually, they do have an electronic 'signature' that can be detected. Problem is it would be the same as your On-Star.

  • ||

    not true. onstar is a transceiver, i.e. it transmits. transmitters are relatively easy to detect. GPS devices are receivers, and this makes them difficult (but not impossible) to detect.

    as to how the recorded data is retrieved, I am not sure. If, as SF said above, they use a burst transmission when they download their data to "the watchers", then they would be difficult to detect. if I were designing a GPS bug, I would design it to operate as a burst transmitter. if you really wanted it to be difficult to detect you could make it transmit in a spread spectrum during bursts.

  • ||

    GPS devices have be transceivers too. Do a google search for GPS transceiver. While the function of GPS is to recieve the sats ID and time code, transmitter functionality has been added on many devices to make them more robust. GPS transceivers probably broadcast the location in short intervals. Assuming the transmitter is on, of course.

  • ||

    Have be? Oops. GPS devices can have transceivers too.

  • Zeb||

    I can't see how they could make it illegal to remove them. And even if they did: "what GPS device that you secretly stuck to my car?"

  • Bill||

    Destroying gov't property is a terrorist act. They'll stick your ass in gitmo!

  • ||

    Cop apologist in 3... 2...

  • ||

    Hey if you have nothing to hide, you should just rub cop apologist hot sauce on your butthole.

  • ||

    You sure do talk about buttholes a lot.

  • ||

    And hot sauce. Don't forget the hot sauce.

  • ||

    Who doesn't like hot sauce? Other the buttholes, I mean.

  • Rujith de Silva||

    If police don't need a warrant to track me via GPS, can a private citizen
    similarly place a GPS device on a neighbour's car? The argument is that a
    car's movements are anyway publicly visible. That applies equally to the
    neighbour's car.

  • ||

    Who cares what limeys do. This is America.

  • bubba||

    private citizens are typically allowed MORE freedom to perform such shenanigans than are police.

    the idea is that private citizens can't arrest you.

  • ||

    If police don't need a warrant to track me via GPS, can a private citizen
    similarly

    Stop right there. Police are better than citizens, so your entire argument is bunk.

  • Zeb||

    Or a police car? I'd like to see what those fuckers are doing all day.

  • ||

    There are easier ways to locate all the donut shops in your area.

  • ||

    ""Or a police car? I'd like to see what those fuckers are doing all day.""

    I would bet that bigger cities have GPS in their cop cars already. Not that you will ever see the data.

  • ||

    The cop apologist is busy making his case on the links thread. Hint: if you believe people should be allowed to throw snowballs without getting shot by an off duty cop, you haven't a leg to stand on.

  • ||

    Anything that impairs a cop killing someone and getting away with it is bad, PB. I didn't know you were such a cosmotarian.

  • ||

    Yep, you guys are just as serious as I expected.

    I would point out that my defense of his actions had nothing to do with his being an off-duty cop, and indeed I said any citizen should be able to defend his property from mob attacks, but such logic will fall on deaf ears. You guys are too busy sniffing each other's farts.

  • Warty||

    Your privacy argument doesn't hold any water, because you have no expectation of not getting shot when you're throwing snowballs. Scold scold disapprove I am superior to you.

  • ||

    The funny part is, I actually provided a much firmer foundation for deciding AGAINST the DEA in this case than Kosinski did.

    By Kosinski's logic, the DEA can plant a GPS device on your vehicle if you have it parked in the street.

  • CIA Spokesman Fluffy||

    I tend to think that police don't need a warrant to add the GPS device, if they do it while you're parked on the public way.

    I think they should need a warrant to come on to your property to attach the device.

  • robc||

    Agreed. But they need a warrant to access the information the GPS picks up. If for no other reason, the car may leave the public way.

  • Paul||

    I'm not sure I follow your logic. So authorities can tap your cell phone conversation if you're talking in a public way vs. standing in your driveway or sitting in your livingroom?

  • Zeb||

    I don't know. They are still messing with your private property. Is the outside of your car fair game for anyone who wants to stick shit to it? Would it be OK for someone to come stick a bunch of bumper stickers on your car?

  • Paul||

    Just do what De Niro did in Heat, stick the tracker on a greyhound bus. Lulz all around.

  • ||

    Most bumper stickers cause damage when removed.

    According to Fluffy and friends, as long as the junk you apply to or throw at a vehicle doesn't cause lasting damage, it's all good fun.

    I tend to disagree, but unsurprisingly found myself alone defending property rights among supposed libertarians.

  • ||

    They should need a warrant to alter your property by attaching a device to it, whether it's in the street or in your driveway.

  • robc||

    But there's no limit to what neighborhood kids will do, given half a chance: They'll jump the fence, crawl under the porch, pick fruit from the trees, set fire to the cat and micturate on the azaleas. To say that the police may do on your property what urchins might do spells the end of Fourth Amendment protections for most people's curtilage.

