Mercedes-Benz 'ignores' court order to activate suspect's GPS

For all the tracking equipment that Mercedes-Benz crams in its motorcars, it's apparently mighty tough to get the company to tap into any of it if you're not the owner. Reportedly, the automaker has "refused to comply with a court order to activate a car's GPS" after authorities tried in vain to track down a hit-and-run suspect the easy way. Police were able to pinpoint the owner of a 2003 S430 as a "prime suspect" for striking and killing a 24-year old jaywalker in California, and while chasing him down the old fashioned way would seem a good bit more entertaining, Glendale police were looking M-B's way for a shortcut. Apparently, no comment has come from the firm, even as those involved with the case have continued to fume over the lack of assistance, and while we'd assume Mercedes-Benz is just looking out for the privacy of its customers, hasn't GPS tracking (much less the court ordered variety) been deemed legal anyway?

[Via GPSTrackingSystems]

[Steve @ Jul 16th 2007 3:41PM]

While pretty appalling in this particular case, I actually think that this is a good general policy for M-B to have. With all of this technology becoming more and more pervasive, customer privacy becomes more and more important.

May be too hot a case for EFF to get behind them, though.

[oof @ Jul 16th 2007 4:06PM]

Appalling is right. I wish a sense of personal responsibility would accompany all that technology. Drivers are only getting more and more aggressive. Furthermore, anybody else notice that commercials these days seem to advocate swerving to avoid people and objects, rather than slowing down or stopping?

[Big @ Jul 16th 2007 4:49PM]

BUT what really suprises me is the police agency's don't have "BLACK OPTS" that would circumvent the lack of a court order and just track the vehicle to get it done.

I don't trust the government at all pre or post PATRIOT ACT.

Seems to me all they need is a few keystrokes to find out exactly where someone is hiding - to hell with court orders.

[BigBirdUK @ Jul 16th 2007 6:48PM]

lol @ Big.

Reading too many comics I suggest?

[nikster @ Jul 16th 2007 7:05PM]

A suspect is not a convicted criminal - big difference even though the orwellian dept. of home security wants us to forget this.

Innocent until proven guilty is an important concept in law. It's then not M-B's or any other company's responsibility to play cop and hunt down suspects. Especially their own customers.

[Chuckles McGee @ Jul 16th 2007 7:42PM]

It's a smart PR move on the side of Mercedes-Benz- remember that it's the customers who buy these cars, not the police. Score points with consumers while avoiding any real fines (as though Mercedes will get anymore than a wrist slap for ignoring the order)- that's how to run a company.

[injate @ Jul 16th 2007 3:55PM]

Somewhere in cali Mexicans are cleaning and repairing a 2003 S430 and uninstalling the GPS.

[JJ @ Jul 16th 2007 6:27PM]

I'm from California, and though I might take offense to that comment, I just can't help but laugh it because it is so possibly true. The owner should have gotten wind of it that he can be tracked and might be having or wanting to uninstall it. Unless... they have his license plate number....

[HyperHacker @ Jul 17th 2007 12:59AM]

If I knew my car had a tracking device I didn't install, I'd be removing it pretty quickly.

[BananaBoat @ Jul 16th 2007 3:57PM]

Oh come on. I don't care how big of a privacy nut you are, this guy is suspected of striking and killing a 24 year old, and then fleeing the scene. But that isn't really the argument here; The argument is whether or not a company (namely Mercedes Benz) can knowingly and willingly ignore a court order. My understanding of the law says that it can't, and that the company is going to pay the consequences in the near future.

This is the kind of crime where it's crucial to find the suspect in the first few hours after the crime (Before he can, say, wash off his Benz) and Mercedes defied a court order for no other reason than to hinder their investigation.

Then again, I guess Mercedes wants to show the executive-types that even if they launder millions and run for the airport, Mercedes will have no hand in helping the police stop them before they board that flight to Switzerland.

