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."
Headline is inaccurate (Score:5, Insightful)
The judgment was that they couldn't track a person without a warrant. I presume that if they had convinced a judge of probable cause before they lojacked the suspect, they would have been in the clear.
Re:Headline is inaccurate (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It isn't that strange, state laws are anything but uniform.
Re:Headline is inaccurate (Score:5, Insightful)
Nothing strange about it at all!! That's the way things are (supposed) to be set up. Rather than an all knowing all powerful federal govt. telling you what to do...the most power to make laws should be at the state and then local level. This is done in that state and local are more apt to serve their populations needs and wishes better. People living in NYC, and Tucson, AZ have vastly different needs and wishes due to climate, land mass, and culture of the people. You are a citizen of your state first, and then a citizen of the United States...
It is great that way, in that if you don't like the laws and regulations where you live, you are free to move to a state that is more in line with your way of thinking. Wanna have medicinal pot easily? Move to CA. Things like that.
Hehehe...if you think these laws are wide in variance....just look at liquor laws not only from state to state, but, from county to county (or parish to parish in LA)....those are the most fscked up things I've ever seen when traveling.
But, what you observed isn't a bad thing or strange thing. The US was set up that way!!!
Re:Headline is inaccurate (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, hopefully with the recent trend of more states trying to assert more of states rights...maybe these will be repealed.
I heard something on the news this morning, of something going on in Montana with their gun laws [uprisingradio.org] that are challenging the Fed. interestate commerce powers. Since this is tied to guns, it just may fasttrack itself to the SCOTUS. I for one sure would love to see much of the Fed's power struck down and more narrowly define the interstate commerce powers the Federal govt. has used to strong arm the states over a lot of things.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Headline is inaccurate (Score:4, Insightful)
HA! Good luck getting the Supreme Court to overturn Wickard v. Filburn(1942)
Overturning Wickard v. Filburn is a major piece of what this new constitutionalist movement is about.
That decision (on a Great Depression era central-economic-planning law, during the runup to WW II) is what turned the commerce clause into a blank check for the Fed to regulate anything they damned well pleased - and has since been used for such things as justifying federal regulation of marijuana growing for personal consumption (because it would affect the traffic in out-of-state marijuana supplies!).
Do any of you really think that the people who wrote the Constitution would have considered banning growing of wheat to feed your own pigs to be a proper federal "regulation of interstate commerce in wheat"?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:State vs US from a Southerner. (Score:4, Interesting)
Actually, I am from and live in the deep south. My college roommate once joked that anyone born north of I-10 (that passes through New Orleans) was a yankee. He was a bit stringent on that definition...hahaha.
But, rather than get into a discussion on the war of northern aggression, lets let the past be where it is...enjoy the fact that we are still one large country, but, try to undo some of the ill effects of the past, and support these laws that are trying to help reassert states' rights, and give the 10th amendment some teeth again.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
We here in South Carolina applaud your rhetoric but thanks to that Yankee jackass Lee, your assertion that we are state citizens first and US citizens second has been proven false.
For all the crap people give the south, I'm glad y'all are realizin' what the whole "state rights" thing was about. I always read with interest the rants most recently from Cali and Texas governments about their relationship with the Fed.
The government is supposed to be by the people, for the people. The people living today are not the same people living 150 years ago; with that many generations along with several periods of immigration to the US, their ideologies are different.
Perhaps you haven't noticed some other changes that have occurred in the last 150 or so years? The "solid South" is no longer solidly behind the Democratic party. It tends to lean towards the Republican party nowadays. That's kind of a big change.
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: (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, mos
Re:Headline is inaccurate (Score:5, Insightful)
Which is strange to me: They tracked one guy for 65 days but didn't think they had probable cause enough to get a warrant to do so?
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).
Stolen device has GPS? (Score:2, Interesting)
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: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...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What's the matter with these cops? (Score:5, Insightful)
Can't they just ask for a warrant, and not have to worry whether the case is going to be thrown out?
If it's worth the trouble to track the guy for 65 days, surely it's worth the trouble to get a warrant.
Re:What's the matter with these cops? (Score:5, Interesting)
You mean the police should actually demonstrate integrity by making sure they obey the law they're sworn to uphold!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
For those who(m?) were never in the army (including myself), SOP==standard operating procedure. I know this from English class.
Re:What's the matter with these cops? (Score:4, Funny)
For those who(m?)...
...I know this from English class.
