# Cops Putting GPS On Cars Without A Warrant? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 27, 2010, 12:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cops-putting-gps-on-cars-without-a-warrant/551657 "2010-08-27T12:19:16Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2010, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cops-putting-gps-on-cars-without-a-warrant/551657/181 "2010-08-30T22:27:07Z")
> [@treis](#): > > Is there some reason that you and Bricker cannot answer a simple question and provide a straightforward answer? If you’d like to pay me $200 an hour, I’d be more than happy to conduct research for you. Because the precise definition depends on the jurisdiction and the caselaw that has arisen from it. > [@treis](#): > > you’re “speaking generally of the term in legal parlance” then give me the definition of damage in “legal parlance”. Here’s Illinois: [Criminal Damage to Property](http://law.onecle.com/illinois/720ilcs5/21-1.html). ---
**Author:** ![not\_alice](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/not_alice/32/7283_2.png) [@not\_alice](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/not_alice)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2010, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cops-putting-gps-on-cars-without-a-warrant/551657/182 "2010-08-30T22:31:25Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > Make yourself more clear, and we wouldn’t have this problem. I’m pretty sure I’ve understood and my responses are not fallacious, but if it makes you feel better to think otherwise, have at it. I am pretty sure you haven’t understood, otherwise you would have referenced my reasoning directly instead of simply asserting the opposite with no reasoning presented at all. I am equally sure that you don’t mean to present a fallacious argument. This being GD, I apologize for hurting your feelings as it appears I did. > [@](#): > > You can continue to play this little “you can’t understand” game, if it gets your rocks off. Enjoy it. I haven’t said you “can’t understand”. I am suggesting that it appears to me that you _don’t_ understand. > [@](#): > > But know I do understand. Why? That is simply an assertion absent any persuasion. You can simply demonstrate in your own words your understanding to clear it up. I don’t have anything vested in you not understanding. I’d rather feel that you did understand so I can give the resulting credence to the rest of your positions. Right now, I don’, so I can’t and won’t. Only you can change that, and I am open to being persuaded otherwise. > [@](#): > > What I’m saying is that it is insufficient to persuade a court. I hear what you are saying. But again it is an assertion, with no underlying persuasive reasoning. > [@](#): > > It is simply theoretical, It is your repeating stuff like this that makes me think you don’t understand. Teh economics of various disclosure regimes and their effects on prices are not theoretical, they are well understood. Like I said, ask any real estate agent what how providing disclosure affects the price of the house. > [@](#): > > without a concrete occurance, Every sale in every market is not concrete enough for you? Why is _this_ application of the effects of disclosure on price unique compared to every other market, in your opinion? > [@](#): > > and the allegations of (harm, damages, taking, “novel damages”, or whatever term you wish to use to make yourself feel better) won’t convince a court that a statutory or constitutional violation occurred. I am focused on “taking” as damages, because that issue is addressed in the Constitution. Novel approaches to eminent domain/taking issues are raised and accepted often in my understanding. Why would it matter? Because if a taking can be shown, and such a taking is prohibited, then the the evidence collected as a result must be thrown out in the present case, and then it would not be allowed to happen again. If you want to hang your hat on the thread that new approaches to eminent domain are never successful, then be my guest, but at least present some evidence that it is so instead of just asserting it. ---
**Author:** ![not\_alice](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/not_alice/32/7283_2.png) [@not\_alice](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/not_alice)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2010, 10:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cops-putting-gps-on-cars-without-a-warrant/551657/183 "2010-08-30T22:33:27Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > Here’s Illinois: [Criminal Damage to Property](http://law.onecle.com/illinois/720ilcs5/21-1.html). You do know the case in question is in the 9th Circuit which doesn’t include Illinois, right? Nonetheless, I suspect you will not find such a straightforward explanation of the issues around “taking” would you? ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2010, 10:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cops-putting-gps-on-cars-without-a-warrant/551657/184 "2010-08-30T22:41:43Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > > [@treis](#): > > > > Is there some reason that you and Bricker cannot answer a simple question and provide a straightforward answer? > > If you’d like to pay me $200 an hour, I’d be more than happy to conduct research for you. Because the precise definition depends on the jurisdiction and the caselaw that has arisen from it. This is a bizarre response. First off, this is Great Debates, not General Questions. I am not asking you to define a term for my elucidation. I am asking you to do so so we may have a debate. Second off, a handful of posts ago you had no problem attacking my definition of damage without knowing the jurisdiction, and now jurisdiction matters? This is a simple matter. I provided my definition of damage, and you objected to it. The obvious next step is to provide your definition of damage and go from there. Your failure to do so is odd and rather annoying. > [@Hamlet](#): > > > [@treis](#): > > > > you’re “speaking generally of the term in legal parlance” then give me the definition of damage in “legal parlance”. > > Here’s Illinois: [Criminal Damage to Property](http://law.onecle.com/illinois/720ilcs5/21-1.html). So your definition of damage is when someone: > [@](#): > > knowingly damages any property of another Perhaps you can see why that isn’t the most helpful of definitions. Care to take another whack at this? ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2010, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cops-putting-gps-on-cars-without-a-warrant/551657/185 "2010-08-30T22:42:52Z")
> [@not\_alice](#): > > I hear what you are saying. But again it is an assertion, with no underlying persuasive reasoning. I find the complete lack of anyone making such an argument in court in these GPS cases to be pretty persuasive. As do other cases in the US dealing with “de minimis” and criminal law. And the fact I could not find a single court case where your argument ever won is compelling to me. You, of course, can disagree. You can completely discount the lack of acceptance of your argument even by the advocates, my experience, or the concept of de minimis, and stress your own personal recollections and economic theory. Fine by me. Because I’m not too worried that you disagree. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2010, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cops-putting-gps-on-cars-without-a-warrant/551657/186 "2010-08-30T22:45:27Z")
> [@treis](#): > > I think the argument is, or at least mine is, waiting on you to provide your definition of damage in terms of criminal mischief statutes. I think I said above it’s not a term of art, and is read in its ordinary, dictionary meaning: “Loss or harm resulting from injury to person, property, or reputation.” Injury, in turn, refers to “hurt, damage, or loss sustained.” And hurt means “a cause of injury or damage, a bodily wound.” So we have a number of definitions, but all compel the inference of physical damage. And I cannot find a single prosecution for criminal mischief that involves any act as slight as placing a GPS on the bottom of a car. I don’t believe it would be possible for any prosecution of criminal mischief to succeed on these facts on a statute that used “damage” in its language. ---
**Author:** ![not\_alice](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/not_alice/32/7283_2.png) [@not\_alice](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/not_alice)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2010, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cops-putting-gps-on-cars-without-a-warrant/551657/187 "2010-08-30T22:53:22Z")
[quote=“Bricker, post:186, topic:551657”] > [@treis](#): > > And I cannot find a single prosecution for criminal mischief that involves any act as slight as placing a GPS on the bottom of a car. > > I don’t believe it would be possible for any prosecution of criminal mischief to succeed on these facts on a statute that used “damage” in its language. Is that really the issue that was before the court, or was it that the placing of the GPS led to the collection of evidence that ought not be admissible? Because it seems at quick glance, that the Courts are split on this so far, and that foreshadows a visit to the Supreme Court eventually, no? ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2010, 11:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cops-putting-gps-on-cars-without-a-warrant/551657/188 "2010-08-30T23:09:04Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > > [@treis](#): > > > > I think the argument is, or at least mine is, waiting on you to provide your definition of damage in terms of criminal mischief statutes. > > I think I said above it’s not a term of art, and is read in its ordinary, dictionary meaning: > “Loss or harm resulting from injury to person, property, or reputation.” > > Injury, in turn, refers to “hurt, damage, or loss sustained.” And hurt means “a cause of injury or damage, a bodily wound.” > > So we have a number of definitions, but all compel the inference of physical damage. Your requirement that “damage” be physical in nature would mean that reputations or images could not be damaged. Clearly this is not the case. Merrian Webster defines damage as: > [@](#): > > loss or harm resulting from injury to person, property, or reputation with “injury” being defined as: > [@](#): > > an act that damages or hurts Bit of a circular definition there, but there’s no requirement for physical damage. All that is required for damage is a reduction in the value of something. > [@Bricker](#): > > And I cannot find a single prosecution for criminal mischief that involves any act as slight as placing a GPS on the bottom of a car. _shrug_ as I said in a previous post I wouldn’t expect any non-permanent damage vandalism/criminal mischief to lead to an arrest or make the papers. That doesn’t change it from illegal to legal, it simply reflects law enforcement and news reporting priorities. All I need to do is show that attaching a GPS to a car damages. If that is done then the action is illegal in every state. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2010, 11:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cops-putting-gps-on-cars-without-a-warrant/551657/189 "2010-08-30T23:10:33Z")