[lightingperf @ Jul 16th 2007 4:20PM]

"suspected" not convicted. How would you like it if your privacy was invaded even though it wasn't you that did anything. Maybe the police should try looking for the car the old fashioned way...with their eyes. You have to draw the line somewhere.

[Ant @ Jul 16th 2007 4:36PM]

just playing devils advocate

he is "suspected"
it could end but being the wrong car.then it sets a precedent for police and gov. officials to get companies to track down all their cars.i get stopped enough as is i dont want my auto maker helping them.

[johnzilla @ Jul 16th 2007 5:06PM]

Key word "suspect".

All people in America are presumed innocent until proven guilty. At least, that's the way it is supposed to be but hasn't for many years thanks to our current culture of fear.

Who says the police aren't mistaken? Who says they have the right car? Who says the owner of the car was actually driving the car?

There was a case just recently where a court officer was using their access to LEIN (illegally, I might add) to look up the driving records of political candidates running against a friend.

Kudos to Mercedes-Benz for not honoring the court order. There's no guarantee whatsoever that the police are even correct in their assumptions. What if they're wrong, but the media chastises this car owner so fiercely that they end up losing their job, or worse? Hmmmm????

The people that are not concerned for their privacy and automatically assume the police are always right scare the crap out of me.

[James @ Jul 16th 2007 5:42PM]

Jesus wept, "who says the police have the right car"? Does anybody here even understand the most rudimentary concepts of U.S. law? The point of the court order is to have a "check and balance" on the power of the police. The police ID a suspect, the judge reviews the evidence they have and *if it is sufficient* will issue an order/warrant.

The story is that the judge thought there was sufficient reason to believe this car was involved, but M-B wouldn't allow them into the system. Imagine if the police had a search warrant to enter the apartment of a suspected serial killer, but the landlord wouldn't let them in. Same thing.

I would agree if people were saying that police shouldn't be able to just check the GPS tracker of random, arbitrary people, but the process in place now -- gathering evidence, submitting it to a judge, getting a warrant -- has been working for quite some time, and I don't see any reason to change it. M-B screwed up, and screwed up bad. I hope they lose their shirt on this one.

[DJK @ Jul 16th 2007 9:27PM]

"Mercedes defied a court order for no other reason than to hinder their investigation."

I doubt MB did it for just shits and giggles. It was a move to protect the privacy of their customers. A line must be drawn somewhere.

[craig @ Jul 16th 2007 3:58PM]

"...hasn't GPS tracking (much less the court ordered variety) been deemed legal anyway?"

No, not at all. Those who can't see the difference are probably Engadget authors.

I like Mercedes more now.

[Zarniwoop @ Jul 16th 2007 4:26PM]

Yes, big difference! Police place their own device on a car already under surveillance, vs asking a third party for access to their consumer's private data.

I see people also asked about how to detect or jam these. Well if all the police installed was a "memory tracking GPS device" then it just sat and logged GPS positions to its own memory, later to be retrieved and read by the police again. That's passive, not transmitting.

Technically you could block that by staying out of GPS reception like in a tunnel, garage, etc, but then why not just drive a different car? Not sure you could detect a passive receiver though.

[ShaleX @ Jul 16th 2007 8:08PM]

Me too. Now i know I can bu one of thier cars, Run people over and get away with it. Criminals shouldn't have to be responsible for their actions.

[HektikLyfe @ Jul 16th 2007 7:00PM]

Keyword is suspect. I would imagine they would have to comply with the laws of MB HQ in Germany. Who knows what kind of legal issues they'd have to deal with. Don't be lazy. If you know which car it is, you know where he/she lives. I would also like to add that injate's comment is both tactless and unecessary.

[aaronparker @ Jul 16th 2007 4:03PM]

This is not the least bit surprising. As a former employee of OnStar for 4 years while I was in colleeg (and on the Vehicle Tracking team, no less), we frequently got requests such as this. They would always have to be forwarded to our legal team.

The authorities were often not happy about this, and often misconstrued it as "not assisting", but it had to go through OnStar's appropriate legal channels before being approved.