Maybe you should have paid more attention to the basics ;)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Can't they just ask for a warrant, and not have to worry whether the case is going to be thrown out?
They could have tried to get a warrant. They probably didn't because they didn't have enough evidence to get a warrant and they decided to play a hunch.
Re:What's the matter with these cops? (Score:5, Insightful)
A simple loophole (Score:2)
Legal Basis? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I'd like to see the full text of the opinion.
Amen. There's not enough in the summary to understand WHY the court ruled the way it did.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Probably something about search and seizure, and the ninth and tenth amendments (the anti-elastic clauses).
Re: (Score:2)
Besides, it's criminal; was it a mistrial or an acquittal?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (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".
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).
Re:Close, but no cigar (Score:4, Insightful)
This is very much about big brother watching you. The police work wasn't sloppy, they surely knew they dd not have sufficient evidence to obtain a warrant, so they pretended to assume it wasn't necessary.
They could have, and should have, put a tail on him the old fashioned way. That way someone can actually account for the suspect's whereabouts and conduct. A GPS tracker indicates a lot more than just a suspect's car's position, and goes where conventional surveillance cannot. If a form of tracking is allowed, then the information gathered by it is admissible in court.
That means if a murder suspect parks in front of a gun shop, the jury gets to hear about it, even if the suspect gets a slice of pizza next door. With nobody there to bear witness, the information gathered cannot be interpreted accurately and only serves to prejudice the suspect and/or waste the court's time deciding what to make of it.
Fourth Amendment (Score:3, Insightful)
My understanding here is that monitoring without a warrant would constitute (no pun intended) a breach of the 'unreasonable search and seizure' part of the US constitution. If a cop can't investigate someone on the sole basis of profiling (racial or otherwise), then he shouldn't be allowed to GPS tag them without a warrant either. Seems simple to me... No?
Re: (Score:2)
My understanding here is that monitoring without a warrant would constitute (no pun intended) a breach of the 'unreasonable search and seizure' part of the US constitution. If a cop can't investigate someone on the sole basis of profiling (racial or otherwise), then he shouldn't be allowed to GPS tag them without a warrant either. Seems simple to me... No?
This reeks of laziness on the part of law enforcement to me.
If the man was a suspect, they could have had plainclothes officers follow his vehicle. This would not have required a warrant nor violated his rights, so long as the officers didn't violate his person or property without a warrant.
Instead they slapped a GPS on his vehicle and allowed it to save them the time, labor, and expense of doing so.
That's where they crossed the line. Had they done good police work (ie: followed him instead of taking the
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Instead they slapped a GPS on his vehicle and allowed it to save them the time, labor, and expense of doing so.
They are saving time and money with a highly accurate technology. As a tax payer, I think this approach sounds great. As a citizen, I think this approach should always require a warrant.
Re: (Score:2)
They are saving time and money with a highly accurate technology. As a tax payer, I think this approach sounds great. As a citizen, I think this approach should always require a warrant.
I completely agree. The police can even obtain wiretaps and permission to place a bug if they have a warrant to do so. A GPS tracker is nothing more than another form of that, so it should be assumed by any reasonable person that if bugs and wiretaps require a warrant, so does a GPS tracker.
Instead these guys did it willfully without one, which in my mind makes them bad cops and the prosecutors who intentionally used this evidence to get a conviction criminals themselves.
Sadly, not all police are "Sergean
Re: (Score:2)
I'm guessing that the judges involved thought about the places they go, and decided that they wouldn't want anyone knowing where
In other news... (Score:4, Funny)
Dozens of Wisconsin criminals have been seen driving in the general direction of New York.
Re:In other news... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
they are going to have a bit of a problem when they hit the lake. hopefully the smarter of them will head in the general direction of Chicago, and then Ohio, before heading towards New York.
hopefully the Wisconsin police will call them in time to let them know they're going the wrong way.
Yeah, its pretty cool. Go to http://dragnet....co (Score:2)
And you can see them fleeing live on the net.
Re: (Score:2)
And of course we know that from the gps tracking provided by the Wisconsin police dept.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Dozens of Wisconsin criminals have been seen driving in the general direction of New York.
We know.
-- The Wisconsin police
What's Good for the Goose (Score:4, Interesting)
I understand the argument that GPS tracking is not significantly more intrusive than tailing.
