Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

No Grouply Use

Expand Messages
  • Frank Grande
    Colleagues, Sorry for the cross post, I will not be using grouply. I will be using just my Yahoo account only. Sorry for the inconvenience. Frank M. Grande
    Message 1 of 4 , Jul 22, 2008
      Colleagues,

      Sorry for the cross post, I will not be using grouply. I will be
      using just my Yahoo account only. Sorry for the inconvenience.


      Frank M. Grande
      CheckMate Investigations LLC
      P.O. Box 825
      Bethel, CT 06801
      Office: 203.743.6455
      Fax: 203.778.2415
      Toll: 877.743.6455
      Email info@...
      Web: www.checkmate-investigations.net
      CT Lic. #A-2192, NCISS, NAIS
      When there are no more moves, CHECKMATE!
      WE ARE YOUR LAST MOVE.


      All information via this email is intended for the recipient(s).
      The material within this email may contain confidential and or legal
      information. If you are not the intended party, please notify the
      sender via email and destroy all information that was sent to you
      such as the email and attachments within.
    • John Leonard
      All, Whenever someone asks about GPS recommendations I usually respond and tell people my experience with different devices since I have used so many. My posts
      Message 2 of 4 , Jul 22, 2008
        All,

        Whenever someone asks about GPS recommendations I usually respond and tell people my experience with different devices since I have used so many. My posts are never approved. Here are two vendors I use.

        Mologogo.com

        The motion tracker works about 10 to 15 days on one charge. This is a real time system that uses a prepaid boost phone. It is a bit hard to set the system up, but I think it is worth it. It costs about $15 a month total.

        Telenavtrack.com

        I have two telenavtrack units. I made the battery packs for the units myself, but you could use the mologogo hardware (motion tracker) and get the same battery life. I like the fact that I can do a phone to phone locate with this system. So if I am performing a follow and I loose the target I can hit a few buttons on my phone and locate the target vehicle real time. Once it stops I can push the drive to button and my phone gives me voice guided directions to the tracker. The draw back here is that you have to have a contract. Nextel associates will tell you there is no such thing as a data only plan, but that is how you need to set up you trackers. Each tracker needs an unlimited data plan, public IP address, and telenavtrack plus. they are about $ 40.00 a month. The reports are great on telenavtrack.

        My current trackers are much smaller than they once were. If you want to see some I put together years ago you can see them here. www.versateksecurity.com/GPS.html

        We only use GPS when it is legal IAW Virginia Code Section 46.2-1088.6.

        If anyone has GPS recommendations please let me know.

        John K. Leonard Jr., CPP
        VersaTek, LLC
        http://www.versateksecurity.com
        p:(703)-362-7219
        f:(703)-496-4758



















