Wisconsin Court Upholds GPS Tracking By Police

[Teresa]

Isn't this just peachy....... your very own secret police free to track anyone they want anywhere they want.  But hey, it's just for the criminal types...you know.  It's not for normal everyday people who obey the law and love big brother.  You are a good citizen that supports your government in all it does, you are patriotic, aren't you? You do love big brother, don't you?  You aren't one of those wacko extremist Homeland Security is talking about...are you?

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."

End of article.

I have sooo much I want to say...

[Diane Amberg]

How is this any different than wire tapping without a warrant? I don't like either of them!

[Teresa]

Me neither... 

When a warrant, or even a showing of probable cause is required, is based on "a reasonable expectation of privacy". The home enjoys the highest protection. It decrease the further afield you go. Even in the home it varies. To tap your phone, pre-W at least, they needed a warrant. However if you were using a remote phone no.
The 'rationale' is that its just a radio transmitter and if the cops want to park outside with a scanner, no problem. Likewise they can go through your trash, or peek over your neighbors fence (with his permission).

I believe that the vehicle I'm driving in to be private property even when it's conveying my carcass  to and from where ever I'm going.  My personal effects are MY property and are covered under the 4th amend..  My garbage that I've turned out into the street is considered "common garbage", thus the origination of the term and no longer my property.

My automobile is one of the effects that the 4th mentions, though at the time of ratification, that conveyance may have been a cart or buggy or any wagon considered such by the men that penned the amendment.  The authorities have no right to touch it, period!

The Patriot Act was a hasty piece of paper written under the duress of angry frightened men and it SHOULD be specifically targeted at Muslims and those with provable connections to terrorist organizations like Wm. Ayers and B O .

What happens if you find this device and remove or destroy it?  What happens if you find they are using your On-Star or similar device and disconnect it?

[Teresa]

Was talking about this the other day ..and a friend said to me that it's the "plain sight" detail. If a Cop comes to your door and with out entering can see a pile of drugs on your coffee table, that gives him "probable cause" for a search warrant. Same with your vehicle,when they stop you they always ask if they can search and you should always say NO as it is private property and also subject to the laws of the state it is registered in...,NOT the state you are driving through , but if you have a rocket launcher on your back seat that gives him his probable cause.
They are basing this ruling on the fact that your vehicle is "in plain sight" they could get the same information by simply following you.


I understand the probable cause, plain sight, etc....
Subversion of the law to make it appear reasonable is wrong.    This intrusion to apply a device unknown to me, without my permission is wrong.  The fact that I've nothing to hide is immaterial.

I don't know how reasonable men can debate and misconstrue the document that allows them to debate, speak their minds freely and have the choice to formulate their own opinion and shout it to the world.
But I guess that's the problem. We are not dealing with "reasonable men" but self righteous power hungry political elitist people.

[Teresa]

And while I am on it and before I go get MY massage..let me finish venting here...

What bothers me is that it can be done without a warrant and without my knowledge. If it is that important, go through the warrant procedure, *That is what the Constitution says* or stay off my property (and the car is my private property)!

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.

This is the part that bothers me the most, besides violating the 4th amendment, the driveway is usually part of someone's private property! Since when is my driveway a public place? Yes it can be seen from public view, but that does not make it a public place. Now, after having said that, the cops could have just followed him and waited for him to go to a public place to attach the GPS to his car. I still don't like it but I suppose it can be done that way too.

I wonder if they would consider your garage a "public place" if the door wasn't closed.  I mean, hell, if the guy's driveway is a public place, why not his open garage?

Makes me wonder how long it'll be before "Big Brother" requires each of us to have a GPS tracking device implanted in our persons.