But I wonder how police officers would react if GPS devices were surreptitiously placed on their cruisers.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
I was under the impression that police cruisers in most (if not all) locales in the US have been equipped with GPS tracking for many years now. I know for a fact that the NY State trooper vehicles have them (I have an in-law who's a trooper) and I think my local township does too. From what my in-law told me, the troopers union requested the GPS devices for officer safety reasons.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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.
State constitutions cannot conflict with the Federal one with respects to rights granted, as in the Bill of Rights, and in this case, the requirement that a warrant be obtained.
States can grant you MORE rights than the Federal Constitution, but they may not restrict you more than it does.
Re: (Score:2)
Right, but the state's supreme court doesn't get to decide what federal law says. That's up to a federal court.
This crap just takes time to shake out.
Re: (Score:2)
Sort of.
Every state is beholden to the civil protections of the US Constitution -- no state may allow transgression of rights enumerated there. So there are commonalities to the state laws, and definitely for the rights of people in the states. Think of the US Constitution as defining the baseline for what people's
Personally, I would have ruled for the state (Score:3)
If following somebody in an unmarked car without a warrant is legal (and it is), I'm not sure why an electronic device that accomplishes the same thing through satellite tracking would not be.
SirWired
Re:Personally, I would have ruled for the state (Score:5, Insightful)
If having a plant listen to a phone conversation is legal (and it is), I'm not sure why doing the same thing through a switch-box would not be.
Re: (Score:2)
The police officer following you does not damage your private property, aka your car. He also does not follow you onto your private property, your land. In addition this reduces the burden on the police involved in tracking suspects to the point were without the need for a warrant they could just place a tracking device on every car in their jurisdiction.
Here's an interesting question (Score:3, Interesting)
Say the police in state A* attach a GPS tracker to a car sans warrant, then say that the owner of that car drives to a different state, B**; would evidence collected whilst the vehicle was in State B count? Would the officers in State A be exposing themselves to actual liability (as opposed to the evidence simply being thrown out) in State B?
*Wisconsin
**New York
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.
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.
Does it matter? (Score:3, Interesting)
There are instances in which the police may wish to track someone in order to gather intelligence. This information will never appear as evidence in court. So, they'll go on planting GPS units wherever they want. They'll just have to manufacture some probable cause to make a stop.
This sort of thing has been done for ages. The cops know who the 'bad' people are. And they've got a pretty good feel for when they're up to no good. So, where something like running a stop sign or failure to signal a lane change are overlooked for the general public, the usual suspects will get pulled over, patted down and have their vehicle tossed*. GPS technology just allows them to collect intelligence from the comfort of a donut shop instead of actually patrolling a neighborhood.
*A friend of mine in the local PD refers to this as charging someone with "Mopery with intent to gawk".
Questions (Score:3, Interesting)
2) How do I detect whether or not a GPS receiver has been attached to my car?
3) If this box was there for 2 months, it must be drawing power from the car battery. Doesn't that make it a lot easier to detect? Doesn't that also mean that it is probably only working when the car ignition is on?
4) GPS signals from satellites are low-power, therefore they must be easy to jam. Isn't there a potential market for devices that do just that? You probably only need to jam the signal when the ignition is on. Better yet, transmit false GPS data and really mess with the cops' minds.
Wolves, Sheepdog, Sheeple (Score:3, Interesting)
I can't tell you how overjoyed I am to hear that one of our courts has remembered there are limits to police power.
Unfortunately, the men with the uniforms and guns aren't worrying about such trivia. Have you spoken to any police officers lately? If you don't happen to work in municipal systems or security like I do, hop over to the forums at "officer.com" for an eye-opening read.
The current meme running among police officers is "wolves, sheepdogs and sheeple." That is, the "bad guys" are wolves, cops are sheepdogs, and the civilians are sheep. Sheep are worthless, stupid and deserve to get skinned.
The last member of a SWAT team I met told me a joke. He stomped on the ground twice and spit toward his foot. "You know what that is?" he asked. I shook my head "no." He grinned and said "cop cpr." When I asked if that was the procedure for criminals or victims, he called me a liberal fraker.
Another cop was telling me a story, well bragging really, and a footnote to the story was that a teenage girl was injured. When I asked him why that happened, he responded in fairly rough terms that officer safety took priority over all other considerations. I told him that during my time on base, we were always told that armed men in uniform were supposed to put themselves in harm's way to protect the civilians. Again, in rather rude terms, the officer responded that he didn't care how many civilians were killed, but that he was absolutely not going to expose himself or his fellow officers to real danger.
The court decisions are wonderful, but until we fix the broken traditions and discipline within our nation's police departments, it's an academic exercise at best.
