Log In | Register
1 Vote
1 Comment
Court tosses case over GPS tracking. New York disagrees with Wisconsin.
News Type: Event — Seeded on Tue May 19, 2009 7:24 AM EDT
Article Source: Times Unionadvertisement
ALBANY — A Watervliet man will get a new trial on burglary charges after the state's top court ruled Tuesday it was wrong for a police investigator to slap a GPS device on the defendant's van to track his movements without a search warrant.
Published to:
- jedipunk's Column, All of Newsvine
- Groups: Constitutional Law, Supreme Court Watch
- Regions: Albany/Schenectady/Troy
- Public Discussion (1)
- Public Discussion (0)
- Constitutional Law
- Supreme Court Watch
What's this?
Who's leading the conversation?
This visualization below allows you to see the impact that each user
has on the current conversation.
The top row contains the group of users who have had the most impact, the 2nd
row the group of users who have had the 2nd most impact (et cetera).
Users with similar impact are grouped together, and the average score of the group
is shown to the left of the group. The author of the article is also shown on the
left, in their corresponding group.
Each user's score is based on the number of comments the user has made plus the
number of votes their comments have received. The scores are calculated relative
one another, so while their absolute value is not particularly important, their
relative difference does indicate a larger difference in impact on the conversation.
0.5
{"commentId":7157606,"authorDomain":"jedipunk"}
I agree with the below statement ALMOST!
"A police officer can tail you without a warrant, photograph you, videotape you, see who's in the car with you and use it all as evidence at trial, but because a GPS device can be used to track your car more easily and at all hours — somehow that requires a warrant even though it provides far less detailed information," Horn said. "I fail to see the logic."
The part that fails is the part that requires attaching the electronic device to my vehicle.
Let me explain it this way:
If an officer has me under surveillance and is able to get near enough to overhear me on my cellphone and that conversation can get me arrested then that is legal.
If however the cop cannot stay near enough to overhear my conversation but instead "bumps into me" to attach a bug that can overhear me then that would not be legal.
I see the same argument with the GPS. The GPS tracking device is the equivalent of a eaves-dropping bug. Furthermore, the same thing can be said about the bug that Horn says about the GPS, it collects "far less detailed information" (i.e. no photos, no video, etc)
Finally, If my vehicles can be tracked visually from satellite then the same rules should be applied that are used for bionic ears and themo-devices.
{"commentId":7157606,"threadId":"582065","contentId":"2835912","authorDomain":"jedipunk"}
#1 - Tue May 19, 2009 7:51 AM EDT{"canLink":false,"threadId":"582065","isPrivate":false}
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
Start Tracking
Stop TrackingCOMPANY STUFF:
LEGAL STUFF:
- © 2005-2009 Newsvine, Inc. |
- Newsvine® is a registered trademark of Newsvine, Inc. |
- Newsvine is a property of