[badtzmaru @ Jul 16th 2007 4:07PM]

Im glad mercedes won't turn on the GPS. The police have already identified a suspect and know what car he was driving. The police don't need to bring in a third private party to do its law enforcement work seeing as how most of it has been done.

[Chris @ Jul 16th 2007 4:15PM]

Would you care to explain what that has to do with complying with a court order? Perhaps Enron and Anderson were in the right by destroying all those records, I mean, they already identified the bankrupt company and the government already had several suspects, right?

The government subpoenas business records everyday when investigating crimes. This isn't a whole hell of a lot different.

BananaBoat - You are right on.

[Chris Taylor @ Jul 16th 2007 4:42PM]

"complying with a court order" I would not recognize the court order as valid no matter the consequences. This is not in the pervue of the court. If you want to track me you get a warrant and then you PRESENT that warrant to ME the one under surveliance. I do not recognize "no show" warrant type of stuff no matter what the courts say its a CRYSTAL clear violation of the constitution. Period. Does it make police work harder? YES does it sometimes result in criminals getting away? YES Do MY RIGHTS as a sentient human being and citizens of the United States of American TRUMP ANY security concern no matter how large (except those which are IMMENENT ie me holding a gun etc..). ABSOLUTELY. Nothing is more important than freedom. Freedom or even more important than LIFE ITSELF for what is the point of life if it is not free. Without freedom we are nothing more than slaves or animals.

I do NOT recognize the right of law enforcement courts of the government to COOPT my own property to "spy track or otherwise" compromise my will.

My Property will be 100% at my command 100% of the time or I WILL NOT OWN IT.

I do not EVER recognize the ability of anyone but ME to compromise command or control of my property for ANY period of time for ANY REASON.

If you get a court order to install YOUR OWN tracking system on my car thats another issue and another discussion.

But when it comes to MY equipment I DO NOT RECOGNIZE any laws rules courts orders or decrees that determine control should be transfered to anyone BUT ME. Its my PROPERTY and the constitution FORBIDS unreasonable seizure. PERIOD.

I hope they get this guy. I HOPE THEY FRY his ass (figuratively not literally) for what he did once they prove he did it.

I WILL NEVER agree with the police "COOPTING" his PROPERTY without his knowledge such as TAKING OVER his GPS to get it to report his position. If he gets away THATS LIFE we should NOT have to FEAR our own property "reporting" to a second master.

the ONLY reason I tolerate this in Cellular Phones is that I CAN UNPLUG the cell phone and I usually leave it off when not in use anyway. I STILL have a problem with the E911 tracking. Its still to easy for that capacity to be abused.

[Ron @ Jul 16th 2007 5:01PM]

@ Chris Taylor

Thanks for that post. That really made my day. Truly hilarious!

[gwshrk @ Jul 16th 2007 7:16PM]

Chris Taylor - I'd bet that if your kid or mother got run over by a Mercedes with a GPS system in it, you'd want police to get ahold of that information in order to track the CAR down, before they could wash the blood and DNA of your kid or mother off the car, eh? Ever heard of Lo-jack, buddy? That's what those things are for.

Just as there are laws protecting strict doctor - patient confidentiality, if you tell your psychiatrist you want to kill yourself or someone else, and sound serious, they are allowed to report this information and break the doctor - patient confidentiality agreement. I don't know what kind of agreement the Mercedes driver or owner had with MB, but I am sure there are some sort of clauses for these circumstances.

If I had GPS tracking on my cell phone and got kidnapped and left my cell phone on, I'd sure as heck want the police to get ahold of that GPS tracking information and locate me. Get real man.

[Mark @ Jul 16th 2007 4:07PM]

The US is a police state.

[Dave @ Jul 16th 2007 4:10PM]

Even if it is legal, it does not mean it's right. I pay taxes so that the police can investigate crimes an track down criminals--not so Mercedes Benz can do it for them. Who's going to want a car that can be turned against them? Mercedes Benz is trying to run a business. Maybe if law enforcement spent more time investigating actual crimes, I wouldn't have two police cars pulling me over for running a yellow light.

[pito189 @ Jul 16th 2007 4:41PM]

Where in the US do you live? I want to make sure to stay away from there if cops are pulling you over for going through a yellow light?!

[Dave @ Jul 16th 2007 5:37PM]

I live in Texas. I made a left on a yellow. The officer that pulled me over said, "I saw you turning kind of fast at the intersection...and then I looked, and the light was red." Obviously, the light turned red--after being yellow. It was only a matter of time. Anyway, she didn't even get out of her car until a second police officer arrived. I guess that's backup because The Yellow Light Bandit just might be armed and dangerous. I didn't have a chance to fight the ticket because I had just started a new job. Needless to say, I'm still a little bitter.

[Fubar @ Jul 16th 2007 6:21PM]

Wasn't "The yellow light of Texas" a song?

Or was that "rose"?

[BigBirdUK @ Jul 16th 2007 6:55PM]

Technically, it may indeed have been red when you executed the turn, if you'd passed underneath how could you tell.

If you're so bitter over a marginal call, then I suggest you only turn on a green. Yellow is "be aware" step to red. As for a 2 car "pull", I'd rather an officer feel safe with backup. So would you. Face it. Drive safe.

[Dave @ Jul 16th 2007 7:03PM]

Yeah. Thanks, McGruff.

I turned on a yellow. I know this because, as I was executing the turn, I could see the light. You see, the light was in the middle of the intersection. So, you're wrong. But thanks for the tip.

The point is the two police cars pulling me over for a minor alleged traffic violation which no officer actually witnessed.

[mennis @ Jul 16th 2007 11:55PM]

You should check the law, because you can actually get a ticket for going through a yellow light. Not sure about Texas, but there is a good chance you can. You are required to stop if it is safe, if it is safe and you chose not to stop, you get a ticket.

Also, the police don't know who is in the car. Police officer's have been shot before by someone pulled over for a speeding ticket because that had outstanding warrants or had stolen the car. Police have a hard enough job as it is, I don't see the problem with them creating a safe environment to work in.

You are just looking for reasons to complain because you are bitter about the ticket.

[Nick @ Jul 17th 2007 12:45AM]

I know that Illinois law states that you are to enter the intersection and execute your turn before the light turns yellow. So none of that "ohh the lights yellow im gonna rush into the intersection and finish my turn while its red." I'm not saying that i follow that law.. but I also am not gonna complain about it when i get a ticket for it.

And "speed limit" means that the listed speed is the maximum speed you are allowed to be going on that road in optimal driving conditions. Imagine That.

[Dave @ Jul 17th 2007 1:31AM]

Well, cockfuckers, the ticket I received was for running a RED light--not a yellow one. You guys should become traffic cops. You're naturals.

[Dave @ Jul 17th 2007 1:50AM]

Let's see if we can't finally put the controversy for this simple tale to rest:

http://www.hro.house.state.tx.us/focus/redlight79-15.pdf

"March 2005 Texas Transportation Institute study of 181 Texas intersections during a three-year period found that increasing the length of yellow-light time by one second reduced violations by 53 percent and crashes by 40 percent."


Get the implication? As long as the light isn't red before I complete the turn, I'm okay. The light turned yellow just as I was beginning the turn--and so I rushed the turn to ensure I completed it in time (without exceeding the speed limit). The officer saw me rush the turn--THEN, after I'd completed the turn (according to her own testimony, ladies and gentlemen), she looked at the light and saw that it was red. Let me reiterate--the officer never claimed to have seen me running a red light. Let the records show, however, that the ticket I received WAS for running a red light. There is no law in Texas which prevents one from making a turn on a yellow light. Magnum, Matlock, Columbo... I rest my case.

