Supreme Court rules: Warrant needed for GPS tracking

[DainBramaged]

Source: M$NoBodyCares

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously Monday that police must get a search warrant before using GPS technology to track criminal suspects.

The ruling represents a serious complication for law enforcement nationwide, which increasingly relies on high tech surveillance of suspects, including the use of various types of satellite technology.

A GPS device installed by police on Washington nightclub owner Antoine Jones' Jeep helped them link him to a suburban house used to stash money and drugs. He was sentenced to life in prison before the appeals court overturned the conviction.

Associate Justice Antonin Scalia said that the government's installation of a GPS device, and its use to monitor the vehicle's movements, constitutes a search, meaning that a warrant is required.



Read more: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46101025/ns/technology_and_science-security/

---

Well kel surprize

[No Elephants]

1. So, Tony the Phony actually figured out what the Framers' original intent as to GPS

tracking was?

The man's a phenom, I tells ya!

I don't care that much, but, if I can track a car moving in public without a warrant, a cop can. All GPS does is automate that process.

I don't think manual vs. automated makes a difference constitutionally.

I have a lot more reasonable expectation that my emails to family members will be private than I do my movements in plain sight of the general public, whether walking or in a vehicle.

However, I don't care that Fat Tony erred, for once in his career, on the side of giving individuals more rights than I believe the Constitution gives them.