  • Gray Ghost||

    Kozinski opinions are some of the most concise, beautifully written pieces of legal writing out there.

    A shame he has less chance than I do of being nominated for the Supreme Court.

  • ||

    For all of Kosinski's supposed concern for the poor, his argument provides zero protection for people who don't have driveways to park in.

  • ||

    The fence issue was not Kozinski's only objection.

  • ||

    Isn't it easier for them to just buy the GPS information from your cell phone provider?

  • ||

    If you want to talk about big brother, here's a link

    http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/07/exclusive-google-cia

  • ||

    So, if the cops can add a GPS device to your car that tracks its movements (without a warrant), under what logic would they need a warrant to attach a GPS device to you, to track your movement? You don't have anything to hide, do you?

  • ||

    Why would they need a warrant to mandate that you wear a tracking device, under the premise that you've probably committed some crime?

  • ||

    ""Why would they need a warrant to mandate that you wear a tracking device, under the premise that you've probably committed some crime?""

    Considering the popularity of GPS enabled cell phones, they don't need a mandate.

  • ||

    Why do they still need warrants for anything? Don't we want to eliminate the criminal element once and for all?! Buncha softoncrime criminals, i tells ya.

  • ||

    ""So, if the cops can add a GPS device to your car that tracks its movements (without a warrant), under what logic would they need a warrant to attach a GPS device to you, to track your movement? ""

    Seriously? Your car has less rights than you do.

  • Joshua||

    Just hope your car doesn't commit a cripe, or the cops are gonna punish it by... keeping it & selling it for money?

  • ||

    Yeah.

    When one of those "State vs Red Buick" case come up, I wonder if anyone asked a judge if the car needs representation?

  • MJ||

    So they don't attach directly to you, but to your underwear? Do they need a warrant then?

    My car has no rights, it is my chattel, I am supposed to rights over my chattels as extensions of my person.

  • ||

    I wouldn't mind the cops skulking around my driveway so much if I could shoot them with impunity.

    They need a challenge.

  • Tman||

    I'm surprised the 9th circuit dropped this as quickly as they did, but not surprised that it was the conservative judge who dissented the strongest.

  • ||

    If the arguement is that driving is a publically observable event, and that it is for the purpose of law enforcement, than perforce it would be that every car should be monitored for speed limits, reckless driving, drunk driving, etcetera.

    Now I know this will elicit howls, but I don't equate freedom and privacy. I am free to drive about, but within the speed limits - I don't get privacy to hide my rulebreaking. It is inefficient and bizarre - this notion that random and capricious enforcement should be how laws are enforced. If everybody drives 15 miles over the speed limit, you give the police unlimited discression on who to pull over.

    The judge is right to point out that those rich enough to have fences escape scrunity. But to me, the issue is, if the gubermint examines your driving, could it charge you with a crime, DUE TO THE FACT that there are SO MANY LAWS? Ideally, if we had equal enforcment of the law, where people with fences are not exempt from the monitoring, it would be self correcting. (cameras on police cars, if used fairly, protect both the cop and the suspect). Its only with the advent of video recording that so much police abuse has come to light - and hopefully, reform.

  • James J.B.||

    If everybody drives 15 miles over the speed limit, you give the police unlimited discression on who to pull over.

    Acceptable premise, wrong conclusion.
    If everybody drives 15 miles over the speed limit,

    1. The speed limit is too low/arbitrarily set too low.
    2. The speed limit is designed as a revenue generator for the state.

    I am sure there are others...

  • ||

    They'll be in all cars soon anyway.

    Thanks Gm/Northstar!

  • ||

    It cute how the government run car company is leading the market in this.

    Wait... "cute" means "vomitus", right?

  • Invisible Finger||

    I think it's OnStar.

  • Tman||

    I don't get privacy to hide my rulebreaking.

    You get privacy, period. Fourth Amendment rights do not change based on what you might or might not do behind closed doors.

    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

    No warrant, no GPS tracking. This shouldn't even be a debate.

  • ||

    Exactly. The threshold for getting a warrant is laughably low. If it's so important, why not get one?

  • ||

    But drugs!

  • ||

    Butt drugs?

  • Joe||

    I'm pretty sure they need a warrant to look for those.

  • The Professor||

    Good News! It's a suppository.

  • ||

    Tman, notice how privacy isn't mentioned. Bad choice of words by the founders. It probably seemed good at the time.

    If the courts can't figure out the definition of infringed in the 2nd amendment, there is little hope with the word secure.

  • ||

    Effects, ie property, is mentioned. Attaching a GPS device to private property constitutes seizure in my book.

    Note that this argument would protect people who park in the street as well as the driveway. But our friends P Brooks, Warty, and Epi are too busy sniffing each other's farts upthread to realize this.

