NY Court Says Police Can't Track Suspect With GPS 414
SoundGuyNoise sends in a story that brings into relief just how unsettled is the question of whether police can use GPS to track suspects without a warrant. Just a couple of days ago a Wisconsin appeals court ruled that such tracking is OK; and today an appeals court in New York reached the opposite conclusion. "It was wrong for a police investigator to slap a GPS tracking device under a defendant's van to track his movements, the state's top court ruled today. A sharply divided NY Court of Appeals, in a 4-3 decision, reversed the burglary conviction of defendant Scott Weaver, 41, of Watervliet. Four years ago, State Police tracked Weaver over 65 days in connection with the burglary investigation."
Close, but no cigar (Score:5, Informative)
When one reads the linked article, the court indicated it was because no warrant was obtained that the tracking via GPS was invalid, not the tracking in and of itself.
Had the police done their job and obtained a warrant to plant a device on the persons car, there wouldn't have been a problem. They obviously had reasonable suspicion to suspect he was the burglar because they knew enough to single him out.
This isn't about Big Brother watching you, this is about sloppy police work (though it does tie in nicely with the previous article from Wisconsin).
State constitutions differ. (Score:4, Informative)
There is not necessarily any conflict. That which is forbidden by the constitution and/or statutes of one state may be permitted in another. Whether or not this is permitted by the US Constitution must be decided by a Federal court.
Re:Stolen device has GPS? (Score:5, Informative)
if someone steals your phone, it's still yours. even if it's out of your reach, you still have authority over it, so the police would be legally allowed to track it if you consent to it. any lawyer or paralegal here to correct me if i'm wrong ?
I remember some years ago a story about a stolen mac that had a remote management software that phoned home everytime the notebook connected to the internet. as soon as the thieve dialed up (it was still on the dial-up age), the owner logged in to his mac and used the iSight camera to snap a picture of the individual. this was not considered an invasion because the mac was his to begin with. IIRC, the police used the picture to identify and arrest the thieve. the mac was located and returned.
Re:Did he still steal stuff? (Score:2, Informative)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruit_of_the_poisonous_tree
Re:Did he still steal stuff? (Score:3, Informative)
What I meant and said poorly, is that there must have been some sort of stolen goods that the guy had in his possession. That alone should be good enough for the guy to be put in jail. The fact that police followed improper procedures needs to be addressed in a very harsh manner. However, I still think that someone should not be able to get away with a crime on a technicality.
Doesn't matter. They illegally placed a tracking device and used that as the method of catching him with the stolen goods. Because the method they used to catch him with the stolen stuff was illegal, then that evidence is tainted and inadmissible.
Trust me, you don't want it any other way. Had the police done good police work (ie: followed him with police detectives) instead of the quick and easy way (slap the GPS onto his vehicle) they would have caught him and the conviction would have stood.
We shouldn't allow the government to get away with circumventing the Constitution with technology for their own convenience.
Plus, given that the police and prosecution now have been proven to have broken the law THEMSELVES to collect this evidence, I don't necessarily take their word for it that this was the burglar. Since they were clearly willing to break the law to get a conviction, who's to say they didnt' plant this evidence? The guilty don't deserve a presumption of innocence, and by this ruling, those involved in this case have been found guilty of violating the rights of the accused.
If they didn't have enough evidence going in to get a warrant for the suspect in the first place, one wonders how flimsy their case was otherwise...
Re:Legal Basis? (Score:3, Informative)
Probably something about search and seizure, and the ninth and tenth amendments (the anti-elastic clauses).
Re:Headline is inaccurate (Score:4, Informative)
you need a warrant to track a person's private movements. I think in Wisconsin it was argued that that since the suspect visited public places then the warrant and the GPS tracking wasn't legal. but the police physically followed him as well and this is why it withstood appeal.
Re:Legal Basis? (Score:2, Informative)
They are to rule based on law established by the Legislature and approved by the Executive.
They did. It's this new thing called "The US Constitution".
Re:Did he still steal stuff? (Score:5, Informative)
There is a legal principal known as Fruit of the poisonous tree [wikipedia.org]. Essentially, any evidence that has been found due to an illegal search, even if it wasn't found during the search itself, is inadmissible.
So if the stolen property was discovered because of the gps, then it is likely inadmissible. The article didn't say one way or another, so it is tough to tell. If it had nothing to do with the gps, then it can still be used in court
Remember also that the judge merely ordered a new trial with the bad evidence excluded. If they still have enough evidence that was discovered independent of the illegal search, he may still be convicted.
Ultimately, there is no better way to defend our rights that to completely bar any evidence that has been found in violation of them. It sometimes has the unfortunate side effect or letting the guilty go free, but so long as police maintain their professionalism and act legally it should be a rare occurrence.
