Justices rule against police, say GPS surveillance requires search warrant

slimvictor

slimvictor

Bluelight Crew
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
6,477
Location
"Darkness cannot be dissipated with more darkness.
Police erred by not obtaining an extended search warrant before attaching a tracking device to a drug suspect's car, the Supreme Court said in a unanimous ruling Monday.

A majority of justices said that secretly placing the device and monitoring the man's movements for several weeks constituted a government "search," and therefore, the man's constitutional rights were violated.

Four other justices also concluded that the search was improper but said it was because the monthlong monitoring violated the suspect's expectation of privacy.

cont at
http://edition.cnn.com/2012/01/23/justice/scotus-gps-tracking/?hpt=hp_t3
 
Most of the conservative justices sided with the coke dealer. Most of the liberal justices sided with the cops (sort of). Interesting.

I wonder what they'll do with the dog case.
 
I'm predicting a shift in the general view of conservative vs. liberal. Conservative has (for the past 60-80 years) been the stance of "old retired people" and liberal been that of "young active people", radical "liberal" politicians as of late have been overstepping their bounds and encroaching on people's fundamental, constitutional rights. Conservatives are more likely to protect these constitutional rights than liberals today. I have a feeling conservatives will, in the near future, be the ones pushing for less government intrusion, regulation, etc. Conservatism is going to stand for rights of the individual (including drug reform and a "hands off" policy towards the internet and virtual rights/goods), wealthy or otherwise, including lower taxes (even for the rich), etc. Liberalism is going to stand for equality, regulation, governance, and fascist tendencies favoring large corporations.
 
Don't let this fool you.
The arguement for striking against it was that a person's car is personal property just as their house and cellphone. When you get pulled over in most places (if not all in the US), you are automatically subject to a search. This bridges the gap to cops knocking on your door and searching your house imo.
 
nickels said:
Yeah. In fact, for years I questioned being a true liberal, until I realized that I was the original meaning of conservative.
Click to expand...

I was the same exact way. Then I considered myself a Blue Republican.

After a while, I just started calling myself "Human" and called it good.
 
DexterMeth said:
Don't let this fool you.
The arguement for striking against it was that a person's car is personal property just as their house and cellphone. When you get pulled over in most places (if not all in the US), you are automatically subject to a search. This bridges the gap to cops knocking on your door and searching your house imo.
Click to expand...


Yupper & this case wont stop cops from illegally doing this again. Cops put a tracker on the car, track where the person goes, then take the tracker off the car & go about business of lying & telling the judge they have probable cause & make up lies, they do it all the time, nothing will change.
 
Cops lie because of the way everything has been organized, framed, and financed.
They have become the enemy of the public because of the war on drugs (among other things).

It would go a long way toward cops gaining the people's trust again if the war on drugs were ended.
Not all the way, but it would definitely help things.
 
cops rarely go by the book and do what they are suppose to especially when it comes to busting somebody with drugs.. most of them foam at the mouth with just the sight or thought of getting someone.. So why can they do no-knock warrants all the time..?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top