Wisconsin – An appeals court in Wisconsin decided that police can stick a GPS-tracking device on anyone they want without getting a search warrant. Even if that person is not suspected of anything more than living, breathing and expectorating. The court ruled that police were within their constitutional authority when they placed a GPS tracking device on a vehicle belonging to a man accused of stalking.
Subscribe to our Daily Roundup Email
The decision was rendered following the denial of an appeal by Michael Sveum, who was convicted of aggravated stalking. Sveum petitioned the court to overturn his conviction, but the court ruled that police — who had obtained a warrant to track Sveum’s vehicle — did not in fact need a warrant so long as the device was on the outside of the vehicle.
“The State responds that no Fourth Amendment search or seizure occurs when police attach a GPS device to the outside of a vehicle when it is in a place accessible to the public and then use the device to track the vehicle while it is in public view,” wrote the judges. “We agree with the state.”
They added: “At the same time, we urge the legislature to consider regulating both police and private use of GPS tracking technology.”
“”New technology can provide new ways for law enforcement officers to investigate possible crimes,” said state Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen in a media advisory. “Here, the use of the GPS tracker didn’t violate the Fourth Amendment because police never searched or seized Sveum’s car, its occupants or its contents.”
“We also agree with the State that the police action of attaching the GPS device to Sveum’s car, either by itself or in combination with subsequent tracking, does not constitute a search or seizure,” the court continued. “… 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.”
Which means that any information gained by sticking a secret GPS-tracking device on someone’s car will only yield information that could have been gleaned through normal visual surveillance.
Sveum’s conviction was based largely on evidence obtained via GPS. He is currently imprisoned at the Oshkosh Correctional Institution.
Our privacy is gove anyway already. Things will just get worse and worse. Lets pray and hope for the best. Perhaps we can do something additional this is on top of all the security camers on each block. Hashem Yishmor Please Hashem send us mossiach now. Soon everything will become an excuse it won’t matter. The only ones who will have the right of law will be the millitants. How sad and sick. As Bob Grant used to say sick and getting sicker
its official USA is now Sedom
what about trespassing? as far as I know a car is personal property & police cannot affix anything to someone’s property without consent unless there’s a warrant
Another communist violation of civil rights in another communist state. Don’t worry… this kind of disgusting violation of rights will be in NY before you know it. You all want welfare and food stamps… you buy the whole communist package! Good Luck!
I think it is a gr8 idea!!!
moshiach is not going to come running for everyones little whims.he will come when we will want him for hisgalus mal andchus`shumayim, worship ‘kail’ blo shibud malchus ..rambam hilchos tsuvah perek 9 halacha 2
THe SUpreme Ct will overturn this. It is ok to watch and follow without a warrant but not to physically attach something to someone’s property without a warrant. THe warrant is needed to prevent the police from gaining too much police power. A Judge would grant the warrant if the police can show the individual has engaged in prohibited behavior, ie stalking, in the past based on their visual surveillance. So its really simple. Spend a little time, prove there was stalking, then make your job easier by attaching the device after a warrant is obtained. Likewise, EZ pass records will only be released after a court order where the police can show they have more thanmere suspicion of a crime. This protects privacy of innocent civilians.
According to the original article, the use of a GPS was considered no different than tailing someone, since this information is in the public sphere.