Wisconsin court upholds GPS tracking by police.....COMPLETE BULLSHIT!

Discussion in 'Law and Justice System' started by Life_Long_Dem!, May 15, 2009.

  1. Life_Long_Dem!
    Offline

    Life_Long_Dem! Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2008
    Messages:
    470
    Thanks Received:
    41
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Bowling Green Ohio
    Ratings:
    +41
    Wisconsin police can attach GPS to cars to secretly track anybody’s movements without obtaining search warrants, an appeals court ruled Thursday.

    However, the District 4 Court of Appeals said it was “more than a little troubled” by that conclusion and asked Wisconsin lawmakers to regulate GPS use to protect against abuse by police and private individuals.

    As the law currently stands, the court said police can mount GPS on cars to track people without violating their constitutional rights – even if the drivers aren’t suspects.

    Officers do not need to get warrants beforehand because GPS tracking does not involve a search or a seizure, Judge Paul Lundsten wrote for the unanimous three-judge panel based in Madison.

    That means “police are seemingly free to secretly track anyone’s public movements with a GPS device,” he wrote.

    One privacy advocate said the decision opened the door for greater government surveillance of citizens. Meanwhile, law enforcement officials called the decision a victory for public safety because tracking devices are an increasingly important tool in investigating criminal behavior.

    The ruling came in a 2003 case involving Michael Sveum, a Madison man who was under investigation for stalking. Police got a warrant to put a GPS on his car and secretly attached it while the vehicle was parked in Sveum’s driveway. The device recorded his car’s movements for five weeks before police retrieved it and downloaded the information.

    The information suggested Sveum was stalking the woman, who had gone to police earlier with suspicions. Police got a second warrant to search his car and home, found more evidence and arrested him. He was convicted of stalking and sentenced to prison.

    Sveum, 41, argued the tracking violated his Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure. He argued the device followed him into areas out of public view, such as his garage.

    The court disagreed. The tracking did not violate constitutional protections because the device only gave police information that could have been obtained through visual surveillance, Lundsten wrote.

    Even though the device followed Sveum’s car to private places, an officer tracking Sveum could have seen when his car entered or exited a garage, Lundsten reasoned. Attaching the device was not a violation, he wrote, because Sveum’s driveway is a public place.

    “We discern no privacy interest protected by the Fourth Amendment that is invaded when police attach a device to the outside of a vehicle, as long as the information obtained is the same as could be gained by the use of other techniques that do not require a warrant,” he wrote.

    Although police obtained a warrant in this case, it wasn’t needed, he added.

    Wisconsin court upholds GPS tracking by police - Chicago Tribune
     
  2. auditor0007
    Offline

    auditor0007 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2008
    Messages:
    12,566
    Thanks Received:
    2,255
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Location:
    Toledo, OH
    Ratings:
    +3,218
    In the stated case, a warrant was issued. So why the ruling that warrants are not necessary? I don't have a problem with them using this, but it shouldn't be open to use without reasonable cause which would require a warrant.
     
  3. matty
    Offline

    matty SUMbodyweedemOUT

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2008
    Messages:
    610
    Thanks Received:
    23
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +23
    What's worse, I got to comment #16 on this article and here it was:

    "#16 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2009-05-10 09:55 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusive

    "What about reasonable expectation of privacy? That has already been established. Aditionaly how can this not be "search".

    "Argh!

    What is even worse is this thread only has 16 comments. Obamas dog got well over 100 for christ sake, it was a dog not your right to privacy."


    And when you posted it here, there was only one. What else is new?
     
  4. 007
    Offline

    007 Charter Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Messages:
    38,600
    Thanks Received:
    7,922
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Ratings:
    +12,217
    It's too bad... this is really a pretty state... it's too bad we have such a nest of liberal jackasses in Madison and Milwaukee.
     
  5. garyd
    Offline

    garyd Senior Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2008
    Messages:
    3,943
    Thanks Received:
    401
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Oklahoma
    Ratings:
    +401
    See what happens when you leave Democrats in charge for decades?
     

Share This Page