• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should the police be able to stick GPS on your vehicle without a warrant?

Should the police be able to stick GPS on your vehicle without a warrant?

  • Total voters
    27
jamesrage

jamesrage

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
36,705
Reaction score
17,867
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
A simple yes or no question.

I say no, its not the government or police's damn business where you travel in the US. These judges should be removed.

Wisconsin court upholds GPS tracking by police -- chicagotribune.com

Wisconsin court upholds GPS tracking by police

MADISON, Wis. - Wisconsin police can attach GPS to cars to secretly track anybody's movements without obtaining search warrants, an appeals court ruled Thursday.

However, the District 4 Court of Appeals said it was "more than a little troubled" by that conclusion and asked Wisconsin lawmakers to regulate GPS use to protect against abuse by police and private individuals.

As the law currently stands, the court said police can mount GPS on cars to track people without violating their constitutional rights -- even if the drivers aren't suspects.

Officers do not need to get warrants beforehand because GPS tracking does not involve a search or a seizure, Judge Paul Lundsten wrote for the unanimous three-judge panel based in Madison.
 
Last edited:
This is the kind of garbage you get out of the courts when you nominate "strict constructionists" that don't believe you have a constitutional right to privacy.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
This is the kind of garbage you get out of the courts when you nominate "strict constructionists" that don't believe you have a constitutional right to privacy.
Click to expand...

A real strict constructionist would understand the Ninth Amendment is not simply an ink-blot.
 
Police need to be limited in all that they do. They are here to protect rights and people not to infringe on them.
 
Ethereal said:
A real strict constructionist would understand the Ninth Amendment is not simply an ink-blot.
Click to expand...

I don't know about that. A lot of them think that the only rights you have are those that are explicitly stated in the Bill of Rights.
 
Just a thought, is it okay for private citizens to utilize police radio scanners like use to be sold at Radio Shack?
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
This is the kind of garbage you get out of the courts when you nominate "strict constructionists" that don't believe you have a constitutional right to privacy.
Click to expand...

In my mind after studying the Constitution a bit more in depth, the right to privacy is explicitly implied (If that makes sense).

A strict constructionist should uphold individuals rights and protections before he/she would ever yield to the government.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
I don't know about that. A lot of them think that the only rights you have are those that are explicitly stated in the Bill of Rights.
Click to expand...

Which means they are not strict constructionists.
 
winston53660 said:
Just a thought, is it okay for private citizens to utilize police radio scanners like use to be sold at Radio Shack?
Click to expand...

Yes, you a private citizen own the police department. Thats why you can do so.

The police department does not own you, thus they should not be able to track you or your property without just cause and court approval.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Yea you can buy police radio scanners.

You will often find old people listening to them, why I have no clue.
Its a requirement for some old people.
Click to expand...

I've met people that utilized that ability to commit crimes. However they ususally were not as succesful as Bonnie and CClyde. And we all know how the Bonnie and Clyde story ended.
 
winston53660 said:
I've met people that utilized that ability to commit crimes. However they ususally were not as succesful as Bonnie and CClyde. And we all know how the Bonnie and Clyde story ended.
Click to expand...

I've known a lot of near elderly to full elderly people that listen to them religiously.

I try not to put down what people do for fun but I can't understand how that would be enjoyable. :screwy
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
I've known a lot of near elderly to full elderly people that listen to them religiously.

I try not to put down what people do for fun but I can't understand how that would be enjoyable. :screwy
Click to expand...



Heck people think I'm screwy for posting on these messgae boards, LOL
 
No.

That would be getting just a little to 1984 or THX1138 for my taste.
 
Edify_Always_In_All_Ways said:
The article does point out that visual surveillance is quite legal without a warrant and gives police the same information as a GPS.
Click to expand...

Say you see this chick walking down the road:

hot-chick.jpg


More than likely, you are going to engage in some visual surveillance as she walks by you. That of course is perfectly legal (however, if your wife or girlfriend is with you, you are probably going to catch some **** over it).

