Police turning to GPS to track cars more than ever

It's no secret that the police have been using GPS to track cars for some time now, often without a warrant or court order and, as The Washington Post now reports, it looks like the practice is only getting more and more commonplace. That is mostly due to the fact that courts usually side with the police in the resulting cases that arise out of the use of GPS trackers, with them agreeing with the argument that it is essentially no different than having an officer physically track a car themselves. They also cite a 1983 Supreme Court case that allowed the use of "beepers" that relay a car's location to police. Of course, others, like attorney Chris Leibig, have an entirely different opinion, saying that, "tracking a person everywhere they go and keeping a computer record of it for days and days without that person knowing is a completely different type of intrusion." Given that at least some state courts, like Washington state, side with that position and require a warrant for GPS trackers to be used, it would seem likely that this matter could eventually wind up being decided in the Supreme Court as well.

[Via Slashdot]

[nonamo @ Aug 14th 2008 12:02PM]

I prefered Spy Hunter :P

[Marq @ Aug 14th 2008 12:09PM]

If you find one...put it onto a boat and hope that law enforcement do like so many "blind" drivers have done:

http://www.engadget.com/2007/07/21/driver-follows-gps-onto-pedestrian-walkway-into-cherry-tree/

[kal326 @ Aug 14th 2008 12:39PM]

You find me a cop that can physically track a cars position within a few feet 24/7 all the while recording detailed information and you have a case for the "....agreeing with the argument that it is essentially no different than having an officer physically track a car themselves." Until then this seems like a gross invasion of privacy. If the police have enough evidence to warrant putting a physical tail on you then they would. This just looks like a quick, easy, and cheap way to go fishing for leads or information regarding a person so that they can use it to try to build a case.

[Amerist @ Aug 14th 2008 4:02PM]

Agreed on the fishing for leads part. It's an abuse of power. If I stuck a GPS tracker on my girlfriend's car because I thought she was cheating, she could sue me for that. Without a warrant, what the cops are doing here is no different and they should be liable for the same kinds of punitive damages.

[Student Driver @ Aug 14th 2008 1:09PM]

I don't care how many 1983 Olds Cutlass Supremes are cited, it's still wrong. Just like this one:

http://www.cardomain.com/ride/1897918

[Frankie @ Aug 14th 2008 3:45PM]

What are you talking about? I don't get it?

[Fubar @ Aug 14th 2008 6:39PM]

@Student Driver: Those sure are some bad precedents... they're courting aesthetic disaster. It's hard to judge from the photos, but it looks like they hold good taste in contempt. Of course, the jury's still out on whether this is supreme bad taste.

[ascagnel @ Aug 14th 2008 1:29PM]

What game is that in the picture? It looks pretty sweet.

[Kelmon @ Aug 15th 2008 8:40AM]

Good ol' "Chase HQ" from Taito where the objective was to catch up with the perp and then ram them off the road. The sequel continued the ramming theme but also allowed your partner to lean out the window and shoot to the other car.

[Bucky @ Aug 14th 2008 2:14PM]

Game: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chase_H.Q.

[gadjitfreek @ Aug 14th 2008 3:21PM]

Of course it's an invasion of privacy. A police officer, difficult as their job is, sees a person not as a person, but as a suspect that hasn't been caught yet.

[Sarig @ Aug 14th 2008 4:54PM]

Woah, new comment system.

I only really wanted to say that I love the screenshot, reminds me of Test Drive 2, though I know it isn't that game :)

[Brad Fredricks @ Aug 14th 2008 4:56PM]

Ok, I worked for the devil.

I am a consultant, I build companies, one of which was BrickHouse Security. I was the Director of Special Projects, which included many cool things, some of which will never see the light of day. While at BrickHouse I helped to build the GPS surveillance division, and assisted in development of several, not to be disclosed, GPS tracking companies. So I think I might have some cred on my perspective here.

GPS surveillance is an easy solution, it's cheap, works on cellular or beeper frequencies, and is simple to access. People can by a frequency tracker to verify that they do or do not have one. Unfortunately, most GPS tracking devices are setup to track only at a certain time interval, only if their moved, and in some cases only if they enter or leave an invisible zone. Most devices can live on your car for upto a month, before the battery has to be replaced. So to find one, you need to drive for an hour or two, in one direction, non-stop, or towards a place you think they, the "man", don't want you. Then, you need to look for a cellular "blip" on the frequency tracker, which means you must turn off any cellular devices.

