Wisconsin court upholds GPS tracking by police

[rushmc 23]

I am having trouble thinking this is ok? Thoughts?

Quote

By RYAN J. FOLEY |

Associated Press Writer
2:42 PM CDT, May 7, 2009

MADISON, Wis. - 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.

Larry Dupuis, legal director of the ACLU of Wisconsin, said using GPS to track someone's car goes beyond observing them in public and should require a warrant.

"The idea that you can go and attach anything you want to somebody else's property without any court supervision, that's wrong," he said. "Without a warrant, they can do this on anybody they want."

Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen's office, which argued in favor of the warrantless GPS tracking, praised the ruling but would not elaborate on its use in Wisconsin.

David Banaszynski, president of the Wisconsin Chiefs of Police Association, said his department in the Milwaukee suburb of Shorewood does not use GPS. But other departments might use it to track drug dealers, burglars and stalkers, he said.

A state law already requires the Department of Corrections to track the state's most dangerous sex offenders using GPS. The author of that law, Rep. Scott Suder, R-Abbotsford, said the decision shows "GPS tracking is an effective means of protecting public safety."

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-ap-wi-gps-police,0,5890193.story

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[funjumper101 15]

This definitely is not OK. It is bad enough that the police can subpoena the ECU and the GPS system from a vehicle that has been in an accident. Now they can attach GPS tracker/loggers without a warrant? That is not right.

For those considering a new car purchase - the GM On-Star system integrates GPS tracking, recording, and reporting. Live for one year, like it or not. A very good reason to NOT buy a GM product, IMO.

[DJL 235]

I think it's a good use of technology to save the cost of police visually tracking a suspect. BUT it should be court sanctioned. While it's not an invasion of privacy, it's corruptable and its use should therefore be monitored and checked.

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[jerryzflies 0]

Quote

I am having trouble thinking this is ok?

You, me, and the ACLU too.

If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.

[TomAiello 26]

What if you attached a device to their cell phone (while it was in a public place) that allowed you to listen to their conversations?

I think that attaching an electronic device (actually, any device) to someone's property for the purpose of surveilling them is a search, and should require a warrant.

Welcome to the surveillance society.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[warpedskydiver 0]

They already activate cell phones in order to hear conversations.

[sundevil777 102]

Quote

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.

I think this is a correct legal interpretation, but I don't like it. I think it is proper for the court to base their opinion on the law, it is appropriate for the legislature to give the courts a different law for them to interpret. That is the way it is supposed to work.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[Bolas 5]

Quote

What if you attached a device to their cell phone (while it was in a public place) that allowed you to listen to their conversations?

I think that attaching an electronic device (actually, any device) to someone's property for the purpose of surveilling them is a search, and should require a warrant.

Welcome to the surveillance society.

Not quite the same as the device attached to the phone gets everything and goes everywhere whereas a gps only gets movements that could be seen in public.

A better example would be if someone followed someone with a directional mic and recorded all conversations when they were in public.

I'll admit it's scary, but I can see their point: why does the method used to collect the data matter, they simply automated a "manual" process for better use of resources.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

Not quite the same as the device attached to the phone gets everything and goes everywhere whereas a gps only gets movements that could be seen in public.

People never drive their cars onto private property?

Or when one of those devices is driven onto private property, the police switch it off?

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[warpedskydiver 0]

They do not need a directional microphones, they can tap in with a few commands using the CALEA system, or whatever it is called now.

Cell phones are actually the easiest to tap or use as a eavesdropping tool.

[skybill 22]

Hi mc,
from an old Frank Zappa record........

...."It cant happen here,...It cant happen here... I'm telling you my dear that it...CAN'T.. HAPPEN >>HERE!!!.........

yeah right!! Just wait till they start trying to plant microchips in everyone's neck and tie them into the GPS system... far fetched?? Hell they just sent canvasers around getting the GPS coordinates for everyone's "Front Door" for the up comming census and you think they aren't tracking you yet?? Some dude came by my house a couple of days ago with his info "I'm from the govt census and we're doing a pre census eval to know where to send the info!!" You've got a SSN, Drivers license, credit card, on star in your car and god knows what else to "Track your whereabouts!!!" Oh yeah, theyre putting chips in your Ditter/Alti II "AND" yer' Cypress to track you on and off the DZ!!!!hahahahah, Line up for your tinfoil hat!!!hahhahahahahahah

Go to the SHTFmilitia.com web site and jump on the bandwagon!! Are we having fun yet??

...Susie... Susie Creamcheese baby....What's gotten into ya'????.....

PS Google yer' home address and see the aerial view!! "They know where you are!!!"