[shostakov @ Jul 17th 2007 2:19PM]

I don't know what the law is in Texas, but in Kentucky:
"A vehicle may clear an intersection on a red light, if the vehicle entered the intersection while the signal was yellow; but it is against the law to enter an intersection after the light turns red."

[Phil @ Jul 16th 2007 4:12PM]

M-B is doing the right thing here. I understand there's a crime as well as death involved, but it's important for customers not feel that the onboard GPS can all of a sudden become a tracking device.

In extreme cases, such as serial killer/terrorist on the loose, then it may be ok for MB to "assist" in locating said person, but i definitely don't want to be buying a car that i can be tracked down in easily, if need be.

[Chris @ Jul 16th 2007 4:24PM]

Well, you better stop posting on blogs, and cancel your cell phone, and cancel whatever email accounts you have, and get rid of your ISP. In fact, you might as well quit your job and school too. Oh and never go to the doctor. Business records of all kinds can be subpoenaed by the government to investigate you.

[James @ Jul 16th 2007 5:50PM]

So, killing *one* person is not "enough" to warrant hijacking the GPS data, but if it was a *serial* killer, then you'd rethink your position. How many people does this guy need to kill to qualify? Is two enough? Maybe three or four? Do kids only count as half? Would it count as two if the person he murdered was pregnant? If the guy is a 'terrorist', but only wants to kill one or two people, does he still make the cut?

Wow, "privacy" nutjobs will never cease to amaze me.

[Mark @ Jul 16th 2007 4:11PM]

So the cops identified the car and everything but then gave up the chase and counted on mercedes to do their work for them? I think the more important part of this is the irresponsibility of the police than the refusal of mercedes benz to do police work.

[James @ Jul 16th 2007 5:47PM]

Yeah, the cops should have gone on a high-speed chase after the guy and endangered everybody in the vicinity rather than pushing a button and seeing exactly where he was. That would have been a *much* better idea.

[kballs @ Jul 17th 2007 2:07PM]

If the cops identified the car, why can't they just go hang out at the owner's house until they show up? No high speed chase needed. If they misidentified the car, then the GPS tracking isn't going to help any more than going to the house.

[Puke @ Jul 16th 2007 4:28PM]

Good for Benz. The pigs need to do the job they are paid for. Put down the donut and do some detective work.

-----Amendment 4-----
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.

[andy @ Jul 16th 2007 4:41PM]

Did you actually read the amendment you posted?

It says no warrant shall issue UNLESS the police meet the burden like they did in this case. Where does it say warrants are not valid because police are lazy donut eating pigs?

Additionally, aren't they doing detective work when they determine that a murder weapon has a built in tracking system that they can use to locate the weapon and the murderer?


Your "fight the power" has gotten in the way of your common sense.

[Chris @ Jul 16th 2007 4:46PM]

You all are aware what a court order is, right? This isn't the police just asking Mercedes to cooperate. This the the police who have gone to a judge, explained the situation, and asked for the order. In other words, there has been judicial review!

I hope Mercedes is found in contempt of court!

[Sma @ Jul 16th 2007 5:09PM]

From what I read they said there were witnesses that saw this happen, to me that would be probable cause. Not only that the person that was driving the car had previous violations that included failure to yeild to pedestrians.

[davidemerson @ Jul 16th 2007 4:27PM]

I bet the pro-privacy crowd would be singing a different tune if the person killed were their daughter, wife, girl friend etc.

[Geoffrey42 @ Jul 16th 2007 4:34PM]

Probably due to the fact that they would be under duress, and their rational thought would be under question. It would be a bad time to sign a contract, and an even worse time to discuss privacy policy with them.

I'm all for Mercedes on this one.

[nathan @ Jul 16th 2007 4:17PM]

I'm a big privacy advocate, but I think I have to side with the police this time. They gathered evidence and got a court order much like they would have to to get a warrant to search some suspect's house. They aren't randomly just requesting GPS tracking to be turned on. They have witnesses and the license plate number. I really can't see the difference between this and getting a warrant. Claiming privacy on this is just flat out wrong.