Re:Did he still steal stuff? (Score:3, Informative)
What recourse do I have when they pull me over without cause and/or search my vehicle and DON'T find anything incriminating? They have still harassed and intimidated me, but because they didn't find anything they could arrest me for, it is ok?
No, it's not okay. Your recourse is to file a complaint with the police department and/or your state government (Attorney General's office might be a good place to start if the local police department doesn't handle the complaint). In a system that isn't completely corrupted, the officer will at least be suspended for the duration of the investigation.
Welcome to the USA. (Score:5, Informative)
What police can or can't do to a vehicle depends on what state you are in. Big surprise.
Re:Headline is inaccurate (Score:5, Informative)
Well, who knows how many people they slapped these GPS trackers on. This article just refers to the one guy charged. It wouldn't surprise me if they slapped them on the vehicles of a bunch of "known offenders", and then charged the one whose vehicle movements roughly lined up with some crimes.
It's the same as if the police searched all their homes without a warrant, and just arrested the guy where they found the stuff. The police wouldn't tell the judge they did mass searches, just that they did this one search without a warrant.
Except the 50 other people may not know their vehicles had/has a GPS attached to it (whereas they probably would know if the police searched their house).
Re:Headline is inaccurate (Score:3, Informative)
Ah...but, a PI is NOT a police officer, he does not have the same rights/responsibilities....nor the power to arrest or charge you with a crime.
He (although often licensed somewhat) is a private citizen, so it is different. I supposed if you discovered one of these people following you all over, you might could have THEM charged with stalking.
Remember, most of these 'rights' have to do with what the state can/cannot do to you....not private individuals or entities.
False dichotomy warning! (Score:3, Informative)
The summary suggests, that there would be only one global way that this decision can go. While in reality, tracking a suspect with GPS can, and most likely is, ok in some cases. While in others it is not. And in some, it is even dependent on other factors.
Re:Stolen device has GPS? (Score:5, Informative)
"Here's a little story for you: An Apple Store employee had a party in her apartment. A couple weeks later her place was cleared out to the tune of about $5,000 worth of electronics, including her new Mac. Days later, a friend sees that she's online and alerts the Mac's rightful owner. Since she was running Leopard with Back to My Mac, owner-girl logged in remotely and activated Photo Booth via the screen-share function. And what do you know, it turned out that the thieves were some "friends" who were at the party a few weeks back. She took the photos to the cops and -- voila -- busted! The thieves, Edmon Shahikian, 23, and Ian Frias, 20, both of the Bronx, have been charged with second-degree burglary and fourth-degree criminal possession of stolen property. Go go crafty nerdy girl!"
it was not dial-up era though... seems the little hard drive in my brain has some bad sectors already...
Correction: NY Court of Appeals is NY's Top Court (Score:1, Informative)
Mild correction for those that do not understand the New York court system. The New York Court of Appeals is its highest court, equivalent to other states supreme court. While the New York Supreme Court is its trial court, and the Appellate Divisions are its intermediate appellate courts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Court_of_Appeals
I realize this is confusing, but that means the summary was wrong in saying "an appeals court in New York". This decision holds more weight than Wisconsin's by comparison - a supreme court vs an appellate court.
Instead of: "today an appeals court in New York reached the opposite conclusion."
It should read: "today New York's Court of Appeals (its Supreme Court) reached the opposite conclusion."
That would clarify the confusion. Best of luck folks!
Re:Legal Basis? (Score:2, Informative)
IANAL, so take this entire post with a grain of salt.
but I believe that the US Supreme Court could only rule that a given law is or is not unconstitutional, according to the US Constitution. If they do rule something as unconsitutional, it effectively nullifies any convictions/etc that were a result of the that law IIRC.
States are permitted to grant additional rights beyond those granted by the US Constitution, but cannot take anything away. In this particular case, since the suspect was protected by a provision in the State Constitution, and states are permitted to grant said freedoms, it's highly unlikely there's an angle that could be played to claim that that provision of the state constitution is unconstitutional according to the federal constitution.
The flipside of this is that the legal precedent here only really applies in New York -- states that don't have a similar law might be able to get away with it (at which point another case could be filed and presumably make it all the way up to SCOTUS as a federal constitutional matter)
Note that if the NY Court had said the Police COULD track the suspect with the GPS, the suspect would have the option of appealing to SCOTUS... and if the judge's ruling was based on the federal constitution (jurisdiction of SCOTUS) rather than the state one, the police could appeal to SCOTUS too.
Re:Did he still steal stuff? (Score:3, Informative)
No other country ... adheres to an exclusionary rule as a matter of constitutional principle.
Ummm. How about Canada.... (Section 24(1&2))