General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsFBI Didn't Need Warrant (for installation of GPS tracker device), Judge Says
FBI Didn't Need Warrant, Judge Says
ST. LOUIS (CN) - The FBI did not need a warrant to secretly install a GPS tracking device on a St. Louis City Treasurer's Office employee accused of not showing up for work, a federal judge ruled.
Fred Robinson, 69, is accused of stealing more than $250,000 of public money from the Paideia Academy charter school to start a day-care business, and of taking as much as $175,000 from his job in Treasurer Larry Williams' office, where he was allegedly a no-show.
...
But U.S. Magistrate Judge David Noce disagreed, finding that appellate courts have found use of the tracking devices legal, even though the U.S. Supreme Court is still deciding the issue.
"The 8th Circuit held that the agents did not need a warrant prior to installing and using the GPS tracker device," Noce wrote. "The court explained, 'when police have reasonable suspicion that a particular vehicle is transporting drugs, a warrant is not required when, while the vehicle is parked in a public place, they install a non-invasive GPS tracking device on it for a reasonable period of time.' Because installation of the GPS tracker device was non-invasive and because the agents installed the device when the truck was parked in public, installation of the GPS tracker device was not a search."
http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/01/03/42708.htm
ixion
(29,528 posts)the 8th circuit should be ashamed of itself.
peacetalksforall
(20,291 posts)is under suspicion for?
leveymg
(36,418 posts)SixthSense
(829 posts)"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
wouldn't it be great to actually have those rights?
hobbit709
(41,694 posts)gratuitous
(82,849 posts)The flip side of the coin is a police state, with law enforcement monitoring anyone for any reason. You'd think a federal judge would get that whole Fourth Amendment thing, but apparently not.