• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

secretly track anybody's movements without obtaining search

Larrry

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


Wisconsin court upholds GPS tracking by police
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."


Yup thats always the reason
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Larrrry- and you'd have been the first one bitchin at the police if they had been unable to make a case- the stalking continued- and the lady was severely assaulted or killed.... :roll:

I don't care for the idea that the public has the right to use these type "birddog" devices without a persons permission-- but also think that most law enforcement have procedural guidelines for their use...In most cases I've been involved with it took the equivalent of an Administrative Warrant- where department administrators determine if their is "reasonable suspicion"....Montana now requires a Court Order similar to an Investigative Subpeona...
 

VanC

Well-known member
I agree with the judge's ruling in general, but I disagree with his statement that a warrant wasn't needed. If they're going to start using GPS devices in this manner, in public or not, a warrant should always be issued first. If we let police and prosecutors use their own discretion there's simply too much of a possibility for abuse to suit me.
 

Larrry

Well-known member
Larrrry- and you'd have been the first one bitchin at the police if they had been unable to make a case- the stalking continued- and the lady was severely assaulted or killed

purely assumption on your part Get back to the meat of the article
 

Larrry

Well-known member
One has to be careful giving your own side of the issue too much power, because one of these days the opposition will have the power you gave your guy.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
VanC said:
I agree with the judge's ruling in general, but I disagree with his statement that a warrant wasn't needed. If they're going to start using GPS devices in this manner, in public or not, a warrant should always be issued first. If we let police and prosecutors use their own discretion there's simply too much of a possibility for abuse to suit me.

:agree:
 

hopalong

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Larrrry- and you'd have been the first one bitchin at the police if they had been unable to make a case- the stalking continued- and the lady was severely assaulted or killed.... :roll:

I don't care for the idea that the public has the right to use these type "birddog" devices without a persons permission-- but also think that most law enforcement have procedural guidelines for their use...In most cases I've been involved with it took the equivalent of an Administrative Warrant- where department administrators determine if their is "reasonable suspicion"....Montana now requires a Court Order similar to an Investigative Subpeona...

I am sure that in Valley county Montana population of barely 6000 in 1995-1998 must have had several major instances to use GPS, especially since there were not not many satellites available for use other than military snd weather for NASA tracking until 1995, and even then pretty unreliable during that time!
But it is your story so keep telling it! :roll:
EH?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
hopalong said:
Oldtimer said:
Larrrry- and you'd have been the first one bitchin at the police if they had been unable to make a case- the stalking continued- and the lady was severely assaulted or killed.... :roll:

I don't care for the idea that the public has the right to use these type "birddog" devices without a persons permission-- but also think that most law enforcement have procedural guidelines for their use...In most cases I've been involved with it took the equivalent of an Administrative Warrant- where department administrators determine if their is "reasonable suspicion"....Montana now requires a Court Order similar to an Investigative Subpeona...

I am sure that in Valley county Montana population of barely 6000 in 1995-1998 must have had several major instances to use GPS, especially since there were not not many satellites available for use other than military snd weather for NASA tracking until 1995, and even then pretty unreliable during that time!
But it is your story so keep telling it! :roll:
EH?

Hoppy-- there have been "birddog" tracking devices around for 30+ years- even before most ever heard of GPS...Back in the early 80's I watched DEA track an oilfield truck loaded with drugs from the oilfields near the Canadian border (where the drugs had came from) clear to Oklahoma where they took it down...
 

Lonecowboy

Well-known member
Larrry said:
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.



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.

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.




Yup thats always the reason


so if this guy had used the same device, attached it to the womans car, to track her movements, would he be prosecuted for it??
I bet so!!
 

hopalong

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
hopalong said:
Oldtimer said:
Larrrry- and you'd have been the first one bitchin at the police if they had been unable to make a case- the stalking continued- and the lady was severely assaulted or killed.... :roll:

I don't care for the idea that the public has the right to use these type "birddog" devices without a persons permission-- but also think that most law enforcement have procedural guidelines for their use...In most cases I've been involved with it took the equivalent of an Administrative Warrant- where department administrators determine if their is "reasonable suspicion"....Montana now requires a Court Order similar to an Investigative Subpeona...

I am sure that in Valley county Montana population of barely 6000 in 1995-1998 must have had several major instances to use GPS, especially since there were not not many satellites available for use other than military snd weather for NASA tracking until 1995, and even then pretty unreliable during that time!
But it is your story so keep telling it! :roll:
EH?

Hoppy-- there have been "birddog" tracking devices around for 30+ years- even before most ever heard of GPS...Back in the early 80's I watched DEA track an oilfield truck loaded with drugs from the oilfields near the Canadian border (where the drugs had came from) clear to Oklahoma where they took it down...

They were very low tech and extremly unreliable, besides you mentioned CASES not just one isolated case that was not using GPS!
But it is your story keep on telling it
EH!
 
Top