Now, most law enforcement agencies use this technology. Go to BrickHouse to see the devices they use, as BrickHouse is seriously miles ahead of the competition in this category. Legally speaking, Prosecutors argue that people driving public roads have "no reasonable expectation to privacy" as they're driving on a public road. Thus, the legal loop hole to placing the device on a vehicle. It might be interesting to argue in court, if say, one were to drive their car on a private road, and prove they were tracked, without warrant. Think of it, turn the argument on it's head, and the "man" is in a snafu. Next, here's the ironically shitty part, which wont hold in court. If a private citizen places a device on a car, they can be arrested for harassment and trespass. So, it might be a strong argument to state that if a private citizen cannot hold the same right to place a device, without warrant, then how can a public sector employee, without warrant?

I know a few ways to piss off the "Power Gods" to make them change the laws to prevent cops etc. from placing devices on people without warrant. Place a device on one of them, then publish the tracking feed.

Oh yeah, most devices have online mapping systems that archive locations, and many more have a Google KML plugin feed. So nice, Google innocently aides the invasion of privacy, yet again!

Anywho, I am guilty party in making this technology so widely used, and celebrity like amongst law enforcement. Sorry doods, I need to feed my kid, somehow.

Here's a few quick tips on where to find devices:

- GPS devices need as unobstructed a placement as possible, and unless they work with AGPS (assisted gps, operates on cellular tower triangulation), they're worthless in an underground concrete parking garage. Look in wheel wells, under the hood towards the driver, inside front and rear bumpers, in the trunk next to a speaker, under a seat (although not common, does not work well there), inside the back-standing seat cushion, inside the dashboard towards to front window, under the car carriage (another bad spot, they fall off if they hit a pothole or bump). Many use little Pelican cases to magnetically hold the device to a car. Some are hardwired into a car, these are the most accurate devices, but require installation. I can go on. I think I will write a blog entry on this. cheers! www.bradfredricks.com

[Frankie @ Aug 14th 2008 5:55PM]

Want to give us a table of contents next time?

[BigD145 @ Aug 14th 2008 4:57PM]

Pick up a GPS blocker and you're set. It'll only turn on when have your car running, so your car will never appear to leave the parking lot. It'll just disappear off the face of the earth.
"Where were you the night of the 5th?"
"Wherever your tracker says I was."

[John @ Aug 14th 2008 9:31PM]

So you'd have to leave your car on constantly wherever you go?

[a ham sandwich @ Aug 14th 2008 5:29PM]

wait...they can use gps to track cars?!

[Mike @ Aug 14th 2008 8:13PM]

If it is against the law for a citizen to place a device like this on some ones car without their knowledge, it should also be illegal for the police unless they have a warrant.

[PEZ @ Aug 14th 2008 11:11PM]

Time to make a GPS reception killer box thingy!

[The Beef Machine @ Aug 15th 2008 2:21AM]

I wonder how many quarters the cops have to insert to catch the criminal...

[drg40 @ Aug 15th 2008 5:45AM]

Well, perhaps you could start by making it illegal for USA inc. to use the internet to spy on users world wide, to fix prices and regulate content depending on where you are. Perhaps you could complain about USA govt. agencies spying on mobile calls all over the world and passing anything of commercial interest to USA Companies. Or Perhaps President Chirac's
outrage when he caught you at it red handed in Dec 2005 wasn't reported in the USA? How surprising!

Isn't it sad you're getting a taste of the big brother systems you're forcing on the rest of the world.

/Laughs up sleeve/

[KSAT @ Aug 15th 2008 9:56AM]

I don't think you can apply a blanket rule to the use of GPS for tracking purposes by public sector. For instance, take a high-speed chase that a policeman gets close enough to deploy a tracking tool that adhere's to the side of the car. It is often commented that high-speed chase occurs because of all those police cars chasing them. If an officer gets close enough to deploy one of these trackers, the officer can then backoff and track them electronically. By doing this, officers can, theoretically, eliminate the high-speed aspect of the chase and shop up at the perpetrator's front door later.

While I agree that unabandon tracking of a suspect requires a warrant, I don't think a blanket rule/law to that effect can be created.

[David taylor @ Aug 23rd 2008 1:13PM]

I am closely aquainted to the alleged perpatrator in the case talked about here. If the police and the media actually went for full disclosure on the incidents here, they would find that the real story is police brutality, lack of oversight, and treating citizens like punching bags for 4 hours before they actually arrive at a processing facility for booking.