- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals OKs Evidence from Warrantless GPS Device
Posted on 10/14/14 at 8:46 pm
Posted on 10/14/14 at 8:46 pm
quote:
PHILADELPHIA — A U.S. appeals court on Wednesday ruled that prosecutors can use evidence gathered after a GPS device was put on a suspect's van without a warrant.
The decision is a blow to three Philadelphia brothers charged in a series of pharmacy robberies, and for civil rights lawyers concerned about the reach of police power in the technological age.
"It's disappointing that today's decision lets law enforcement agents off the hook in a broader range of circumstances," said Catherine Crump, a law professor at the University of California, Berkeley who argued the case in May for the American Civil Liberties Union.
The U.S. Supreme Court in 2012 said that GPS tracking amounts to a police search but left unresolved the question of whether warrants are always needed.
The Pennsylvania case began two years earlier, when Pennsylvania state police investigating the multi-state burglaries found tools, gloves and a ski mask during a search of electrician Harry Katzin's van. He said they were work tools, and he was let go.
Police soon put a GPS device under his bumper and stopped the van after another burglary near Philadelphia. They found Katzin and his brothers Mark and Michael inside, along with a large stash of pills, cash and other store property.
A federal judge threw the evidence out because police had not gotten a warrant for the GPS device. A three-judge panel of the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed, but the government appealed, leading to a rehearing before all 13 circuit judges in May.
The court voted 8-5 to reverse the case and said the evidence could be used at trial. The court found that police could reasonably have believed they did not need a warrant under existing law. However, they warned police to use caution going forward when using GPS devices, which can track someone round-the-clock for days and even weeks.
The Katzins, who have been free on bail, will now be given a trial date in Philadelphia.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Robert Zauzmer, who argued the government's appeal, said he was pleased with the ruling but otherwise declined comment.
LINK
This post was edited on 10/14/14 at 8:51 pm
7
Posted on 10/14/14 at 8:50 pm to Sentrius
It seems like such a good idea when put into the context of these criminals. But, just imagine the powers of the police/govt with this tool and their enemies.
Posted on 10/14/14 at 8:52 pm to lsu13lsu
Agreed. This is a bad idea and will do more harm than good. This is not a power law enforcement organizations should have. It only further underscores the police state mentality that is rampant. I hope SCOTUS shitcans this ruling.
Posted on 10/14/14 at 8:53 pm to lsu13lsu
quote:Like most legal precedent. The further erosion continues.
It seems like such a good idea when put into the context
Posted on 10/14/14 at 8:54 pm to Sentrius
So basically they can put a GPS tracker on anyone's vehicle just for shits and giggles. This is disturbing on so many levels.
Posted on 10/14/14 at 8:54 pm to Sentrius
Get a warrent if you have reasonale suspicion, end of story. This will be abused to no end.
Posted on 10/14/14 at 8:59 pm to Chrome
in before: "if you're not breaking the law, cops won't track you. Don't break the law!"
Posted on 10/14/14 at 9:17 pm to Sentrius
quote:Well, they really put those cops in their place.
However, they warned police to use caution going forward when using GPS devices, which can track someone round-the-clock for days and even weeks.
They're shaking in their cop boots now.
Posted on 10/14/14 at 9:20 pm to Sentrius
quote:ignorance of the law is an excuse!
The court found that police could reasonably have believed they did not need a warrant under existing law.
Posted on 10/14/14 at 9:22 pm to Tigah in the ATL
Yea, I'll remember that excuse if I ever get in trouble.
Posted on 10/14/14 at 9:23 pm to Tigah in the ATL
Too bad there's no way to upvote the OP and downvote the court.
Posted on 10/15/14 at 7:01 pm to Bestbank Tiger
Bump, people need to be aware of this horrible decision.
Posted on 10/15/14 at 7:13 pm to Sentrius
I am pretty law and order, but I don't like this.
Posted on 10/15/14 at 7:17 pm to udtiger
I'll read the opinion and comment further, but based on the article, it looks like the court applied the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule.
There's no doubt you need a warrant today, but until Jones, there was considerable doubt.
There's no doubt you need a warrant today, but until Jones, there was considerable doubt.
Posted on 10/15/14 at 7:57 pm to Sentrius
Bad decision. Anything that can be abused by police WILL be. See civil forfeiture.