> [@Aversin](#): > > Under your given example, one could assume the coordinates of the grow op would be inadmissible as evidence and therefore probably not grounds for a warrant. I do see where you are headed however, and it was the main point I was attempting to make with my first post. The reason I think this may be a poor example is that road maps (of private roads) may be readily available. > . > . > . > This is a case of civil law, however I am not aware of any law which would allow police to enter a gated community for any reason other than the above law OR an emergency/invitation. Assuming that is the case, if the GPS device was not disabled upon entering such a community your movements could be tracked to specific houses, and by extension a list of acquaintances within the community could be established. The (public) movements of these acquaintances could then be tracked, and could lead the police to evidence of a crime. My point being without the GPS device functioning on private property, the police probably wouldn’t have followed this individual. In my scenario, the GPS data would not need to be admissible because the police could have just stumbled upon the crime by random chance, when in fact they did not. > > Of course the entire argument is pointless if a police officer is monitoring the device and disables recording/viewing while on private property, but I doubt this is the case. If the device functions as I’ve described (whether of not the information is used) the entire ‘sensory extension’ argument falls to pieces, because information is still being recorded outside of the police sensory range. Privacy rights may not be asserted vicariously. I hate to point this out, because this is another area that people really push back on because “it just feels wrong.” If the police break into your home without a warrant and search your nightstand, the kilo of cocaine and list of your clients they find may not be used against you. We all know this. But if the client list includes a notation that you sold 7 ounces to Bob Smith of Evergreen Terrace last week, that can be used against Bob. Why? Because Bob has no expectation of privacy in your nightstand. So with this in mind, let’s address your questions. I have already conceded that tracking information from the GPS would not be admissible against you once you entered the grounds of the private, gated community. But it could be used against those other individuals you mention. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2010, 11:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cops-putting-gps-on-cars-without-a-warrant/551657/190 "2010-08-30T23:22:18Z")
> [@not\_alice](#): > > But I made those cases further upthread, so I was asking where in those arguments (if at all) you see fault other than the novel application of damages. OK. Wholly apart from your novel idea of damages, we still have the rule of lenity in criminal statutes. Basically, a criminal statute must give fair notice of its terms. It must lay out, clearly, the conduct that is prohibited. We often hear “ignorance of the law is no excuse,” but in fact it is, if the law is written so vaguely as to be unclear. A law may be clear on its face but still void as applied to particular conduct. And that’s what would happen here. The courts would certainly not impose a criminal penalty on this conduct under your reasoning, because it’s not reasoning that gives fair notice of its terms. Nor would the courts suppress any evidence gained, because the remedy for a taking is to provide compenstion, not the suppression of evidence. ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2010, 11:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cops-putting-gps-on-cars-without-a-warrant/551657/191 "2010-08-30T23:34:03Z")
> [@treis](#): > > This is a bizarre response. First off, this is Great Debates, not General Questions. I am not asking you to define a term for my elucidation. I am asking you to do so so we may have a debate. Second off, a handful of posts ago you had no problem attacking my definition of damage without knowing the jurisdiction, and now jurisdiction matters? This is a simple matter. I provided my definition of damage, and you objected to it. The obvious next step is to provide your definition of damage and go from there. Your failure to do so is odd and rather annoying. I was pointing out to you that “damage” is not the same as “Criminal damage” as used in legal parlance. It generally excludes “damages” that are speculative, temporary, or de minimis. But to get much more specific than that, would take much more legal research and knowledge of jurisdictional issues than I would be willing to do. I simply pointed those things out. > [@treis](#): > > So your definition of damage is when someone: > > > [@](#): > > > > knowingly damages any property of another > > Perhaps you can see why that isn’t the most helpful of definitions. Care to take another whack at this? I thought I have been. What constitutes “criminal damage” depends on the facts of the case, the statutory definition and the caselaw of the jurisdiction. I certainly gave a broad picture of what constitutes “criminal damage”, but if you’re looking for more specifics, the best I can do is “it depends”. Putting a GPS locator on a vehicle for a month, in my experience, brief research, and understanding of the law, wouldn’t qualify. And I’ve seen no court ever find that it does. ---
