ElNono
06-28-2011, 07:13 PM
Another one to watch for those who care...
Supreme Court To Weigh In On Warrantless GPS Tracking
"In a move with far-reaching privacy implications, the U.S. Supreme Court has decided to hear a case involving the government's authority to conduct prolonged GPS tracking of suspects (http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9217985/Supreme_Court_to_weigh_in_on_warrantless_GPS_track ing) in criminal cases without first obtaining a court warrant. The government has argued that it has the authority to conduct such searches; privacy advocates have argued that such tracking violates Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure. The Supreme Court's decision in the case will be pivotal because lesser courts around the U.S. have appeared split on the issue in recent years, with some upholding warrantless GPS tracking (http://tech.slashdot.org/story/09/05/10/1549252/Warrantless-GPS-Tracking-Is-Legal-Says-WI-Court) and others rejecting it. Last August, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia circuit sided with the subject of the Supreme Court hearing, Antoine Jones, a Washington, D.C. man who was convicted in 2008 on charges of possessing and conspiring to distribute more than 50 kilograms of cocaine, and rejected claims by the government (http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/08/06/1915207/Court-Rejects-Warrantless-GPS-Tracking) that federal agents have the right to conduct around-the-clock warrantless GPS tracking of suspects."
Supreme Court To Weigh In On Warrantless GPS Tracking
"In a move with far-reaching privacy implications, the U.S. Supreme Court has decided to hear a case involving the government's authority to conduct prolonged GPS tracking of suspects (http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9217985/Supreme_Court_to_weigh_in_on_warrantless_GPS_track ing) in criminal cases without first obtaining a court warrant. The government has argued that it has the authority to conduct such searches; privacy advocates have argued that such tracking violates Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure. The Supreme Court's decision in the case will be pivotal because lesser courts around the U.S. have appeared split on the issue in recent years, with some upholding warrantless GPS tracking (http://tech.slashdot.org/story/09/05/10/1549252/Warrantless-GPS-Tracking-Is-Legal-Says-WI-Court) and others rejecting it. Last August, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia circuit sided with the subject of the Supreme Court hearing, Antoine Jones, a Washington, D.C. man who was convicted in 2008 on charges of possessing and conspiring to distribute more than 50 kilograms of cocaine, and rejected claims by the government (http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/08/06/1915207/Court-Rejects-Warrantless-GPS-Tracking) that federal agents have the right to conduct around-the-clock warrantless GPS tracking of suspects."