RetiredGySgt
Diamond Member
I am sure they need the warrants but as with everything sometimes that does not happen.
I mean exactly what i said. Tracking some people over others. Your run of the mill drug user, then no. Tracking a drug dealer, sure. Tracking someone with terrorists ties, sure. Tracking your average muslim, no.
I'm going to bed shortly, so I may not answer tonight, but I must disagree with you.
One, I got the impression from the article that warrants were not needed.
Two, Don't you think that innocent until proven guilty is an ideal that we here in America still want to live by?
Immie
My understanding is that warrants are needed to track. Warrants are needed to listen in on phones.
Yes, i believe in innocent until proven guilty. Why do you think they are being tracked or listened in on?
Night Immie
Courts disagree. In this story the 9th AGREED the FBI can track with OUT a warrant. The reasoning is that one does not have an expectation of privacy as to where they drive on public roads. And that is all a tracker can tell the cops, where you went or have been.
Some Courts disagree. This will end up before the Supreme Court and I suspect that they will rule that a warrant is NOT required.
I mean really, is a warrant required for a cop to tail someone? If the answer is no, then there is no reason one should be required for a tracking device.