**Author:** ![not\_alice](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/not_alice/32/7283_2.png) [@not\_alice](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/not_alice)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2010, 11:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cops-putting-gps-on-cars-without-a-warrant/551657/192 "2010-08-30T23:56:00Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > But it could be used against those other individuals you mention. Which makes it even squickier, because the officers might put the GPS on the car of my buddy instead of me, even though they are investigating me, in order to preclude contrary arguments such as you list. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2010, 11:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cops-putting-gps-on-cars-without-a-warrant/551657/193 "2010-08-30T23:58:47Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > I was pointing out to you that “damage” is not the same as “Criminal damage” as used in legal parlance. It generally excludes “damages” that are speculative, temporary, or de minimis. But to get much more specific than that, would take much more legal research and knowledge of jurisdictional issues than I would be willing to do. I simply pointed those things out. Ok, but as far as I know you still haven’t defined what “damage” is. All you’ve done is say that it’s not speculative, temporary, or de minimis. > [@treis](#): > > I thought I have been. What constitutes “criminal damage” depends on the facts of the case, the statutory definition and the caselaw of the jurisdiction. I certainly gave a broad picture of what constitutes “criminal damage”, but if you’re looking for more specifics, the best I can do is “it depends”. > > Putting a GPS locator on a vehicle for a month, in my experience, brief research, and understanding of the law, wouldn’t qualify. And I’ve seen no court ever find that it does. Well I guess we can address what you’ve given as “not damage” until we get a definition of “damage”. Speculative: I don’t think it’s speculative in the least bit. The idea that people find a car that tracks their location to be less valuable isn’t any more speculative than the idea that they would find a car spray painted pink to be less valuable. There are cars that are sold with integrated GPS units (onStar) and some people put significant effort into removing them. It’s not speculative to say that their car would be less valuable to them if someone nefariously attached a GPS unit. Temporary: Don’t see why this matters. If I do something that disables your car for two weeks, that’s certainly a damage, even if it reverts to a completely functional state without any intervention. De Minimis: We are talking about a misdemeanor here, so the bar is pretty low. The 15 minutes it takes to locate and remove a GPS device is enough in my opinion to meet the statutory requirement. ---
**Author:** ![not\_alice](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/not_alice/32/7283_2.png) [@not\_alice](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/not_alice)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2010, 12:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cops-putting-gps-on-cars-without-a-warrant/551657/194 "2010-08-31T00:02:39Z")
[quote=“Bricker, post:190, topic:551657”] > [@not\_alice](#): > > Nor would the courts suppress any evidence gained, because the remedy for a taking is to provide compenstion, not the suppression of evidence. So you are suggesting a taking is ok, and the terms can be settled after the fact? And if some evidence happens to be discovered in the meantime that would not have been discovered otherwise, well, too bad for me? Isn’t that exactly what the meaning of being “secure in my effects” and “due process”, protects me from? Otherwise what is to stop the local gendarmes from actually locking me out of my home, tossing it for evidence, and then arguing they didn’t need a warrant, because it wasn’t a search, it was actually a taking, and the DA is happy to discuss the price of the house along with anything else I might like to discuss regarding the resultant charges? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2010, 12:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cops-putting-gps-on-cars-without-a-warrant/551657/195 "2010-08-31T00:05:35Z")
> [@not\_alice](#): > > Is that really the issue that was before the court, or was it that the placing of the GPS led to the collection of evidence that ought not be admissible? > > Because it seems at quick glance, that the Courts are split on this so far, and that foreshadows a visit to the Supreme Court eventually, no? Yes, the circuits are split. But the DC circuit, which did toss out the GPS evidence, did not do so based on a game theory of car pricing, or indeed on any takings theory at all. They created a new theory of privacy called the “mosiac theory.” They agreed that any single trip is public information, but the sum total of ALL the trips is a new piece of information. Like a mosaic: a single piece of blue glass does not reveal the same information that all the colored glass pieces, laid out together in the mosiac, do. And that the total picture is private, notwithstanding the fact that it’s made up of lots of individual, public trips. But the DC circuit had no problem with the placement of the GPS. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2010, 12:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cops-putting-gps-on-cars-without-a-warrant/551657/196 "2010-08-31T00:07:55Z")
> [@not\_alice](#): > > So you are suggesting a taking is ok, and the terms can be settled after the fact? And if some evidence happens to be discovered in the meantime that would not have been discovered otherwise, well, too bad for me? > > Isn’t that exactly what the meaning of being “secure in my effects” and “due process”, protects me from? OK, I give up. In the Not\_Alice Circuit, I am sure your theory will prosper. In the real world, I am confident it won’t. ---
