California struggles with GPS tracking of sex offenders January 3, 2008
Posted by Rich in : GPS tracking and public safety, GPS tracking law , add a commentCalifornia’s Proposition 83, AKA Jessica’s law, passed by voters in 2006, continues to be problematic. The Schwarzenegger administration is currently trying to determine whether the state or counties are responsible for the required lifetime GPS tracking of sex offenders, once they complete parole. In the meanwhile, GPS tracking is being discontinued once an offender finishes parole.
GPS detectors, jammers and spoofers September 24, 2007
Posted by Rich in : GPS tracking and privacy, GPS tracking and public safety, GPS tracking law , 1 comment so farSusan Brenner, a law professor specializing in cybercrime, has posted an article on GPS detectors, jammers and spoofers on her blog CYB3RCRIM3. It takes a while before she gets to the meat of it, but it’s a worthwhile read.
Along the way, she compares and contrasts state and federal treatment of radar detectors, how these devices could be used by criminals, the ability of government to outlaw tools that can be used in committing a crime, and public safety hazards associated with use of these devices.
Some basic points:
GPS detectors
It is not technically possible to detect a GPS receiver, only those devices which transmit your position.
GPS jamming devices
Apparently, these are not illegal in the U.S., though Ms. Brenner makes a case that they can (and should be) made illegal.
GPS spoofers
She also feels that spoofers, devices which can cause false location information to be received and therefore transmitted, also warrant outlawing.
Mercedes-Benz ignores two court orders to track hit and run driver before complying July 16, 2007
Posted by Rich in : GPS tracking and privacy, GPS tracking and public safety, GPS tracking law, GPS vehicle tracking , 11 commentsLast Tuesday night, 24-year-old Elizabeth Sandoval was killed by a hit and run driver in Glendale, California. Thanks to witness descriptions, the car and license tag were identified. Last Friday, Glendale Police Chief Randy Adams…
…admonished Mercedes-Benz of North America for refusing to comply with a court order to activate the car’s standard Global Positioning System so that authorities might pinpoint the sedan’s exact location.
“It’s one of the most frustrating thing in my 35 years of law enforcement,” he told reporters.
A court order police obtained at 2:30 p.m. Friday was faxed to Mercedes-Benz North American headquarters in New Jersey and to the company that provides the global positioning satellite service, Irving, Texas-based Tele-Aid.
Law professors - Lifetime GPS tracking unconstitutional February 9, 2007
Posted by Rich in : GPS tracking and public safety, GPS tracking law , 1 comment so farThree University of Wisconsin - Madison law professors are taking issue with a state law that mandates lifetime GPS monitoring of sex offenders.
The measure violates privacy rights and amounts to punishment and warrantless surveillance when applied to offenders who aren’t on parole or government supervision, the professors said in a letter sent to Corrections Secretary Matthew Frank on Feb. 3.
Another issue is that while offenders would be banned from certain areas (near schools, etc.) and authorities alerted if they enter those zones, nothing in the law gives police the authority to stop them from entering them. Weird.
(more…)
7th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals okays surreptitious GPS tracking by police February 4, 2007
Posted by Rich in : GPS tracking and privacy, GPS tracking law, GPS vehicle tracking , 25 commentsOn February 2, the 7th Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals, ruled against a defendant who claimed that the surreptitious placement of a GPS tracking device amounted to an unconstitutional search. From the court’s decision:
The police had not obtained a warrant authorizing them to place the GPS tracker on the defendant’s car. The district judge, however, found that they had had a reasonable suspicion that the defendant was engaged in criminal activity, and she ruled that reasonable suspicion was all they needed for a lawful search, although she added that they had had probable cause as well. The
defendant argues that they needed not only probable cause to believe that the search would turn up contraband or evidence of crime, but also a warrant. The government argues that they needed nothing because there was no search or seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.
GPS tracking of employees in Canada December 2, 2006
Posted by Rich in : GPS tracking employees, GPS tracking law , add a commentCanadian federal privacy commissioner Jennifer Stoddart has warned Canadian businesses about GPS tracking of employees. In the end, she seemed to concede that both employees and employers have rights in this arena:
The privacy commissioner accepted that the company’s use of GPS could help locate missing vehicles and help dispatch employees to improve customer service.
However, the commissioner expressed concern about the use of GPS as an employee surveillance tool.
She concluded that it might be acceptable in certain situations — which are defined and communicated to employees beforehand — to use GPS as an employee surveillance tool.
“Systematically using GPS to check up on workers and try to determine how well they are doing their jobs would be going too far,” Stoddart said. “Employers do not have carte blanche to use GPS to constantly monitor their workforce.”
Technorati tags: GPS tracking, GPS surveillance
Does GPS tracking by police amount to an illegal search? October 14, 2006
Posted by Rich in : GPS tracking law , 1 comment so farCYB3RCRIM3, a blog by Susan Brenner, a law professor specializing in cybercrime, has an excellent two-part post on GPS tracking and the fourth amendment (here is a link to part two). This is a complex subject, as you might gather from this snippet:
Putting the device on a vehicle is not, I would submit, a “search” because a search violates a valid 4th Amendment expectation of privacy. The issue that’s coming up in these cases is whether the 4th Amendment is implicated when a tracking device is installed on a “public” area of a vehicle: under a bumper, on the undercarriage, etc. It’s clear that officers cannot go into “private” areas of a vehicle (the trunk, under the hood, inside the passenger compartment, etc.) without having a warrant; that would clearly be a search regardless of whether their motive is to install a tracking device or just to look around (or both). When the devices are installed on areas that are, at least arguably, accessible to the general public, I don’t think we can legitimately characterize the act of installing them as a “search.” After all, what “private” information do the officers obtain by doing so?
I tend to think, though, that the act of installing a tracking device on such a “public” area of a vehicle is a seizure under the 4th Amendment. Seizures occur when agents of the government interfere with someone’s possession and use of their vehicle. Now, when an officer sneaks up to a car at night or at some other time when it is parked and is not being used by the owner and installs a GPS device, there would not seem to be any particular interference with the owner’s possession and use of the property. The owner never even knows what’s happened – that’s the whole point.
Technorati tag: GPS tracking
