A few years back police attached a GPS device to a murder suspects car, which proved useful when the guy drove to the gravesite where he had buried the victim (his daughter). Based on that evidence, the father was convicted, but now his lawyers are arguing that the GPS device was an invasion of privacy and the evidence shouldn't be permitted. The police say it's the same thing as if they were tailing him in a police car. His lawyers respond that would only be true if the police car were invisible and actually in the suspect's car. It's always interesting to see how technology changes the way we think about certain legal issues. On the one hand, I can easily see how there's a risk. What if police could simply attach a GPS device to your car all the time (or worse, tap into the data from an already installed GPS device?). Is that a violation of privacy? At the same time, though, this method did work to catch a murderer. I would think that, in the end, the real issue is how much evidence police had to get a warrant to place the device on the car. As long as the evidence can justify it, then I don't think I have a problem with it.
If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...
- Kansas City Cops Tell Man They'll Kill His Dogs And Destroy His Home If Forced To Obtain A Search Warrant
- Most Big Internet Companies Speak Out For Major Surveillance Reform
- Witness In No Fly List Trial, Who Was Blocked From Flying To The Trial, Shows That DOJ Flat Out Lied In Court
- Feds Insist It Must Be Kept Secret Whether Or Not Plaintiff In No Fly List Trial Is Actually On The No Fly List
- Documents Show LA Sheriff's Department Hired Thieves, Statutory Rapists And Bad Cops