Supreme Court rules warrant needed for GPS tracking
The ruling, which marked the justices' first-ever review of GPS tracking, was unanimous. The justices divided, however, on how the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures applies to such high-tech tracking.
The case, which during November oral arguments prompted justices' references to George Orwell's futuristic novel 1984, ensures that police cannot use GPS to continuously track a suspect before presenting sufficient grounds and obtaining a warrant from a judge. Monday's decision specifically applies when police install GPS on a person's car. But five justices suggested in concurring statements that a warrant might similarly be needed for prolonged surveillance through smartphones or other devices equipped with GPS....
Jim Lincoln wrote: Perhaps another controversy. I certainly have mixed feelings about the "Patriot Act." I haven't read enough of the Court's ruling to know if that has had the effect. I'll assume that GW Bush was thinking of that much greater, smarter, and better Republican President, Abraham Lincoln who suspended the habeas corpus of the Constitution during the Civil War. I have little doubt that The Patriot Act has served a useful purpose, the only question is in the long run is the cure worse than the disease?
If fallen men with power can misuse it, in all likelihood they eventually will. That's why things like the Patriot Act should never have perpetual authority.
Perhaps another controversy. I certainly have mixed feelings about the "Patriot Act." I haven't read enough of the Court's ruling to know if that has had the effect. I'll assume that GW Bush was thinking of that much greater, smarter, and better Republican President, Abraham Lincoln who suspended the habeas corpus of the Constitution during the Civil War. I have little doubt that The Patriot Act has served a useful purpose, the only question is in the long run is the cure worse than the disease?
Jim Lincoln wrote: This action by the Supreme Court, has gotten a lot of press coverage. Perhaps rightfully so. One would hope that the minimum standards of having a warrant is to be used for actions that are not covered by the, "Patriot Act."
This action by the Supreme Court, has gotten a lot of press coverage. Perhaps rightfully so. One would hope that the minimum standards of having a warrant is to be used for actions that are not covered by the, "Patriot Act."
1
There are a total of 5 user comments displayed | add new comment |
COMMENTS | 
lameness spotter: "
john uk
maybe he's been to the jesuit subterfuge college to..."