Re: (Score:2)
It sort of defeats the point of tracking if you tell us where it's going to be ahead of time.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:defense approach difference? (Score:5, Funny)
Perhaps if we change the title to "NY Court Says Police Can't Track Suspect with GPSAA" he'll swing by.
Re: (Score:2)
Probably because NYCL is into civil law, not criminal law.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Probably because NYCL is into civil law, not criminal law.
Civil law, business ethics, military intelligence, etc.
Based on NYCL's writings, there is nothing "civil" about how the **AA lawyers treat their victims.
Re:Did he still steal stuff? (Score:5, Insightful)
From the skimming I did of the summary it looks like the sentence was over turned because they didn't get a warrant for using GPS to track the guy. Should someone who committed a crime be let go because some did not follow procedures NO, should there be discipline for not using proper procedures absolutely. Improper procedures should not cause a case to be overturned unless of course it could be shown that the person was guilty only because of the improper procedures.
Wrong. The ONLY punishment appropriate when government violates the rights of the accused in the course of collecting evidence is to deprive them of the use of that evidence.
If that means guilty people getting off, so be it, in the end, denying government actors the use of illegally obtained evidence in the end is the ONLY way we have giving them a disincentive to conduct illegal searches and seizures.
The Constitution is not a technicality.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruit_of_the_poisonous_tree
Re: (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'
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (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.
Re:Did he still steal stuff? (Score:4, Insightful)
Wrong. The ONLY punishment appropriate when government violates the rights of the accused in the course of collecting evidence is to deprive them of the use of that evidence.
It might be worth pointing out that this is only true in the United States. No other country (including those with search and seizure protections enshrined in their respective constitutions) adheres to an exclusionary rule as a matter of constitutional principle.
Even in the U.S., the exclusionary rule took a while to evolve. Even after it was crafted as a federal standard, the states took a while to fall in line. There are ways of deterring bad official conduct that don't involve excluding relevant evidence of a criminal offense. (Civil suit against the police, independent disciplinary bodies, etc.) Other countries manage just fine.
Re: (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))
That is the very foundation of our legal system (Score:5, Insightful)
That it is better to let ten guilty men go free than to convict a single innocent man.
Throwing the case out is the discipline used when the police or prosecution step out of line.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is the way it was before the 1960s.
Ahh, so yours is an argument from tradition, then? Or do you have an actual argument?
Re:That is a 1960's liberal mistake. (Score:4, Insightful)
So, the police get a slap on the wrist and an innocent person goes to the electric chair? No. Absolutely no. We have to err on the side of caution and give the accused the benefit of the doubt. Innocent until proven guilty, and you can't be proven guilty with illegally obtained evidence.
I'd like to see a citation for this. Even if it is true, so what? Who cares what it was like before the 1960s. We didn't have high speed internet before the 1960s either. Should we also go back to computers that take up a whole room and aren't connected to one another?
Re: (Score:2)
I'd rather live on that block than in a jurisdiction where shoddy policy work and disregard for procedure and civil rights are encouraged.
You don't achieve justice by breaking the law.
Re: (Score:2)
That it is better to let ten guilty men go free than to convict a single innocent man.
No, its not. You go right ahead and live on the block where 10 guilty guys went free.
The way to deal with police mistakes is with sanctions and fines. This is the way it was before the 1960s.
I'm assuming you're innocent so why don't we just put you and the 10 guilty guys together in a cell.
Re:That is a 1960's liberal mistake. (Score:5, Insightful)
You go right ahead and live on the block where 10 guilty guys went free.
Tell you what. I'll live with the criminals, and you live in the next town over where the cops can do whatever the hell they want. I guarantee you I'll have a longer, safer life than you will. What people like you never seem to understand is that when cops don't follow the law, they're no longer serving and protecting -- they're just the biggest, toughest, meanest gang on the street.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't pity liberals at all. Things that are not human are not worth pity.
You, sir, have just achieved a new low in online political discourse. Anyone who spews any amount of bile, on Slashdot or in any other online forum, will be able to say when called on it, "Well, at least what I said wasn't as bad as what tjstork said!" -- and odds are they'll be right.
Um ... congratulations, I guess.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes. That's the whole point of having a judicial system. It spells out how the police and the legal profession must act to bring cases to trial. If you're going to abandon that system, then I don't suppose you have a problem with police coming into your house at any time of the day or night to see if you are breaking any laws.
