tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21633793.post116033308676399802..comments2023-12-12T03:19:42.467-05:00Comments on CYB3RCRIM3: GPS Tracking and the 4th Amendment: Part 1Susan Brennerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17575138839291052258noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21633793.post-73613910508965738942010-10-24T13:41:09.164-04:002010-10-24T13:41:09.164-04:00Thanks for the comment, Joshua.
You might check o...Thanks for the comment, Joshua.<br /><br />You might check out a couple of recent posts I've done on the GPS issues, too.<br /><br />SusanSusan Brennerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17575138839291052258noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21633793.post-57696896730205066162010-10-24T13:01:06.215-04:002010-10-24T13:01:06.215-04:00I find the thoughts here very provocative.
Relyin...I find the thoughts here very provocative.<br /><br />Relying on Supreme Court cases from the early 1980’s, law enforcement has not sought a warrant before using GPS devices without a warrant. These precedents established that the use of electronic tracking devices on vehicles did not constitute a search – and, accordingly, did not implicate the Fourth Amendment – because people do not have a reasonable privacy interest in the movement of their vehicles when traveling on a public roadway. Until recently, Federal courts have, on the basis on these decisions, almost universally upheld the use of GPS tracking devices. I agree, however, with the recent decision by the D.C. Circuit Court recognizing that people have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the totality of their movements over the course of a period of time. <br /><br />I have written on this at stockycat.blogspot.com. I have also posted an article I am publishing this winter on the subject here: https://www.box.net/shared/td5vqcrelfJoshua Engelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14093401217411475069noreply@blogger.com