# 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:** 11\ **Page:** 15
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 1:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cops-putting-gps-on-cars-without-a-warrant/551657/281 "2010-09-10T01:20:43Z")
> [@not\_alice](#): > > > [@Bricker](#): > > > > All true. > > > > And of course, if “many people” is “most people,” then we should shortly see laws passed requiring the police to obtain warrants, which is the way that We The People exercise our sovereign power. I think laws like that are a good idea. > > This is essentially the same argument you just made on another thread - that Courts have no role in interpreting existing laws. > > As though they are not in the Consitution themselves as a full and equal branch of government, both exercising and being constrained by the checks and balances relative to the other branches. > > It is as though you live in some magical mystery fantasy field of dreams where there are no Courts to decide disputes. Which is weird, because you earlier today agreed that that is the purpose of the Courts: to decide disputes. > > **Bricker** , why do you want to have it both ways? I don’t. I am perfectly happy to have the courts exercise their role and interpret the existing law. In this case, the existing law does not forbid the placement of GPS devices on vehicles without warrants, at least not because of some devaluation of the vehicle in question. One court has held that aggregate GPS information is private, even though individual trips that form that aggregate dat are not private. Another court has said that even aggregate trip data is not private. No court has said that there’s a change in the value of the vehicle and that this makes the practice impermissible. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 1:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cops-putting-gps-on-cars-without-a-warrant/551657/282 "2010-09-10T01:22:59Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > And that same claim about the value of the van changing seemed to be at the heart of your argument. On re-reading this line and remembering the … eh… highly fluid nature of your arguments, I’ll just withdraw this line and wait for you to advance the argument du jour. ---
**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:** [September 10, 2010, 1:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cops-putting-gps-on-cars-without-a-warrant/551657/283 "2010-09-10T01:31:47Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > > [@not\_alice](#): > > > > Sure, his conviction stands, because the court did not buy his argument. > > > > But, as I pointed out, the argument he made is not the one that was made in this thread, although I can see how if you used some sort of legal search engine, why it would come up as relevant. > > No. I read that decision because it’s hot off the presses, handed down on September 7th, 2010, and I make it a practice to follow all Virginia appellate cases. So this appellate case didn’t even exist when you first offered your… uh… argument. > > So perhaps you could explain why his argument is different than the one you offered, because to my poorly trained, pedestrian eyes, it seems like he’s arguing that the value of the van changed. And it seems like the court doesn’t agree the value of the van changed. > > And that same claim about the value of the van changing seemed to be at the heart of your argument. I already explained the difference . I haven’t read the transcript, let alone the decision. But from the quote you selected, the Court ruled that the “nature of the van” was not changed primarily, and inferred from that, indirectly that the value was into affected. I have not argued that placing a GPS on a vehicle “changes the nature” of the vehicle, so I wouldn’t ask the court to make that ruling. I agree it is likely that the guy wanted to argue the loss of value, but framed it differently than I would have. Thus, the court having ruled that an argument about “changing nature” has not merit", absent any further reading, I have no qualms with either way. It is not the argument I proposed, so you might as well have told me the court ruled that Superman in the back seat does not exempt anyone from obeying traffic laws. Well OK,it is closer to the mark than that, but still apples and oranges. If there is something in the court record, from either side, that makes essentially the same argument I proposed last week (or whenever it was), then be sure to share it. But if you are going to point to a case where someone makes an entirely different claim, then, well I appreciate your sharing that the decision mentioned the broader issue, but it is tangential only to this discussion. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 1:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cops-putting-gps-on-cars-without-a-warrant/551657/284 "2010-09-10T01:53:02Z")
> [@not\_alice](#): > > I already explained the difference . I haven’t read the transcript, let alone the decision. But from the quote you selected, the Court ruled that the “nature of the van” was not changed primarily, and inferred from that, indirectly that the value was into affected. That’s not what the court did. > [@](#): > > I agree it is likely that the guy wanted to argue the loss of value, but framed it differently than I would have. Thus, the court having ruled that an argument about “changing nature” has not merit", absent any further reading, I have no qualms with either way. OK. Please remind me. What was YOUR argument about value? ---