**Author:** ![not\_alice](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/not_alice/32/7283_2.png) [@not\_alice](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/not_alice)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2010, 12:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cops-putting-gps-on-cars-without-a-warrant/551657/197 "2010-08-31T00:09:04Z")
[quote=“Bricker, post:195, topic:551657”] > [@not\_alice](#): > > They created a new theory of privacy called the “mosiac theory.” They agreed that any single trip is public information, but the sum total of ALL the trips is a new piece of information. Like a mosaic: a single piece of blue glass does not reveal the same information that all the colored glass pieces, laid out together in the mosiac, do. And that the total picture is private, notwithstanding the fact that it’s made up of lots of individual, public trips. > > But the DC circuit had no problem with the placement of the GPS. I see that via googling during this thread. It seems like a good approach too. But how can you say they don’t have a problem with the placement? Did they specify a way in which the GPS can be placed such that the result is only one tile of the mosaic? OTTOMH, I don’t see how that would be done, and if so, I would infer that there is no good or proper way to place the GPS at all in their view. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2010, 12:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cops-putting-gps-on-cars-without-a-warrant/551657/198 "2010-08-31T00:11:06Z")
> [@treis](#): > > De Minimis: We are talking about a misdemeanor here, so the bar is pretty low. The 15 minutes it takes to locate and remove a GPS device is enough in my opinion to meet the statutory requirement. But you can point to no case law that supports this view. I am telling you that no appellate court in the country is going to agree with you. You may well hold the opinion; good luck with that. But like the tax protestor who asserts he really knows what the meaning of “income,” is, your opinion doesn’t mesh with the rest of the legal system. ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2010, 12:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cops-putting-gps-on-cars-without-a-warrant/551657/199 "2010-08-31T00:11:10Z")
> [@treis](#): > > Ok, but as far as I know you still haven’t defined what “damage” is. All you’ve done is say that it’s not speculative, temporary, or de minimis. Damage is … well … damage. The Illinois code, as most of the ones I’ve seen, doesn’t precisely define what “damage” is for the term “criminal damage”. But I’m comfortable using the dictionary definition of “damage” and then supplementing it with caselaw. > [@treis](#): > > Well I guess we can address what you’ve given as “not damage” until we get a definition of “damage”. Pick a definition you’re comfortable with. As I’ve said, whether something amounts to “criminal damage” is to be determined on a case by case basis. I really have no interest in playing a semantics game. > [@treis](#): > > Speculative: I don’t think it’s speculative in the least bit. The idea that people find a car that tracks their location to be less valuable isn’t any more speculative than the idea that they would find a car spray painted pink to be less valuable. There are cars that are sold with integrated GPS units (onStar) and some people put significant effort into removing them. It’s not speculative to say that their car would be less valuable to them if someone nefariously attached a GPS unit. > > Temporary: Don’t see why this matters. If I do something that disables your car for two weeks, that’s certainly a damage, even if it reverts to a completely functional state without any intervention. > > De Minimis: We are talking about a misdemeanor here, so the bar is pretty low. The 15 minutes it takes to locate and remove a GPS device is enough in my opinion to meet the statutory requirement. Great. Good luck convincing a court, because I haven’t seen a single case where the Court found the police placing a GPS temporarily on a vehicle amounts to criminal damage. Nor have I found a case where a private citizen putting a GPS on a vehicle amounts to criminal damage either. I also haven’t found any attorney who has even made those arguments. Perhaps your arguments would win the day. I just would be very surprised if they did. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2010, 12:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cops-putting-gps-on-cars-without-a-warrant/551657/200 "2010-08-31T00:14:18Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > > [@treis](#): > > > > De Minimis: We are talking about a misdemeanor here, so the bar is pretty low. The 15 minutes it takes to locate and remove a GPS device is enough in my opinion to meet the statutory requirement. > > But you can point to no case law that supports this view. > > I am telling you that no appellate court in the country is going to agree with you. > > You may well hold the opinion; good luck with that. But like the tax protestor who asserts he really knows what the meaning of “income,” is, your opinion doesn’t mesh with the rest of the legal system. Thanks for the verdict, but I think I’ll take my advice from someone that knows the definition of damage. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cops-putting-gps-on-cars-without-a-warrant/551657.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cops-putting-gps-on-cars-without-a-warrant/551657.md?page=11)