Should the police be allowed to place a GPS tracker on your vehicle without a court order?

Seeing as how the issue is now before the Supreme Court, what say you?

madskillz wrote:

Seeing as how the issue is now before the Supreme Court, what say you?

Is it for people on parole? Or just random. If it is just random NO. This society is losing freedoms all over. Soon the book 1984 will become reality.

Of course, you know which way this is going to go.

With the increasing number of people driving fuel efficient cars, hybrids & such, the taxman's take at the gas pump has been declining. Some of the loonier states ( Oregon or Washington was the starting point ) have been toying with the idea of requiring one so that they can assess a per mile tax.

If you think the SCOTUS is going to stand in the way of that, I've got a bridge & some swampland I'd like to talk to you about.

I don't like the idea, but it's coming, one way or another.

Annoyed wrote:

Of course, you know which way this is going to go.

With the increasing number of people driving fuel efficient cars, hybrids & such, the taxman's take at the gas pump has been declining. Some of the loonier states ( Oregon or Washington was the starting point ) have been toying with the idea of requiring one so that they can assess a per mile tax.

If you think the SCOTUS is going to stand in the way of that, I've got a bridge & some swampland I'd like to talk to you about.

I don't like the idea, but it's coming, one way or another.

I guess you don't know about this?
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/opinionla/la-ed-gps-20111110,0,3813779.story

Should the police be allowed to affix an electronic tracking device to a suspect's car without a warrant and follow his every movement for a month? That was the question at an oral argument at the Supreme Court on Tuesday. The justices expressed unease with such pervasive surveillance, with one comparing it to George Orwell's "1984."

No they shouldn't be allowed to do that. If you have Onstar then you are already being tracked by big brother. Just like all cellphones are tracked and monitored.

No and hell no!

madskillz wrote:

I guess you don't know about this?
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/opinionla/la-ed-gps-20111110,0,3813779.story

Should the police be allowed to affix an electronic tracking device to a suspect's car without a warrant and follow his every movement for a month? That was the question at an oral argument at the Supreme Court on Tuesday. The justices expressed unease with such pervasive surveillance, with one comparing it to George Orwell's "1984."

I hadn't read the article, but the topic of this thread suggested that something like that was going on. It doesn't surprise me.

Right off that bat, I'll say I don't like the idea at all. But I think it's coming.

First.. it's like a magician.. don't look at my left hand, follow what I'm doing to distract you in the right hand. This has a better chance of coming into force via the tax collector. And that way, the motorist will be responsible for the cost of purchasing the GPS tracking equipment. Once installed, the police simply have to tap into it.

As far as the constitutionality of coming at it from a police angle, the 4th amendment guarantees "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects".

In my view, A motor vehicle operated on a public highway doesn't meet that standard.
And precedent is well established with decided case law on roadside police searches of vehicles, DWI/registration/inspection/etc. checkpoints. There is no RIGHT to operate a motor vehicle, there is the privilege of operating one.

Much as I dislike the idea, I don't think the SCOTUS is going to block this.

Annoyed wrote:

madskillz wrote:

I guess you don't know about this?
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/opinionla/la-ed-gps-20111110,0,3813779.story

Should the police be allowed to affix an electronic tracking device to a suspect's car without a warrant and follow his every movement for a month? That was the question at an oral argument at the Supreme Court on Tuesday. The justices expressed unease with such pervasive surveillance, with one comparing it to George Orwell's "1984."

I hadn't read the article, but the topic of this thread suggested that something like that was going on. It doesn't surprise me.

Right off that bat, I'll say I don't like the idea at all. But I think it's coming.

First.. it's like a magician.. don't look at my left hand, follow what I'm doing to distract you in the right hand. This has a better chance of coming into force via the tax collector. And that way, the motorist will be responsible for the cost of purchasing the GPS tracking equipment. Once installed, the police simply have to tap into it.

As far as the constitutionality of coming at it from a police angle, the 4th amendment guarantees "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects".

In my view, A motor vehicle operated on a public highway doesn't meet that standard.
And precedent is well established with decided case law on roadside police searches of vehicles, DWI/registration/inspection/etc. checkpoints. There is no RIGHT to operate a motor vehicle, there is the privilege of operating one.

Much as I dislike the idea, I don't think the SCOTUS is going to block this.

[b]

Apparently during the questioning phase at the Supreme Court the justices seemed highly skeptical of the idea. Hopefully that means it will be declared unconstitutional.