SCR-2034, SCS-680

III%,
Deli-out

[Bolas 5]

Quote

Quote

Not quite the same as the device attached to the phone gets everything and goes everywhere whereas a gps only gets movements that could be seen in public.

People never drive their cars onto private property?

Or when one of those devices is driven onto private property, the police switch it off?

Unless the vehicle is in a garage or some other place where the gps satellites can't be seen it records the movements.

One could argue that even if on private property, if visible from off the property or from the air, the vehicle could be tracked without entering the property.

Both sides have valid points: The LEO's would say they are just trying to use technology to become more efficient and cost effective in their investigations whereas the privacy advocates fear that it's making it too easy to investigate someone. This is where audit controls and logs could come in.

Here's another question. If someone were to find a gps tracking device on their car and removed it, could they be charged with interfering with an investigation?

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

The LEO's would say they are just trying to use technology to become more efficient and cost effective in their investigations whereas the privacy advocates fear that it's making it too easy to investigate someone. This is where audit controls and logs could come in.

I like the technology, its really neat. Even OnStar access is pretty neat, and the system doesn't even need to be live to be accessed. However, I like the idea of needing a judge's signature for the application of that technology.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[GeorgiaDon 362]

Although the ruling may be technically correct, I think the state legislature should pass a law to require a warrant for that kind of surveillance. Although it's true the police could follow you around, or even use a helicopter to follow your movements on private property, that would be hugely expensive and almost certainly wouldn't be done without a very good reason. On the other hand sticking a tracking device on a car is easy, so easy people will certainly be temped to abuse it. Suppose a police officer suspects their spouse is fooling around. Out comes the tracking device, then "what were you doing at the no-tell motel for 2 hours?". Judges almost never refuse warrants if there is probable cause; I think it's entirely reasonable that the police should have to show cause before subjecting anyone to that kind of surveillance, be it by tracking device or just following them around for extended periods.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[shropshire 0]

Hey .... if you've done nothing wrong, you've got nothing to worry about, right?

What if... you found the 'bug' on your car, took it off and destroyed it, would/could they do you for damaging government property?


Ziech heil!!

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[jerryzflies 0]

Quote

Hey .... if you've done nothing wrong, you've got nothing to worry about, right?

What if... you found the 'bug' on your car, took it off and destroyed it, would/could they do you for damaging government property?


Ziech heil!!

I wonder what they look like and how they are attached.

If you found one, you could take it a bunch of interesting places that cars can't go (on a boat, up a mountain, ...) before returning it to your car to be recovered.

If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.

[1969912 0]

Quote

Quote

Hey .... if you've done nothing wrong, you've got nothing to worry about, right?

What if... you found the 'bug' on your car, took it off and destroyed it, would/could they do you for damaging government property?


Ziech heil!!

I wonder what they look like and how they are attached.

If you found one, you could take it a bunch of interesting places that cars can't go (on a boat, up a mountain, ...) before returning it to your car to be recovered.

Take it skydiving

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

[kelpdiver 2]

People are missing the bigger problem. If the cops don't do the surveillance themselves, like they're supposed to, how do they know who's driving the car?

[DJL 235]

Quote

Suppose a police officer suspects their spouse is fooling around. Out comes the tracking device,

Not a very good example. If a cop (or anyone) wants to put a GPS device in their spouse's car then they will.

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[JohnRich 4]

Someone should sneak GPS tracking devices onto police cars, then retrieve them a week later, and publish in the newspaper how much time they spent parked at donut shops.

[Will_Evo 0]

....I wont go into detail because this type of thing infuriates me but cops can do to much. They can put their noses where they have no business. GPS tracking of ANY kind is ridiculous.

"Those who sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither"


-Evo

Zoo Crew

[warpedskydiver 0]

Gangs have been known to do this in order to track where the cops are so that they can conduct business without interruption.

When millions are at stake they will spend some money to assure they are not caught.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Someone should sneak GPS tracking devices onto police cars, then retrieve them a week later, and publish in the newspaper how much time they spent parked at donut shops.

Its only fair.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[wmw999 2,461]

Quote

I like the idea of needing a judge's signature for the application of that technology.

I agree. GPS makes it easy, cheap, and reliable what they used to have to pay people to do (tail suspects). While that's good from a tax dollars point of view, it's bad from a privacy point of view.

Being able to do it inexpensively and easily makes it far more likely to happen.

So yeah, court order or warrant, definitely.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[jerryzflies 0]

Quote

Quote

I like the idea of needing a judge's signature for the application of that technology.

I agree. GPS makes it easy, cheap, and reliable what they used to have to pay people to do (tail suspects). .

As kelpdiver pointed out, the GPS tails the car, not the suspect.

If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.