**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:** [September 10, 2010, 2:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cops-putting-gps-on-cars-without-a-warrant/551657/285 "2010-09-10T02:07:49Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > OK. Please remind me. What was YOUR argument about value? I am glad to find out that you are thrashing about, without being aware exactly what you are arguing about. Since it is that unimportant to you, then let’s take the opportunity to wrap this up here. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 2:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cops-putting-gps-on-cars-without-a-warrant/551657/286 "2010-09-10T02:24:07Z")
> [@not\_alice](#): > > > [@Bricker](#): > > > > OK. Please remind me. What was YOUR argument about value? > > I am glad to find out that you are thrashing about, without being aware exactly what you are arguing about. > > Since it is that unimportant to you, then let’s take the opportunity to wrap this up here. BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Yeah, I’m thrashing. :rolleyes: Despite your changing your arguments with the wind, I have endeavored to respond to what I understood your arguments to be, only to be rebuked each time by a disclaimer that no, THAT’S not what you were arguing. I doubt any reader of this thread can restate your argument with any success. So this latest offer reads like an attempt to retreat without admitting that you have no clue what the heel you’re talking about. ---
**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:** [September 10, 2010, 2:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cops-putting-gps-on-cars-without-a-warrant/551657/287 "2010-09-10T02:32:32Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > > [@not\_alice](#): > > > > I am glad to find out that you are thrashing about, without being aware exactly what you are arguing about. > > > > Since it is that unimportant to you, then let’s take the opportunity to wrap this up here. > > BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!! > > Yeah, I’m thrashing. :rolleyes: > > Despite your changing your arguments with the wind, I have endeavored to respond to what I understood your arguments to be, only to be rebuked each time by a disclaimer that no, THAT’S not what you were arguing. Oh, I agree perfectly with you that you are endeavoring, in the sense of expending labor for a result. It just seems as though you lost track of what we were discussing, and you are perfectly willing and able to throw out misguided research from off the site for our consideration, but not willing to extend the same courtesy regarding researching what is already here, asking for repeats instead of searching and reading yourself. So, it’ll have to do - only you can demonstrate you are back on track. I am sufficiently uninterested in your points here that I am not going to bother to help you when you can simply re-read the thread until you understand it, all on your own. > [@](#): > > I doubt any reader of this thread can restate your argument with any success. At this point I think you are the only one. In which case you are probably right. But even if you are not, that they can’t is because you have been misstating it, putting words in my mouth for so long that, if even you lost the thread of what you were discussing, it seems fair to me that you have indeed tossed out enough volume of fud that others have lost it too. > [@](#): > So this latest offer reads like an attempt to retreat without admitting that you have no clue what the heel you’re talking about. [/QUOTE] Yes, I get that everything I write reads to you like what you wish for, but I am not the Fairy Princess, and you don’t get your wish. This is why I have lost confidence that you are capable of helping here, and why you are no longer relevant to me as far as this thread goes. C’est la vie. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 2:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cops-putting-gps-on-cars-without-a-warrant/551657/288 "2010-09-10T02:45:01Z")
> [@not\_alice](#): > > Yes, I get that everything I write reads to you like what you wish for, but I am not the Fairy Princess, and you don’t get your wish. This is why I have lost confidence that you are capable of helping here, and why you are no longer relevant to me as far as this thread goes. > > C’est la vie. Uh huh. And **Hamlet**? He, also, suffers from this blindness? Since he and I see eye to eye so often, right? :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/73ab20/32.png) [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Tao_s_Revenge)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 2:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cops-putting-gps-on-cars-without-a-warrant/551657/289 "2010-09-10T02:57:42Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!! > > Yeah, I’m thrashing. :rolleyes: What was the purpose of that? How did it advance the debate? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 2:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cops-putting-gps-on-cars-without-a-warrant/551657/290 "2010-09-10T02:59:50Z")
> [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](#): > > > [@Bricker](#): > > > > BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!! > > > > Yeah, I’m thrashing. :rolleyes: > > What was the purpose of that? How did it advance the debate? It rebutted the claim that I was thrashing around. “A gratuitous assertion may be equally gratiously denied.” ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2012, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cops-putting-gps-on-cars-without-a-warrant/551657/291 "2012-01-23T17:40:21Z")
Hot off the presses! [The US Supreme Court has unanimously decided that police forces must obtain a search warrant to track the vehicles of suspects with GPS devices.](http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/supreme-court-says-search-warrants-needed-when-police-use-gps-devices-to-track-suspects/2012/01/23/gIQA7wL1KQ_story.html?wpisrc=al_comboPNE_p) From the story, they seem to focus on the act of physically attaching the device to the vehicle, which the decision says constitutes a trespass without a warrant. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cops-putting-gps-on-cars-without-a-warrant/551657.md?page=14)