• Law Enforcement has new rules, following a supreme court case
    7 replies, posted
[quote]WASHINGTON — [B]The Supreme Court ruled unanimously Monday that police must get a search warrant before using GPS technology to track criminal suspects.[/B] The GPS device helped authorities link Washington, D.C., nightclub owner Antoine Jones to a suburban house used to stash money and drugs. He was sentenced to life in prison before the appeals court overturned the conviction. Associate Justice Antonin Scalia said that the government's installation of a GPS device, and its use to monitor the vehicle's movements, constitutes a search, meaning that a warrant is required. "By attaching the device to the Jeep" that Jones was using, "officers encroached on a protected area," Scalia wrote. All nine justices agreed that the placement of the GPS on the Jeep violated the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable search and seizure. Scalia wrote the main opinion of three in the case. He was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Sonia Sotomayor. Sotomayor also wrote one of the two concurring opinions that agreed with the outcome in the Jones case for different reasons. Justice Samuel Alito also wrote a concurring opinion in which he said the court should have gone further and dealt with GPS tracking of wireless devices, like mobile phones. He was joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan. A federal appeals court in Washington had overturned Jones's drug conspiracy conviction because police did not have a warrant when they installed a GPS device on his vehicle and then tracked his movements for a month. The Supreme Court agreed with the appeals court. The case is U.S. v. Jones, 10-1259.[/quote]
Wow. Scalia did something good for once. Once in a decade is a good record I guess.
oh, [url=http://www.policeone.com/legal/articles/4966857-SCOTUS-unanimously-rules-warrant-needed-for-GPS-tracking/]source[/url] if you really wanted one. Its a court-case so you could just look it up yourself.
Good news, as I always said if you got proper evidence it shouldn't be hard to get a warrant to do GPS tracking.
A pretty rare victory for the citizens over the police. Now to keep it going...
[QUOTE=Regulas021;34367850]A pretty rare victory for the citizens over the police. Now to keep it going...[/QUOTE] you're kidding me, right? There are many victories for the citizens in supreme court cases
[QUOTE=areolop;34367860]you're kidding me, right? There are many victories for the citizens in supreme court cases[/QUOTE] Yes, they certainly occur. The problem is a victory for citizens (generally) only enforces the status quo, unless it's addressing relatively new technology. A defeat is a drastic step back
Good. Warrantless tracking of civilians is wrong. The cops need to have a valid reason to believe you're doing something wrong to track you, and this affirms that notion.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.