However, if you were to follow her, and then secretly put a GPS tracking unit on her vehicle so you could track her location at all times anywhere in North America, that would be illegal. So why should it be legal for the police to do so without a warrant?
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Say you see this chick walking down the road:

hot-chick.jpg


More than likely, you are going to engage in some visual surveillance as she walks by you. That of course is perfectly legal (however, if your wife or girlfriend is with you, you are probably going to catch some **** over it).

However, if you were to follow her, and then secretly put a GPS tracking unit on her vehicle so you could track her location at all times anywhere in North America, that would be illegal. So why should it be legal for the police to do so without a warrant?
Click to expand...

After seeing that picture I may change my stance on it and become a police officer. :mrgreen:
 
Edify_Always_In_All_Ways said:
The article does point out that visual surveillance is quite legal without a warrant and gives police the same information as a GPS.
Click to expand...

The article is wrong. A camera cannot tell my cars exact location if I am no longer in proximity to the camera or camera's. A GPS can (unlike cameras) track my cars location anywhere in the world.

Common sense.
 
Last edited:
SouthernDemocrat said:
This is the kind of garbage you get out of the courts when you nominate "strict constructionists" that don't believe you have a constitutional right to privacy.
Click to expand...

Oh, give us a break. The defects in the courts have existed since the beginning. I've got no idea what the leaning of this court was, but let's put it this way...it's no where near as bad as the court decision that made babies objects to be killed at their mothers whim.

Strict constructionist judges read the friggin' constitution and apply what it says. What's your problem with that? You prefer the opposite, where the judges merely use the Constitution, and international law, and their feelings, to interpret the law to follow the political currents of the times?
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Oh, give us a break. The defects in the courts have existed since the beginning. I've got no idea what the leaning of this court was, but let's put it this way...it's no where near as bad as the court decision that made babies objects to be killed at their mothers whim.

Strict constructionist judges read the friggin' constitution and apply what it says. What's your problem with that? You prefer the opposite, where the judges merely use the Constitution, and international law, and their feelings, to interpret the law to follow the political currents of the times?
Click to expand...

My point is that "strict constructionists" has become a catch all term for social conservatives where if a right is not very explicitly stated in the constitution, you don't have it. Many of these "strict constructionists" have said as much. Well this is what you get, judges that don't recognize the right to privacy of an individual because its not absolutely, positively, explicitly stated in the constitution.

Personally, I prefer judges that see the constitution as a document that limits the powers of government, not a document that grants rights to individuals on U.S. soil.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
I don't know about that. A lot of them think that the only rights you have are those that are explicitly stated in the Bill of Rights.
Click to expand...

No they don't. That is almost the exact opposite of strict constructionists. They believe whatever is not granted to the feds in the constitution is granted to the states and individuals.

What you might be talking about is they don't think the feds should restrain the states in some cases when the rights are granted to the feds but the state is doing something dodgy. You'd be right there but that is hardly worth granted the feds more powers than the constitution specifically grants and is really a matter between the state and its people.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
My point is that "strict constructionists" has become a catch all term for social conservatives where if a right is not very explicitly stated in the constitution, you don't have it.
Click to expand...

Whatever. No one cares.

The fact of the matter, and I just checked, is that for every single presidential election since 1988 the voters of Wisconsin have voted for the WRONG MAN. They've gone solidly Democrat.

So what if they elected Tommy Thompson? They're weird and diseased people who can't make up their minds, so they naturally have a court system that produces weird and diseased rulings, and you've done nothing to establish that the court in question was a "strict constructionist" court.
 
Wessexman said:
No they don't. That is almost the exact opposite of strict constructionists. They believe whatever is not granted to the feds in the constitution is granted to the states and individuals.

What you might be talking about is they don't think the feds should restrain the states in some cases when the rights are granted to the feds but the state is doing something dodgy. You'd be right there but that is hardly worth granted the feds more powers than the constitution specifically grants and is really a matter between the state and its people.
Click to expand...

Scalia, Thomas, and the ill fated Bork nominee, believe that you do not have a right to privacy because its not explicitly stated in the constitution. In fact, Scalia believes the whole notion of a right to privacy has been "cooked up".

Basically, these supposed "strict constructionists" believe the government more or less gives you rights. If you want a right to privacy, amend the constitution in their view.

Its why these litmus tests for "originalists" by the hard core right is a joke in terms of protecting liberty.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom