# 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:** 11
**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, 12:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cops-putting-gps-on-cars-without-a-warrant/551657/201 "2010-08-31T00:14:35Z")
> [@not\_alice](#): > > 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. Their opinion doesn’t forclose the use of a GPS to track a single trip. According to the law in the DC circuit, police may legally affix a hidden GPS to your car, and then track your next trip. ---
**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, 12:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cops-putting-gps-on-cars-without-a-warrant/551657/202 "2010-08-31T00:14:42Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > 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. Hey, it was YOU that argued the position that _even if_ the court found there was a taking… Hence, I continue by probing the nature of this taking. But just because you don’t like it, don’t mock me. You opened the door counselor 🙂 ---
**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, 12:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cops-putting-gps-on-cars-without-a-warrant/551657/203 "2010-08-31T00:17:39Z")
> [@treis](#): > > Thanks for the verdict, but I think I’ll take my advice from someone that knows the definition of damage. Yes. I gave you the definition above. Not my fault you don’t like it. Well, good luck. If anyone wants to discuss the actual legal issues in play in this pair of cases, let me know. The elusive definition of ‘damage’ is not in play in either the 9th Circuit or the DC case. Perhaps the Supremes will raise it sua sponte. Ha! Ha! I slay myself, with the funny. ---
**Author:** ![Punoqllads](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/d2c977/32.png) [@Punoqllads](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Punoqllads)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2010, 12:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cops-putting-gps-on-cars-without-a-warrant/551657/204 "2010-08-31T00:20:13Z")
> [@not\_alice](#): > > 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? Change “house” to “car” and (if I recall correctly) the police can seize the car if they have probable cause that it is forfeitable contraband ([cite](http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/98-223.ZS.html)). Then they can perform an inventory on said car. Any evidence of a crime that turns up in the inventory? Perfectly legal to use, regardless of how it might be related to the original basis for seizing the car. ---
**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, 12:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cops-putting-gps-on-cars-without-a-warrant/551657/205 "2010-08-31T00:26:06Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > 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. Since you didn’t address anything specific, I’ll ask it this way: Office Steve is patrolling a neighborhood at 3 AM when he notices a person working underneath a car in a private driveway. From Officer Steve’s experience he knows that 3 AM is not the usual hour for automotive repairs, and investigates the situation. He orders the suspect out from underneath the car and asks him what he is doing. The suspect explains that he is merely placing a GPS on the car with zip ties. He goes on to explain that his plan is to return the next night to retrieve the GPS unit, and then post its data on the Internet. Officer Steve receives consent to search the suspect and finds nothing more than a couple zipties and a GPS unit. After an unsuccessful attempt to wake a resident, Officer Steve determines that no crime is being committed and leaves in his patrol car. In your opinion are Office Steve’s actions in this scenario (A) reflective of reality and (B) legally correct? ---
**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, 12:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cops-putting-gps-on-cars-without-a-warrant/551657/206 "2010-08-31T00:29:06Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > > [@treis](#): > > > > Thanks for the verdict, but I think I’ll take my advice from someone that knows the definition of damage. > > Yes. I gave you the definition above. Not my fault you don’t like it. It’s not a matter of me liking it or not liking it. It’s a matter of right and wrong. Your belief that the definition of “damage” compels a physical effect is incontrovertibly wrong. ---
**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, 12:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cops-putting-gps-on-cars-without-a-warrant/551657/207 "2010-08-31T00:36:29Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > > [@not\_alice](#): > > > > 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. > > Their opinion doesn’t forclose the use of a GPS to track a single trip. According to the law in the DC circuit, police may legally affix a hidden GPS to your car, and then track your next trip. What constitutes a “trip”? And what assures anyone that they will in fact be physically able to remove it after that trip, but before the next one? especially in light of your earlier explanation that information regarding others would be admissible because there is no privacy expectation? Does DC Circuit create such a privacy expectation beyond the first trip? And what about if the trip, for some portion takes the vehicle out of the sensory range (for lack of a better term) of an officer? Does the trip end at that point? Or can it continue at some later point? E.g. the car moves onto private property, out of sight, and there is no visible surveillance. Is the trip over? Something else not addressed so far: What if the GPS is discovered and then removed? Someone upthread linked to gps-blockers, it seems like it would not be difficult to make a gps-finder. So, is the device a gift if found? ---
**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, 12:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cops-putting-gps-on-cars-without-a-warrant/551657/208 "2010-08-31T00:39:49Z")
> [@Punoqllads](#): > > Change “house” to “car” and (if I recall correctly) the police can seize the car if they have probable cause that it is forfeitable contraband ([cite](http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/98-223.ZS.html)). Then they can perform an inventory on said car. Any evidence of a crime that turns up in the inventory? Perfectly legal to use, regardless of how it might be related to the original basis for seizing the car. This difference between this and the case in the OP was that there was clearly no probable cause, it was a fishing expedition. ---
**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, 12:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cops-putting-gps-on-cars-without-a-warrant/551657/209 "2010-08-31T00:44:35Z")
> [@treis](#): > > In your opinion are Office Steve’s actions in this scenario (A) reflective of reality and (B) legally correct? (A) No (B) They’re not incorrect (C) …but they’re also not the only possible actions he could take. I could explain, but I’m pretty certain it wouldn’t jibe with your opinion of the world and thus be summarily dismissed, wasting a bunch of my typing time in the process. ---
**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, 12:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cops-putting-gps-on-cars-without-a-warrant/551657/210 "2010-08-31T00:47:13Z")
> [@treis](#): > > It’s not a matter of me liking it or not liking it. It’s a matter of right and wrong. Your belief that the definition of “damage” compels a physical effect is incontrovertibly wrong. OK. It’s wrong. And every court in the country is still following it. Sucks to be the only guy to know the truth, eh? See, this is where your side of the argument breaks down. What matters is how the courts will apply the law. And if every court to consider the matter rules that physical damage is necessary to sustain convictions, then I’m not sure what value you see to being “right.” ---
**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, 12:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cops-putting-gps-on-cars-without-a-warrant/551657/211 "2010-08-31T00:50:24Z")
> [@treis](#): > > Office Steve is patrolling a neighborhood at 3 AM when he notices a person working underneath a car in a private driveway. From Officer Steve’s experience he knows that 3 AM is not the usual hour for automotive repairs, and investigates the situation. He orders the suspect out from underneath the car and asks him what he is doing. The suspect explains that he is merely placing a GPS on the car with zip ties. He goes on to explain that his plan is to return the next night to retrieve the GPS unit, and then post its data on the Internet. Officer Steve receives consent to search the suspect and finds nothing more than a couple zipties and a GPS unit. After an unsuccessful attempt to wake a resident, Officer Steve determines that no crime is being committed and leaves in his patrol car. > > In your opinion are Office Steve’s actions in this scenario (A) reflective of reality and (B) legally correct? A) No. B) Depends. If a crime was committed (it depends on the jurisdiction. California Code 637.7, for example, makes it illegal) it wasn’t criminal damage. ---
**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, 12:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cops-putting-gps-on-cars-without-a-warrant/551657/212 "2010-08-31T00:56:37Z")
> [@not\_alice](#): > > What constitutes a “trip”? Doesn’t matter. The DC Circuit rejects “prolonged surveillance,” so to err on the safe side, I posit a single journey – start, drive, stop. > [@](#): > > And what assures anyone that they will in fact be physically able to remove it after that trip, but before the next one? especially in light of your earlier explanation that information regarding others would be admissible because there is no privacy expectation? Does DC Circuit create such a privacy expectation beyond the first trip? No, they leave open the question of at what point the surveillance becomes “prolonged,” but they’re fairly clear that no matter where the line is drawn, a single trip is not implicated. What’s the relevance of when they remove it? > [@](#): > > And what about if the trip, for some portion takes the vehicle out of the sensory range (for lack of a better term) of an officer? Does the trip end at that point? Or can it continue at some later point? E.g. the car moves onto private property, out of sight, and there is no visible surveillance. Is the trip over? OK, forget trip. Let’s say a day. The opinion discusses weeks and months of surveillance. So let’s say that a day falls well within the DC circuit’s guidelines. The guidelines are longer than a day, but undefined, so we’ll use a day as a safe harbor. > [@](#): > > Something else not addressed so far: What if the GPS is discovered and then removed? > > Someone upthread linked to gps-blockers, it seems like it would not be difficult to make a gps-finder. So, is the device a gift if found? Addressed upthread. Search for ‘bailee.’ ---
**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, 1:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cops-putting-gps-on-cars-without-a-warrant/551657/213 "2010-08-31T01:01:21Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > A) No. I think most people would agree as well because they have a reasonable expectation that their car will not be tampered with. I’m not sure why that wouldn’t mean that the police attaching a GPS device would constitute an unreasonable search, but maybe that’s why I’m not a lawyer. > [@Hamlet](#): > > B) Depends. If a crime was committed (it depends on the jurisdiction. California Code 637.7, for example, makes it illegal) it wasn’t criminal damage. Let’s exclude laws like CC 637.7 and just make it a generic device that doesn’t interfere with the operation of the vehicle. No crime in that scenario? ---
**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, 1:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cops-putting-gps-on-cars-without-a-warrant/551657/214 "2010-08-31T01:06:50Z")
> [@treis](#): > > Let’s exclude laws like CC 637.7 and just make it a generic device that doesn’t interfere with the operation of the vehicle. No crime in that scenario? It D-E-P-E-N-D-S. I’ve offered my conclusion that it would not be criminal damage to property. After researching, I found no cases where a court has held that it would amount to criminal damage. But I’m not about to spend the time to research whether or not it could be illegal under some other code section in some unnamed jurisdiction. I would suggest you do the research into that tangential point to satisfy your curiousity. ---
**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, 1:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cops-putting-gps-on-cars-without-a-warrant/551657/215 "2010-08-31T01:07:13Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > > [@treis](#): > > > > It’s not a matter of me liking it or not liking it. It’s a matter of right and wrong. Your belief that the definition of “damage” compels a physical effect is incontrovertibly wrong. > > OK. It’s wrong. And every court in the country is still following it. Sucks to be the only guy to know the truth, eh? > > See, this is where your side of the argument breaks down. What matters is how the courts will apply the law. And if every court to consider the matter rules that physical damage is necessary to sustain convictions, then I’m not sure what value you see to being “right.” You were talking about the “ordinary dictionary meaning” of the word damage. In that context you came up with a definition that is incontrovertibly wrong. If you want to talk about how a court or jury should consider damage, fine, but you need to make that clear. ---
**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, 1:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cops-putting-gps-on-cars-without-a-warrant/551657/216 "2010-08-31T01:24:36Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > > [@not\_alice](#): > > > > What constitutes a “trip”? > > Doesn’t matter. The DC Circuit rejects “prolonged surveillance,” so to err on the safe side, I posit a single journey – start, drive, stop. By that standard, most of us will be done before we leave the driveway itself, having to stop for traffic to clear and all. It’s gotta be more than that 🙂 > [@](#): > > What’s the relevance of when they remove it? If I understood you correctly upthread, you suggested that the evidence collected could be used in more than one case. The sooner it is removed, the sooner there is less risk of “issues” in other cases getting in the mix. Also, the sooner it is removed, the less one has to argue about if some data collected is not admissible or not after the fact. > [@](#): > > OK, forget trip. Let’s say a day. The opinion discusses weeks and months of surveillance. So let’s say that a day falls well within the DC circuit’s guidelines. The guidelines are longer than a day, but undefined, so we’ll use a day as a safe harbor. That “weeks and months” doesn’t sound like much of a practical limit. What’s the value of this ruling again? 🙂 > [@](#): > > Addressed upthread. Search for ‘bailee.’ My search on this term only shows this post of yours. Can you help me out with a post # please? ---
**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, 1:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cops-putting-gps-on-cars-without-a-warrant/551657/217 "2010-08-31T01:28:29Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > > [@treis](#): > > > > Let’s exclude laws like CC 637.7 and just make it a generic device that doesn’t interfere with the operation of the vehicle. No crime in that scenario? > > It D-E-P-E-N-D-S. I’ve offered my conclusion that it would not be criminal damage to property. After researching, I found no cases where a court has held that it would amount to criminal damage. But I’m not about to spend the time to research whether or not it could be illegal under some other code section in some unnamed jurisdiction. I would suggest you do the research into that tangential point to satisfy your curiousity. Shesh why are you even bothering to debate if it’s to difficult to answer basic questions? By the way, I think it’s pretty clear that I think it would be a crime. ---
**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, 1:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cops-putting-gps-on-cars-without-a-warrant/551657/218 "2010-08-31T01:37:46Z")
> [@treis](#): > > Shesh why are you even bothering to debate if it’s to difficult to answer basic questions? The question you asked is of absolutely no relevance to the thread. > [@treis](#): > > By the way, I think it’s pretty clear that I think it would be a crime. Fantastic! Outside of criminal damage, what charge? What code section? What punishment? To make it easier, lets use Illinois law. Personally, I don’t see how it’s relevant at all, but you seem interested. ---
**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, 2:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cops-putting-gps-on-cars-without-a-warrant/551657/219 "2010-08-31T02:22:03Z")
> [@not\_alice](#): > > > [@Bricker](#): > > > > Doesn’t matter. The DC Circuit rejects “prolonged surveillance,” so to err on the safe side, I posit a single journey – start, drive, stop. > > By that standard, most of us will be done before we leave the driveway itself, having to stop for traffic to clear and all. It’s gotta be more than that 🙂 Start the car. Drive. Stop driving. Turn off the ignition. Although I’ve now abandond that illustration in favor of the ‘one day.’ > [@](#): > > That “weeks and months” doesn’t sound like much of a practical limit. What’s the value of this ruling again? 🙂 Courts generally try to avoid deciding anything except the actual case in front of them. Even if they said that “More than a day is excessive” it would be dicta. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Addressed upthread. Search for ‘bailee.’ > > My search on this term only shows this post of yours. Can you help me out with a post # please? [Here.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12854009&postcount=117) ---
**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, 2:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cops-putting-gps-on-cars-without-a-warrant/551657/220 "2010-08-31T02:38:15Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Start the car. Drive. Stop driving. Turn off the ignition. Although I’ve now abandond that illustration in favor of the ‘one day.’ Ah! so in order to procure immunity and impunity, we should perform the charade of stopping the car before leaving the driveway, or pulling out of the parking spot, and we are good in the DC Circuit area? If you do this while stopped, how will the GPS know that you have shut the car off? Makes me long for that old Jeep I used to drive that stalled every couple hundred feet or so. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cops-putting-gps-on-cars-without-a-warrant/551657.md?page=10) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cops-putting-gps-on-cars-without-a-warrant/551657.md?page=12)