Judge says cops can't track with GPS -'Unreasonable search' ruling tosses out marijuana evidence

[kpete]

Source: The News Journal

Judge says cops can't track with GPS
'Unreasonable search' ruling tosses out marijuana evidence

By SEAN O'SULLIVAN • The News Journal • December 28, 2010

WILMINGTON -- In what may set a Delaware precedent, a Superior Court judge has gutted a criminal case against a Newark man who was pulled over with 10 pounds of marijuana because police used a GPS tracking device without a warrant to follow him for nearly a month.

In court papers, Deputy Attorney General Brian Robertson argued that information from a global positioning device that police attached to the car of Michael D. Holden was only a part of a larger "multifaceted" case against the 28-year-old by officers with the interagency Drug Enforcement Administration Task Force.

On the day in question, Feb. 24, police saw what they believed to be an exchange of cash for drugs in New Jersey -- though they did not see cash or drugs, only bags. They called the Delaware River and Bay Authority Police to stop Holden's car as it crossed the Delaware Memorial Bridge. During that traffic stop, police recovered a duffel bag with 10 pounds of marijuana inside.

But defense attorney John P. Deckers countered that the 20-day-long use of a GPS device to track his client -- weeks before police got a tip about the Feb. 24 exchange -- amounted to an unreasonable search under the state constitution and violated his client's privacy without probable cause.

Read more: http://www.delawareonline.com/article/20101228/NEWS01/12280338/Judge-says-cops-can-t-track-with-GPS

[no_hypocrisy]

1. The cops HAVE TO get a WARRANT first. It's that easy.

If they don't have any evidence to install a GPS, they shouldn't be allowed to.

[sofa king]

8. That's very, very far from what's really going on.

Since 2003, I think, all phones sold in the US have a GPS tracking chip in them, all of them can be turned on or off remotely and without the consent of the owner, and police departments around the country have been caught doing just that hundreds of times already. That of course goes above and beyond the triangulation method, which police have used against the presumed innocent for twenty years.

Typically, the cops have been caught activating or passively tracking the GPS signal in a suspect's cell phone, routing police to intercept the suspect "randomly" at a time when they think they can catch the guy with evidence, and then never acknowledging that the phone tracking was used and was instrumental in gathering evidence for an arrest against the suspect.

You'll also notice that police dogs have all of a sudden gained the super-canine ability to track suspects across multiple floors of crowded buildings from the lobby and in speeding cars attempting to leave a particular jurisdiction. That's because police dogs don't talk.

[Psephos]

11. This is an important point, and one that almost no one is aware of. n/t

[sofa king]

12. Thank you.

I should provide some references for that rather extraordinary claim. Here are some:

http://www.newsweek.com/2010/02/18/the-snitch-in-your-pocket.html

http://www.wired.com/politics/security/news/2006/05/70829

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_phone_tracking

http://news.cnet.com/2100-1029_3-6140191.html

[boppers]

16. When you volunteer to carry the bug, you consent to the search.

If you don't want to be tracked, don't carry tracking devices.

This is not rocket science.

[sofa king]

23. That would be fair if people knew what was up.

But right now the public doesn't realize that's the deal they made. I suspect few know it's even possible.

Of those who do know, stories like this might convince them that even if it is possible, it's not legal and therefore won't be done. Whether it's legal or not, it's really only inadmissible. The practice isn't going to be stopped by this decision.

In fact what's really happening is that it's becoming increasingly possible to do it to everyone, all the time, for no reason at all, and then secretly use those records after the fact to match peoples' phone movements with crimes, and then focus on those people first as suspects.

The innocent won't know they need to be wary. The guilty will quickly learn to create an alibi while setting someone else up by temporarily stealing someone else's phone and taking it to commit a crime while leaving one's own planted in front of the couch at home.

Edit: And think of how powerful that alibi will be, because the person will have been cleared by a secret, illicit investigation before a formal investigation even begins. Out of the running before the start.

[TexasObserver]

15. Police violating the law to investigate suspects is sadly the norm.

It's an epidemic.

They have the same approach Sarah Palin did as governor, when she said "I can do anything I want until a judge tells me I can't."

[bobburgster]

19. I'm with you !

Unfortunately, your opinion is closer to the truth then I would like to admit.

[bobburgster]

20. I'm with you !

Unfortunately, your opinion is closer to the truth then I would like to admit.

[theoldman]

2. In the DFW area the police plant a GPS in a car for thieves to steal.

They then note when the car has moved and catch the guy while he is driving.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

4. Sounds like a great strategy. I like it.

[cleanhippie]

5. Not the same thing at all.

The "bait car" is stolen property, the GPS in the OP was a violation of the 4th.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

3. The guy just lost 10 POUNDS of weed... he's on the hook for alot of money to somebody...

Just release him and see what he does. Should be easy to legally keep an eye on him now. Somebody in that kind of debt will have to start trafficking again. Just catch him legally next time. You know he has to pay off the debt somehow.

Alternatively he'll either stay clean (which is good) or end up laying face-down in a ditch somewhere because he lost $20k+ worth of weed. Heck, the guy might be safer in jail!

[NikRik]

6. selling refer maddness death is only punishment thats right

:sarcasm:
Now they will have to put him in "the witness protection program" ! I wonder what the cost to the Amrician tax payers for that program is. Iam not sure I want to know! Stupidity just seems to be the way to handleour ailing economy x(

[immoderate]

7. Sure DEA and prisons could use the business. Public happy to chip in.

This guy is performing a public service. There is a demand.

The resources used to apprehend him are insane. How many investigators @ $1000/shift, then prosecutors, judges will it take to apprehend him? Then how many years should the taxpayers support him?

--imm

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

9. "This guy is performing a public service. There is a demand."

I love your logic. Brilliant!

Come to think of it... I'm sure there's a demand for new machine-guns.
Lets get together and perform some "public service" (by illegally manufacturing machineguns).

:sarcasm: :eyes:

[immoderate]

10. Felled by the old "machine gun gambit." I am slain!

Unless, of course, you can discriminate between a machine gun and a bag of pot. :) There are some who would think them analogous. I'm glad you didn't use the "weapons of mass destruction gambit."

--imm

[Le Taz Hot]

21. Marijuana = machine guns

Alrighty, then! :crazy:

[Heidi]

22. When was the last time a machine gun alleviated the affects of cancer, glaucoma

or AIDS-related wasting? Short of being used as an instrument to end life, I mean?

[sofa king]

14. Heh. I don't suppose you're a fan of GWAR, are you?

"...Obviously, the human race is in love with self-destruction. We are only satisfying a consumer need."

-- Oderus Urungus

[boppers]

17. Dude, it's only ten pounds.

Maybe it's different where you live, but that's merely a "tip" for cultivators.... this isn't cocaine, with lots of expensive, difficult, processing.... it's a weed that can be grown anywhere, by anyone.

[PassingFair]

13. Guess the police had watched too many episodes of "The Wire"...

Idiots.

[Downwinder]

18. Does that give us a split between Circuit Courts?