  • Abdul||

    Here's the thing: decisions about privacy that were logical 30 (or even 10) years ago are significantly less reasonable today.

    If the cops wanted to follow you around in the Serpico era, they filled up the old Shelby Mustang with leaded gas and tailed you. No warrant needed becuase you have no reasonable expectation to privacy tooling around town. The check on this type of surveillance is that Serpico has to get paid overtime to follow dudes around all day, so police departments can't just follow everyone.

    Today, with GPS, police departments can follow almost everyone for little cost. But courts have to follow the reasonsing of past decisions, when cost was a barrier to following everyone.

  • bubba||

    It doesn't take pretzel-form logic to distinguish between "reasonable" tailing and "unreasonable" uber-surveillance.

  • ||

    Folks, GPS data is sent with your cell phone and can be sold to anyone who pays. The more we allow GPS tracking to be part of our everyday lives, facebook places, and the willingness to carry a GPS enabled phone for example, the more we become desensitized about how our GPS data is used.

  • Typical Facebook User||

    *gasp*

    You mean other people are looking at my profile?

  • Abdul||

    Also, I don't think driveways are usually included in curtilage. 4th amendment law has allowed surveilance on areas observable from public property, even if the surveilance uses unusual means (such as helicopers or telescopes).

    Entering on someone's driveway is mixed bag. Generally, all kinds of strangers and state agents can enter your driveway. Postal workers walk up there to deliver mail, Jehovah's witnesses come up there to get doors slammed on them, meter readers walk up there to check the meter, etc. Certainly, if you warn a person to stay off your drveway, you can enforce that right through trespass torts or crimes, but generally there's a lowered expectation to privacy to something that everyone can access.

    Hence, the gate thing makes a little sense. I suppose poor people could just put up a sign "Too poor to install fence, but you don't have permission to enter."

  • robc||

    Did you read the fucking dissent at all? Its like a really weird misquoting of Kozinski you got there.

  • ||

    Driveways on private property are still private property. Slabs of concrete do not magically let anyone meander onto private property; there is no "lowered expectation of privacy". That's fucking retarded.

    In order to place a GPS device under my car that is parked in the driveway (let's assume the garage is full of car(s) and stuff), someone has to come onto my private property to do it. That's a problem.

    Postal workers don't have to come onto my property to deliver the mail. Plus, they aren't attaching GPS devices to my car if my mailbox isn't at the street.

    Jehovah's Witnesses can be charged for trespassing if I make it clear I don't want them on my property.

    Good point with the meter reader, except he isn't part of an investigation requiring a warrant (which should be every single one).

  • robc||

    Its not a good point about the meter reader, as Kozinski covered that in his dissent.

    You know, I rarely RTFA myself, but sometimes its necessary.

  • Abdul||

    All i'm saying is that fourth amendment law looks at the reasonableness of the invasion. If a cop asks you for the time, is that a search or seizure? No, because it's reasonable to be stopped by strangers and asked for the time.

    The driveway issue is handled the same way as the rest of fourth amendment jurisprudence.

    If a cop can get a description of your car and license plate by looking at your car from the street, he can track you all over town by having other cops with radios or phones follow you. They don't need a warrant for any of that.

    Now cops can toss a GPS device onto your car from the street or with minimal invasion into your driveway and get the same thing done for less cost. Courts are stuck trying to split these hairs.

    States can pass laws or constitutional amendments to add additional safegaurds if they want. But relying on courts to split these hairs is asking a lot.

  • Joe||

    All i'm saying is that fourth amendment law looks at the reasonableness of the invasion. If a cop asks you for the time, is that a search or seizure? No, because it's reasonable to be stopped by strangers and asked for the time.

    It is a seizure if I tell him to fuck off and he refuses to let me go until I tell him what time it is.

  • ||

    ""Driveways on private property are still private property.""

    Uh, yes and no. Many cities and counties can dictate what is not permissable to have on that piece of your private property, like an unlicensened car, or non-working washing machine.

  • Zeb||

    Sure those people can all enter your driveway to do their business with you. But if they started sticking doo-dads onto your car without permission, I think you would have reason to complain, and probably reason to have them arrested.

  • ||

    Finally someone who makes sense.

    Unfortunately, the prevailing opinion here is that throwing things at other people's property should be legal, and in fact getting out of your vehicle and defending your property from mob activity is grounds for arrest.

  • Gray Ghost||

    The government conceded that the driveway and car were part of the curtilage. Really, just go read Kozinski's dissent: he gets into Kyllo (thermal imager case), Ciraolo (airplane surveillance), and Knotts (beeper case).

    Frankly, from this decision, I don't see anything stopping the cops from breaking into the guy's bedroom through an open window and sewing GPS trackers into his cuffs and lapels. Curtilage is supposed to provide the same protection from search and seizure as the interior of the home.

