Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 20
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    233

    Default GPS Tracking Without a Search Warrant

    My question involves civil rights in the Country of: United States


    Why is it the police don't need to have a search warrant to install a GPS tracking device, Without your consent, on your car? Doesn't this violate your civil rights?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    38,867

    Default Re: Search Warrant Needed

    I'm not sure how they wouldn't either. Apparently at some time the federal courts believed it was necessary as they included this in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure; Rule 41:

    (C) Warrant for a Tracking Device. A tracking-device warrant must identify the person or property to be tracked, designate the magistrate judge to whom it must be returned, and specify a reasonable length of time that the device may be used. The time must not exceed 45 days from the date the warrant was issued. The court may, for good cause, grant one or more extensions for a reasonable period not to exceed 45 days each. The warrant must command the officer to:

    (i) complete any installation authorized by the warrant within a specified time no longer than 10 calendar days;

    (ii) perform any installation authorized by the warrant during the daytime, unless the judge for good cause expressly authorizes installation at another time; and

    (iii) return the warrant to the judge designated in the warrant.
    (2) Warrant for a Tracking Device.

    (A) Noting the Time. The officer executing a tracking-device warrant must enter on it the exact date and time the device was installed and the period during which it was used.

    (B) Return. Within 10 calendar days after the use of the tracking device has ended, the officer executing the warrant must return it to the judge designated in the warrant.

    (C) Service. Within 10 calendar days after the use of the tracking device has ended, the officer executing a tracking-device warrant must serve a copy of the warrant on the person who was tracked or whose property was tracked. Service may be accomplished by delivering a copy to the person who, or whose property, was tracked; or by leaving a copy at the person’s residence or usual place of abode with an individual of suitable age and discretion who resides at that location and by mailing a copy to the person’s last known address. Upon request of the government, the judge may delay notice as provided in Rule 41(f)(3).

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    California
    Posts
    20,594

    Default Re: Search Warrant Needed

    Here is the applicability in CA which cites a couple of USSC cases as well as a 9th Circuit case:

    Generally, it is proper for police, acting without a warrant or any particularized suspicion, to place an electronic tracking device or "beeper" on someone's vehicle, or in an object that gets transported by a vehicle, in order to monitor the vehicle, object, or person's location or movement, so long as the officer does so from a place he or she has a right to be. (Knotts (1983) 460 U.S. 276; Karo (1984) 468 U.S. 705; Zichwic (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 944, 956; Pineda-Moreno (9th Cir. 2010) 591 F.3d 1212.)


    Individual states can restrict this practice if they wish, but the USSC has apparently deemed that one's movements in public - in a motor vehicle - are not subject to the same privacy rights they might have inside their residence. Since the police could essentially conduct visual surveillance without a warrant or any suspicion, I suppose the reasoning is that this is merely an extension of that.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    38,867

    Default Re: Search Warrant Needed

    I am aware of such rulings but why would there be such specific regulations in the federal law if none of it was even required?

    It is, if nothing else, an invasion of one's privacy. I know I know; the vehicle is in the public eye so therefore there is no expectation of privacy. I will never agree with the courts rulings in this matter. To me, there is no real difference between this and sticking a tracking device on a person. Definately an intrusion of a persons rights in my mind.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    California
    Posts
    20,594

    Default Re: Search Warrant Needed

    Quote Quoting jk
    View Post
    I am aware of such rulings but why would there be such specific regulations in the federal law if none of it was even required?
    The feds can hold to a higher standard in application if they wish to do so. That does not mean they must do so.

    Besides, that rule which you posted does not seem to prohibit the mounting of a GPS tracker without a warrant, it only outlines the process by which to obtain such a warrant. When in doubt it is always a good idea to get a warrant, and the federal rules may not have changed, yet, as a result of case law.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    233

    Default Re: Search Warrant Needed

    Well that's not very encouraging...

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    38,867

    Default Re: Search Warrant Needed

    Carl, if a search warrant is not needed based on the lack of an expectation of privacy for the police to attach such a device, based on that premise, I would have to presume it would be legal for a private citizen to use the same methods, right? For some reason I'm betting a person utilizing such a device would find themselves facing some sort of charges.

    Quote Quoting cdwjava
    View Post
    The feds can hold to a higher standard in application if they wish to do so. That does not mean they must do so.