Improper procedures should not cause a case to be overturned unless of course it could
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think it's as cut and dry as you say. There are obviously differeing opinions. If there weren't we wouldn't need judges. We would all just know what was right and what was wrong.
The police didn't obtain a warrant, the prosecutor didn't have a problem presenting that evidence at trial and the judge allowed it into evidence. I'm assuming defense counsel opposed it.
Re:Did he still steal stuff? (Score:5, Insightful)
Beyond the constitutional arguments, The exclusionary rule is, arguably, one of the few effective measures for keeping police from disregarding due process and abusing their power. Otherwise, it is oh-so-very-very-tempting to just bend the rules a little to get the guy you "know" is the right one. If doing the wrong thing is a good way of getting your case thrown out, you'll be a lot less likely to do the wrong thing.
There is empirical evidence, as well, for this position. This [latimes.com] is an op-ed from a legal academic who has studied the matter.
"Getting tough on crime" at the expense of method is initially attractive; but it is extraordinarily corrosive to our rights and liberties in the medium and long terms. The ethical flexibility that allows the cops to create a fictional confidential informant to seize otherwise unavailable evidence today, will be the same flexibility that allows the cops to create fictional evidence tomorrow.
Re: (Score:2)
Should someone who committed a crime be let go because some did not follow procedures NO
Actually, yes they should. Otherwise, police have no incentive to follow procedures.
Re: (Score:2)
You're essentially contradicting yourself. You say "sure, evidence collected using improper (that is, illegal) procedures is admissible in court!" and then contradict it with "but evidence collected using improper procedures can't be used to show guilt."
The police need to follow the law. If they don't, then they are the ones out of luck. If
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
From my basic understanding of the US legal system, evidence obtained improperly is considered tainted and suspect, and is thus thrown out.
Think of it this way; If the police officer in question is willing to collect evidence in a manner contrary to procedure and law, it is entirely likely that he is willing to plant or forge evidence to get a conviction.
Remember: In America, it's still "Innocent until proven guilty." no matter what one advocacy group or another might say. While I hate for a burglar to
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Sounds good in theory maybe but its a very dangerous idea. Your rights would then be limited by the amount of grief an officer is willing to go through in order to catch you in some illegal act. Imagine you're a cop tracking down a serial killer and you think there's evidence inside someone's house, wouldn't you be willing to risk punishment to prevent the guy killing again?
All the sudden the rule would be 'you need a warrant and probably cause OR be willing to risk punishment' which is not quite the same
Re: (Score:2)
Should someone who committed a crime be let go because some did not follow procedures
The problem with allowing the conviction to stand is that it encourages sloppy police work, in a "kill em all and let god sort em out" kind of way. You end up with police violating everyone's rights but then only charging the guy who actually did it. You also end up with police who bust into the homes of people they just don't like in hopes of finding some kind of evidence of a crime.
As odd as it sounds, the purpose of overturning this conviction is more to protect you and me than it is to protect the bur
Re: (Score:2)
No.
If the police and prosecutors can get away with not following procedures, then they will never follow procedures. If ignoring legal procedures does not jeopardize the chance of conviction, then there is no penalty for not following those procedures, and instead creates incentive to bypass the procedures completely. After all, even if the defendant finds out, they'd still be convicted.
Overturning a conviction because of procedural violations sets an example that procedural violations will not be tolerated
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Due process is the principle that the government must respect all of the legal rights that are owed to a person according to the law of the land.
This case was about the police not respecting the legal rights of the accused person hence by it's very definition it is a violation of due process.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Actually, it's somewhat more complicated than that.
This wasn't a case of a citizen suing the government because his privacy was violated by GPS tracking (which is kind of the way you framed it above). Rather, this was -- as far as one can tell from the poor summaries and extracts currently made available -- a case where the defendant in a criminal action seeks to have evidence excluded under the Exclusionary Rule, because, presumably, GPS tracking is unconstitutional.
Why would it be unconstitutional? It mi
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
1. It did not use up the "valuable" resource that is the detective. Meaning the police could just plant one of these devices on all cars in the city.
2. If a detective is following you, he normally will not follow you onto your private property, else he could be charged with trespass.
3.If a detective follows a person around that person has the ability to at least seek harassment charges.
Re: (Score:2)
And my Garmin stock will go through the roof again. :)
Re: (Score:2)
For the safety and convenience of motorists, of course.
Don't forget the children. You gotta think of them.
Re: (Score:2)