    Horrific decision.

  • Abdul||

    I'm a modern man--I can't be bothered to read stuff.

    Where's my twitter and ADHD drugs?

  • Tom||

    Thanks, Radley. ... Oh.

  • Pedant||

    even when they snuck sneaked onto his property in the middle of the night

    Fixed.

  • kinnath||

    Time so start the pool for when we officially become a totalitarian state. Of course, the criteria for saying yes or no is important to the poll. So I submit we track the date when it becomes illegal to turn off a GPS enabled cell phone.

  • Gray Ghost||

    Personally, I'm stunned we don't have a national DNA registry yet. (With a fig-leaf of HIPAA protection for the sequence.) I can see that happening long before a mandatory GPS tracker on everyone.

  • ||

    Here's your fig leaf

    http://www.aele.org/hipaa-info.html

  • LT. JIM DANGLE||

    You'll be safe during your visit to Reno, Nevada.

  • Fire Tiger||

    They'll be in all cars soon anyway. They will use the 911 excuse.
    My take away from the Toyota crashes earlier this year was how much information is stored in the event data recorders (EDRs) and the potential law enforcement applications.

    In the pre- and post-crash EDRs, data such as vehicle speed, engine speed (rpm), accelerator angle and brake application (whether the brake pedal was applied or not) is also recorded.
    ... all newly-manufactured Toyota and Lexus vehicles will have EDRs that can record both pre- and post-crash data.
    ... Toyota has always provided all data recorded by the EDRs to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), law enforcement authorities, and courts when requested or ordered to do so.

    Depending on

  • Joe||

    From my understanding of how these devices work, they are always recording but are on a very short loop. So unless you are in an accident (at which point the recorder saves the data), the data is written over soon.

  • ||

    May not be that short. It may record from key on to key off, unless you drive for a long time. Datalogging isn't a big memory hog.

    But all you need to do is add a RF module and the data can be broadcasted. Use a digital scheme and you could include an ID number and a receiver could filter out all other signals. Similar to how a cell phone works.

  • ||

    By holding that this kind of surveillance doesn't impair an individual's reasonable expectation of privacy, the panel hands the government the power to track the movements of every one of us, every day of our lives.

    Admiral Poindexter's wet dream.

  • ||

    Get a GPS jammer.

    http://www.jammer-store.com/gps-blockers-jammers.html

  • JB||

    Reason should see if they can gin up a financial backer for placing GPS tracking devices on the cars of judges, prosecutors, legislators, and cops in the 9th District.

    Hell, just putting out a press release seeking financial backers for such a project would likely be enough.

    In the press release, list the names and addresses of the first 10 public officials that will be targeted.

    It would be $300 well spent.

  • skr||

    speaking of warrants, have you guys heard about the mobile backscatter devices now being used by DHS and the police? http://blogs.forbes.com/andygr.....ving-vans/

  • ||

    The link is in the 5th post of this thread, so yes.

    It's not a 3D scan. As long as you keep your back to traffic they can't see what you're holding in front of you.

  • skr||

    lol missed that

  • Geotpf||

    First, the argument that "poor people don't put up fences around their property" fails. Go to any poor urban neighborhood-every single house will have a fence around the front yard. Middle class neighborhoods usually don't have fences, and then rich areas have fences again.

    Despite that, the cops were still on private property and, IMHO, needed a warrant. Now, this would be a much trickier case if the car was parked on the street when the device was planted. Or how about if somebody snuck up behind the car while it waited at a red light?

  • ||

    The correct argument is that altering someone's property constitutes seizure. This premise would protect citizens who park their vehicles in the street as well.

    Kozinski's argument would appear to allow police to attach GPS devices to your car if you dare park it anywhere but in your driveway. Since a car that is never parked anywhere else is essentially useless, his argument is relatively worthless.

  • Disenchanted Journo||

    It's good to see others take notice of this horrific decision. But what they are ignoring is how it reflects a broader destruction of personal privacy and civil rights in this country. - http://disenchantedjourno.blog.....y-and.html

  • Bob Gezelter||

    Actually, as some have noted, the larger questions are more important in many more ways than the simple technicalities of GPS recorder emplacement. What are the limits on such surveillance? What can the data be used for? Who can make use of the data? To whom are the various agencies responsible?

    In the past (1995, et seq.), I have noted that collation is a serious hazard. Low-cost surveillance undoes a delicate ecological balance by making surveillance cheap enough to remove one of the most effective deterrents: expense.

    I discussed some of these issues in "GPS Recorders and Law Enforcement Accountability" available at http://rlgsc.com/r/20100831.html

  • GPS Tracking System||

    POlice in New York are required to get a warrant before using a car tracker, but in Wisconsin it is the discretion of the police agency using the system

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement