dbackjon wrote:Oklahoma already does that on their turnpike...BlueHen86 wrote:
On a side note: I'm waiting for the police to start using EZ-Pass to give tickets. EZ-pass knows when I get on and off the PA Turnpike, if I traveled 100 miles in 1 hour EZ-pass could know that too.
Chicken Little.grizzaholic wrote:lemmingJayJ79 wrote:*shrug*
following/tracking a car is not a "search".
it's not really all that different than having an unmarked car tail a vehicle.
'tis just cheaper.
Would buffalo be better? Maybe ostrich?JayJ79 wrote:Chicken Little.grizzaholic wrote:
lemming
The police physically attached something to my vehicle the other day.BlueHen86 wrote:I don't like the fact that they are physically attaching something to your vehicle. I'm curious to see how the courts ultimately rule on this.
(not my actual ticket or car. just stock footage used as an example)
Funny you should mention that. This appeared on a British news site just today...grizzaholic wrote:Where does it stop? Having the govt attach a GPS thing to your cars computer and if you go faster than the posted speed limit on a given roadway you get a ticket in the mail? I am sure the Cap'n is ok with that.
JayJ79 wrote:The police physically attached something to my vehicle the other day.BlueHen86 wrote:I don't like the fact that they are physically attaching something to your vehicle. I'm curious to see how the courts ultimately rule on this.
Best smackdown in weeks!!!JMU DJ wrote:What's with the "Cap'n Cat Sharpest Poster Award" sigs? That's like broadcasting you're proud of having the Herp.
Really, kind of droll around the tabernacle these days son?native wrote:Best smackdown in weeks!!!JMU DJ wrote:What's with the "Cap'n Cat Sharpest Poster Award" sigs? That's like broadcasting you're proud of having the Herp.
Cap'n Cat wrote:
CS.com MENSA!
More like a "James Brown Stains" with a hint of "Trumpeteer" a little dash of "Oprah Wind-Free" a sprinkle of "Hot air-balloon" and concluded with a large helping of "Anus Madness".
Full decisions:ALBANY — It was wrong for a police investigator to slap a GPS tracking device under a defendant's van to track his movements, the state's top court ruled today.
A sharply divided Court of Appeals, in a 4-3 decision, reversed the burglary conviction of defendant Scott Weaver, 41, of Watervliet.
Four years ago, State Police tracked Weaver over 65 days in connection with the burglary investigation.
The judges ordered a new trial and suppressed information obtained from the GPS as evidence at the new trial.
Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman wrote the majority opinion, saying the nonstop surveillance was conducted by State Police without a warrant.
Devoting much of his 20-page ruling to how new technology delves into a person's life, Lippman said: "What the technology yields and records with breathtaking quality and quantity, is a highly detailed profile, not simply of where we go, but by easy inference, of our associations — political, religious, amicable and amorous, to name only a few — and of the pattern of our professional and avocational pursuits."
"It would appear clear to us that the great popularity of GPS technology for its many useful applications, may not be taken simply as a massive, undifferentiated concession of personal privacy to agents of the state."
Very interesting, thanks danefan.danefan wrote:Interestingly, the NY Court of Appeals (highest court in NY) ruled in exact opposite today:
http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories/st ... yID=799375
Full decisions:ALBANY — It was wrong for a police investigator to slap a GPS tracking device under a defendant's van to track his movements, the state's top court ruled today.
A sharply divided Court of Appeals, in a 4-3 decision, reversed the burglary conviction of defendant Scott Weaver, 41, of Watervliet.
Four years ago, State Police tracked Weaver over 65 days in connection with the burglary investigation.
The judges ordered a new trial and suppressed information obtained from the GPS as evidence at the new trial.
Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman wrote the majority opinion, saying the nonstop surveillance was conducted by State Police without a warrant.
Devoting much of his 20-page ruling to how new technology delves into a person's life, Lippman said: "What the technology yields and records with breathtaking quality and quantity, is a highly detailed profile, not simply of where we go, but by easy inference, of our associations — political, religious, amicable and amorous, to name only a few — and of the pattern of our professional and avocational pursuits."
"It would appear clear to us that the great popularity of GPS technology for its many useful applications, may not be taken simply as a massive, undifferentiated concession of personal privacy to agents of the state."
http://www.nycourts.gov/ctapps/decision ... 3opn09.pdf
Now you have split state decisions, priming the pump for SCOTUS review.