    Besides, that rule which you posted does not seem to prohibit the mounting of a GPS tracker without a warrant, it only outlines the process by which to obtain such a warrant. When in doubt it is always a good idea to get a warrant, and the federal rules may not have changed, yet, as a result of case law.
    Of course it doesn't say a warrant is needed. The only thing that states that is the Constituation. Everything else is simply explanatory of the terms in the Constitution.

    My point was; although I accept the fed is not overly efficient in many areas, the fact they felt the need to include such rules would cause one to believe they thought such rules are needed. Unless a warrant was required, they wasted time and effort in establishing those rules. Doesn't sound like something the gov would do knowingly and intentionally.

    and the last time that rule was addressed was in 2006.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    California
    Posts
    20,594

    Default Re: Search Warrant Needed

    Quote Quoting jk
    View Post
    Carl, if a search warrant is not needed based on the lack of an expectation of privacy for the police to attach such a device, based on that premise, I would have to presume it would be legal for a private citizen to use the same methods, right? For some reason I'm betting a person utilizing such a device would find themselves facing some sort of charges.
    I suppose that would depend on state law.

    It might be considered stalking ... it might not. An ex husband or boyfriend using it to track your comings and goings and then twittering it to the world or texting it to the victim could be criminal due to the subsequent behavior (worked a case like this last year). But the act by itself is not generally going to be unlawful so long as it does not interfere with the operation of the vehicle or record audio.

    EDIT:

    Oops ... I was slightly off ... private persons can NOT use them here.

    Here is the law covering them in CA:

    637.7. (a) No person or entity in this state shall use an
    electronic tracking device to determine the location or movement of a
    person.
    (b) This section shall not apply when the registered owner,
    lessor, or lessee of a vehicle has consented to the use of the
    electronic tracking device with respect to that vehicle.
    (c) This section shall not apply to the lawful use of an
    electronic tracking device by a law enforcement agency.

    (d) As used in this section, "electronic tracking device" means
    any device attached to a vehicle or other movable thing that reveals
    its location or movement by the transmission of electronic signals.
    (e) A violation of this section is a misdemeanor.
    (f) A violation of this section by a person, business, firm,
    company, association, partnership, or corporation licensed under
    Division 3 (commencing with Section 5000) of the Business and
    Professions Code shall constitute grounds for revocation of the
    license issued to that person, business, firm, company, association,
    partnership, or corporation, pursuant to the provisions that provide
    for the revocation of the license as set forth in Division 3
    (commencing with Section 5000) of the Business and Professions Code.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    38,867

    Default Re: Search Warrant Needed

    exactly; so why is it illegal for a private citizen to use them if it is not required for the police to obtain a warrant. The laws are written to protect an individuals rights so that would mean the the state apparently believes it is a right of a citizen to be able to not be tracked constantly.

    there is a huge hole in the law of your state as well:

    (b) This section shall not apply when the registered owner,
    lessor, or lessee of a vehicle has consented to the use of the
    electronic tracking device with respect to that vehicle
    that means a vehicle co-owned by a couple is fair game for either party to install a tracking device. I would suspect the intent of the law is to protect a driver from a person who would be considering a violent action against them. Since a married couple getting a divorce so often falls under that situation, it seems to ignore the fact that many vehicles are co-owned by both partners in the marriage.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Key West, FL
    Posts
    2,350

    Default Re: Search Warrant Needed

    Federal court rulings have held that no warrant is required.

    There are also some difference between federal and state actors. Federal law does not necessarily apply to state actors.

    Also, courts will find exceptions to statutes or even case law when they really want to.

    1. Sponsored Links
       

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Search and Seizure: Can the ATF Search a Car Without a Warrant
    By bonthelow in forum Criminal Procedure
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 05-30-2010, 12:16 PM
  2. Search and Seizure: Search Warrant
    By NCC 1701 in forum Criminal Procedure
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 03-14-2010, 04:36 PM
  3. Search and Seizure: Search Warrant vs. Bench Warrant
    By Robret Gillespie in forum Criminal Procedure
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 04-16-2008, 04:28 PM
  4. Arrest Warrants: What's The Difference Between An Arrest Warrant And A Search Warrant
    By cherrybonbon in forum Criminal Procedure
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 03-07-2008, 03:30 PM
  5. Arrest Warrants: The Difference Between an Arrest Warrant and a Search Warrant
    By kwade30 in forum Criminal Procedure
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 02-09-2006, 09:32 AM
 
 
Sponsored Links

Legal Help, Information and Resources