Court allows police to track vehicles with GPS
Published: May 9, 2009
Updated 1 year ago
A Wisconsin appeals court ruled Thursday that police were within their constitutional authority when they placed a GPS tracking device on a vehicle belonging to a man accused of stalking.
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.”
Sveum’s conviction was based largely on evidence obtained via GPS. He is currently imprisoned at the Oshkosh Correctional Institution.
The case is State of Wisconsin v. Michael A. Sveum. [PDF link]
8 comments
Printer Friendly |
Email
| Get breaking news alerts: Email/mobile |
That’s all well and good. Now all of you who have onstar, or other “help is on the way” system be aware that they may at any time turn on the microphone without you knowing it. they will also use the auto unlock features to open the cars to law enforcement. You may consider going to the cars fuse box remove the onstar fuse. your car vehicle manual will tell you wich fuse to remove.
Probably not in alignment with how the founders saw the 4th Amendment. Fast and loose interpretation of the Constitution. If you are giving tips, don’t get ADT. I have heard many stories of cops responding to false home burglar alarms, only to arrest the occupants when they discover “plain view” or “plain SMELL” evidence of criminal activity. Michael Moore states in “Bowling for Columbine” that Americans spend more money collectively on HOME ALARM systems and monitoring then family vacations…
If it’s legal to track people this way, I guess it should be just fine for those who want to know where their object of affection is at any time. Who knew how deeply the supremes would look into their judgements? Does that mean that the Ted Bundys out there have a new tool in their arsenal? Does that mean that skinheads can always know the whereabouts of their local judges, or even those on the highest court in the land? If the police can do it with impunity, doesn’t that open it up to all the citizenry in their own pursuit of justices? No harm, no foul, right? No abridgement of rights here, no, no, no. Just move along now.
Hmm, indeed, good point. Looks like this decision opens a new, legal way to track movements for everyone. Stalkers will love that!
Another example why the next Supreme Court judge should be a steadfast liberal. This kind of judgment will happen if you have a court that is influenced by the Scalia desease, that the constitution has to be taken literally, and not interpreted in the light of what the founders were trying to achieve. Especially the point that the officers wouldn’t have needed a warrant defies logic. Does anybody really think the folks who established the bill of rights, especially the right that no person “shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself”, would have allowed the authorities to track the movement of a citizen, without “without due process of law”? That’s a ridiculous interpretation! What’s next, the government attaching GPS devices on the clothes of people? As long as they do that while you’re in a public place, that’s not a searching or seizure, either!
Really, the Supremes urgently need a liberal heavyweight that pulls no punches in fighting for the rights of the people. Looks like the liberal minority isn’t up to the task when they can’t prevent such atrocities of justice and logic.
(Btw, is there any law that forbids people from removing such devices and throwing them in the next garbage bin?)
Beware your cell phone can also be used as a GPS tracking device. If you really want privacy you’ll have to turn off your cell phone along with your GPS and OnStar systems. I think law enforcement just killed alot of potential business for GSP systems.
One other point: Imho this is another horrible example what will happen if attorneys who are not really up to the task appeal to a state or fed Supreme Court. This comes with a high risk of resulting in a bad precedent! In this case, I can’t understand why apparently the legal argument was only about a violation of the Forth Ammendment, and not about the Fifth. Obviously, the real problem here is that this is a case of “self-incrimination”. And that the Wisconsin Supremes ruled that not even a warrant was required is a perversity of the “due process of law”! Don’t know about the details, but it looks as if Sveum’s lawyers weren’t really up to the task.
The Constitution NEVER required “interpretation!” It required no lawyers nor scholars. It was written so that any 18th Century Bozo could understand it.
Interpretation is a tool for undermining and usurping it via the corrupt legal system. Go ahead and read the Bill of Rights. There are no “buts” in the text. The interpretations are used as a vehicle to place buts into the text by those that would benefit by doing so.
The Bill of Rights and Constitution were meant to be understood in their simplest form and in the spirit in which they were drafted.
Too much help is no good here!
“THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT YOUR FRIEND!!!- Judge Andrew Napolitano
Good… so I guess it’s okay for me to put a tracking device on a Police Car or on an officers private vehicle so I can track them and write down every illegal thing they do. ALL COPS ARE CRIMINALS AND DON’T YOU EVERY FORGET IT!