Posted on 10/15/14 at 8:00 pm to lsu13lsu
quote:Of course it does. USAs pick their test cases very carefully. (The district court excluded the evidence, so this was the state's appeal.)
It seems like such a good idea when put into the context of these criminals. But, just imagine the powers of the police/govt with this tool and their enemies.
This post was edited on 10/15/14 at 8:00 pm
Posted on 10/15/14 at 8:05 pm to Iosh
It doesn't say what the cops did was legal. All the opinion says was that the precedent before Jones would have led officers to believe that what they did was lawful. It clearly recognizes that if it happened today, the evidence would be throw out.
But, everybody keep bemoaning a case which has little application to the Fourth Amendment (which the court acknowledges was violated).
But, everybody keep bemoaning a case which has little application to the Fourth Amendment (which the court acknowledges was violated).
Posted on 10/15/14 at 8:18 pm to FalseProphet
FP mentioned Jones. This is what he is referring to:
U.S. v. Jones, 2012 U.S. LEXIS 1063; slip. Op. 10-1259 (January 23, 2012)
The Court noted: “It is important to be clear about what occurred in this case: The Government physically occupied private property for the purpose of obtaining information. We have no doubt that such a physical intrusion would have been considered a ‘search’ within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment when it was adopted.”
Therefore, the Court held that the use of the GPS was a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.
It is important to recognize that the Court DID NOT address whether a warrant was even required. Due to the non-compliance with the warrant the government had argued that placement of the GPS on the car was not a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. The Court decided that in fact the placement of the GPS is a search.
The government DID NOT present the argument that even if placement was a search, such a search would be reasonable to conduct without a warrant. The Court noted:
“The Government argues in the alternative that even if the attachment and use of the device was a search, it was reasonable--and thus lawful--under the Fourth Amendment because “officers had reasonable suspicion, and indeed probable cause, to believe that [Jones] was a leader in a large-scale cocaine distribution conspiracy.” We have no occasion to consider this argument. The Government did not raise it below, and the D. C. Circuit therefore did not address it. We consider the argument forfeited.” (cites omitted).
ETA:
I think getting a warrant is proper. I bet the S.C. will agree.
U.S. v. Jones, 2012 U.S. LEXIS 1063; slip. Op. 10-1259 (January 23, 2012)
The Court noted: “It is important to be clear about what occurred in this case: The Government physically occupied private property for the purpose of obtaining information. We have no doubt that such a physical intrusion would have been considered a ‘search’ within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment when it was adopted.”
Therefore, the Court held that the use of the GPS was a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.
It is important to recognize that the Court DID NOT address whether a warrant was even required. Due to the non-compliance with the warrant the government had argued that placement of the GPS on the car was not a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. The Court decided that in fact the placement of the GPS is a search.
The government DID NOT present the argument that even if placement was a search, such a search would be reasonable to conduct without a warrant. The Court noted:
“The Government argues in the alternative that even if the attachment and use of the device was a search, it was reasonable--and thus lawful--under the Fourth Amendment because “officers had reasonable suspicion, and indeed probable cause, to believe that [Jones] was a leader in a large-scale cocaine distribution conspiracy.” We have no occasion to consider this argument. The Government did not raise it below, and the D. C. Circuit therefore did not address it. We consider the argument forfeited.” (cites omitted).
ETA:
I think getting a warrant is proper. I bet the S.C. will agree.
This post was edited on 10/15/14 at 8:20 pm
Posted on 10/15/14 at 8:24 pm to Paluka
quote:
So basically they can put a GPS tracker on anyone's vehicle just for shits and giggles. This is disturbing on so many levels.
No re-read it
quote:
The U.S. Supreme Court in 2012 said that GPS tracking amounts to a police search
quote:
The Pennsylvania case began two years earlier,
quote:
The court found that police could reasonably have believed they did not need a warrant under existing law
The court ruled that because it happened prior to their ruling it could be used.
So only GPS evidence gathered prior to the ruling in 2012 is ok
This post was edited on 10/15/14 at 8:26 pm
Posted on 10/15/14 at 10:50 pm to Sentrius
quote:.
The court found that police could reasonably have believed they did not need a warrant under existing law.
Cops didn't know the law so it's OK. Seriously?
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News