Comments on: 7th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals okays surreptitious GPS tracking by police

By: Private Eye in the Digital Age | GPS Obsessed

Private Eye in the Digital Age | GPS Obsessed — Tue, 04 May 2010 00:35:40 +0000

[...] surfaced in many states as GPS tracking has become more common. In light of the controversy, the seventh circuit court of appeals ruled that placing a GPS tracking device in a vehicle did not constitute an unreasonable search since the [...]

By: Corporate Cameras are taking over law enforcement! « CameraFRAUD Texas

Corporate Cameras are taking over law enforcement! « CameraFRAUD Texas — Tue, 29 Dec 2009 16:58:17 +0000

[...] Tracking Devices http://gpstrackingsystems.biz/7th-circuit-us-court-of-appeals-okays-surreptitious-gps-tracking-by-po... Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)Texas Injury Trial Lawyers will be going after [...]

By: Ken

Ken — Mon, 11 May 2009 02:59:40 +0000

If they put one on my car and I find it, I’ll keep it.
How large is one of these devices, how hard would it be to find? Is there a way to electronically detect it?

Anyways now that Homeland Security has branded your average American as a domestic terrorist I am sure that some of us will have
these spiffy devices installed in our rides just for having one of the qualities listed in their document.

By: Jeff, IA Investigator

Jeff, IA Investigator — Thu, 07 May 2009 17:50:38 +0000

They didn’t bring it up in the court case because they wanted the jury to believe that they (the police) did all the leg work themselves. If they don’t bring it up, a jury of untrained eyes and ears would assume that a detective would have been following the suspect. They also knew you were not the criminal and all the warrents associated with the rental car company were directed at you. Leagally, any nformation obtained from those warrents were not admissable. I’m sure there are other factors to consider but from the outside looking in, there investigation took a wrong turn at the rental car company.

By: Confused

Confused — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 23:04:15 +0000

My brother had me rent several cars for him, as I was the one with the credit card, and I did. Unbeknownst to me, he was breaking into cars using the cars that I had rented for him. The police contacted the rental car company as the license plate in one of the break ins had been identified. The rental car company contacted me and asked me to bring the car that I had in and exchange it due to a “recall.” I did as I was aksed, what I didn’t know was that the police had the rental car company give me a car with a GPS on it. That’s how he got caught. IDK…the whole thing seemed sort of crazy to me. The thing is, when he went to court that was no mention of the GPS. I never could figure out why they ommitted that information. It was in the warrant papers that they had to search my home though. Can someone explain this to me please.

By: Anon

Anon — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 20:28:03 +0000

Today a New York intermediate appellate court ruled that surreptitious monitoring of a suspect by placement of a hidden GPS device behind a bumper, for example, of the suspect’s auto is legal and not a violation of the Fourth Amendment, that is, not a circumstance requiring the police to obtain a warrant from a neutral judge. No probable cause required.

By: Roman

Roman — Wed, 21 May 2008 23:21:28 +0000

There is no expectation of privacy when someone is driving on the street. You do not have a cloaking device, you use public streets to go from A to B, and you see everyone else driving too. In other words, you are driving in plain sight of everyone that sees you. It is obvious that the courts ruled that this is not a “search” since there is no expectation of privacy. If you really want to sound like you know what you are talking about read the 4th ammendment and other case law before you disagree. Additionally, it’s not like thay need to hard wire it to your car anymore. They make self contained units that can attach by magnet available all over the internet now.

By: OmarAnderson

OmarAnderson — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 20:40:38 +0000

Robert, I’ll bet you got fired huh?

It’s no different than parking on the street, waiting for you to leave, and following you to where you go.

By: jimmy

jimmy — Fri, 09 Nov 2007 16:01:51 +0000

WOOOOOOOW!!!!!!!!!!!

By: Michael Cahoon PI

Michael Cahoon PI — Sun, 22 Apr 2007 21:24:05 +0000

Having studied the technology and the law concerning these items, which by the way are LEGAL for me to use in my work or play, I want to shed a little light on things.

1. The judge has a point, its not a search or seizure.
2. “…and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause…”, and that is a DIRECT QUOTE from the 4th ammendment to the US Constitution, which indicates to me that the judge needs a refresher course on constitutional law ( do judges need CEU’s)
3. Besides the fact that it necissarily requires tampering with a vehicle (no it doesn’t rise to the level of theft at least in WA or CA because it doesn’t deprive the owner of the use of the property) It facilitates an invasion of privacy (or upon seclusion in some jurisdictions) by tracking a vehicle in a place where the law enforcement officers do not have a legal right to be