        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Slipinn@aol.com
        Case Law Update The Seventh Circuit Finds Warrantless GPS Tracking Constitutionally Permissible The Seventh Circuit held that a warrantless GPS tracking
        Message 3 of 4 , May 5, 2011
          Case Law Update
          The Seventh Circuit Finds Warrantless GPS Tracking Constitutionally
          Permissible
          The Seventh Circuit held that a warrantless GPS tracking session, which
          lasted sixty (60) hours and tracked a suspect's journey from Arizona to
          Illinois did not violate the Fourth Amendment.
          In 2008, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers and local
          police in Phoenix, Arizona came to believe that Juan Cuevas-Perez was involved
          in the illicit distribution of drugs. On Feb. 6, 2009, Detective Matthew
          Shay placed a Global Positioning System (GPS) tracking device on
          Cuevas-Perez's Jeep Laredo. The GPS device was programmed to track the car's movements,
          and relay an update to Detective Shay every four minutes. Detective Shay
          did not have a warrant which authorized placing a GPS device on
          Cuevas-Perez's car.
          Shortly after the GPS device was installed, Cuevas-Perez set out on a trip
          from Arizona which ultimately lasted 60 hours and ended in Illinois. While
          Cuevas-Perez was in Missouri, the GPS batteries began to run low. Detective
          Shay asked local ICE agents to begin visual surveillance on Cuevas-Perez's
          Jeep. They did so until he crossed the Illinois state line, at which point
          the Illinois State Police (ISP) took up visual surveillance.
          ICE officers asked the ISP to pull Cuevas-Perez over and search the vehicle
          if any opportunity to do so presented itself. ISP officers followed
          Cuevas-Perez for 40 miles before they pulled him over for remaining in the
          left-hand passing lane, a minor traffic infraction under Illinois law. A police
          officer with a drug-sniffing dog was dispatched to the scene. The dog
          alerted officers that there were probably narcotics in the vehicle. Police
          officers then conducted a search and found nine packages of heroin hidden in door
          panels and the ceiling.
          Cuevas-Perez was arrested and charged with possession of heroin with intent
          to distribute. At trial in the United States District Court for the
          Southern District of Illinois, Cuevas-Perez sought to suppress the evidence,
          arguing that the GPS data had been obtained in violation of the Fourth
          Amendment. The district court denied the suppression motion. Cuevas-Perez pled
          guilty pending an appeal of the suppression denial to the United States Court
          of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
          On appeal, Cuevas-Perez argued that the evidence against him should be
          suppressed under United States v. Maynard, 615 F.3d 544 (D.C. Cir. 2010). In
          Maynard, the DC Circuit held that continual GPS monitoring for 28 days
          violated the Fourth Amendment. The DC Circuit reasoned in Maynard that "unlike
          one's movements during a single journey, the whole of one's movements over
          the course of a month is not actually exposed to the public because the
          likelihood anyone will observe all those movements is effectively nil."
          Furthermore, an extended GPS monitoring could effectively reveal a person's
          lifestyle and personal affairs; in the words of the Maynard court, "[r]epeated
          visits to a church, a gym, a bar, or a bookie tell a story not told by any
          single visit, as does one's not visiting any of these places over the course
          of a month." Thus, Cuevas-Perez argued, lengthy warrantless GPS monitoring
          violated the Fourth Amendment and the evidence against him should be
          suppressed.
          The Seventh Circuit rejected this reasoning and upheld the district court's
          decision to deny the motion for suppression. The court of appeals noted
          that the Maynard decision explicitly states that an individual's movement in
          a single journey, such as Cuevas-Perez's road trip, does not reveal the
          whole of that person's movements, which in turn is what the DC Circuit found
          to implicate the Fourth Amendment. Even if that were not the case, the court
          of appeals distinguished Cuevas-Perez's case from Maynard by noting that
          the observation in "Maynard was much lengthier than the 60 hour
          surveillance" of Cuevas -Perez.
          Finding Maynard unpersuasive, the court of appeals relied primarily relied
          on United States v. Knotts, 460 U.S. 276 (1983) and United States v.
          Garcia, 474 F.3d 994 (7th Cir. 2007) in its reasoning.
          In Knotts, the Supreme Court "held that the use of a beeper device to
          track a drug suspect did not violate the Fourth Amendment because it did not
          amount to a search or seizure [since] . . . ‘[a] person traveling in an
          automobile on public thoroughfares has no reasonable expectation of privacy in
          his movements from one place to another.'"
          In Garcia, the Seventh Circuit explained that GPS tracking did not
          constitute a search because "GPS tracking is on the same side of the divide with .
          . . surveillance cameras and . . . satellite imaging, and if what they do
          is not searching in Fourth Amendment terms, neither is GPS tracking."
          Instead, GPS surveillance merely substitutes "for an activity, namely following a
          car on a public street, that is unequivocally not a search within the
          meaning of the [Fourth Amendment]."
          From these two cases, and a realization that Maynard explicitly did not
          apply to a single journey, the Seventh Circuit held that the GPS monitoring
          of Cuevas-Perez's journey from Arizona to Illinois did not violate the Fourth
          Amendment. The information provided by the GPS was exposed to the public,
          could have been provided by visual monitoring, and did not reveal any
          information in which Cuevas-Perez had an objective expectation of privacy.
          However, the appellate court acknowledged that GPS tracking is a "Fourth
          Amendment frontier" and that it will be up to future cases to "delineate the
          boundaries of the permissible use of this technology."
          You can read the case by _clicking here._
          (http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/tmp/7L11CZ6P.pdf)


          Chuck Chambers
          _WWW.ChambersAgency.com_ (http://www.chambersagency.com/)

          Chambers Investigations
          606 49th st w
          Bradenton, Florida 34209
          Phone 941-798-3804
          Lic# A-0001959


          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • TSCM/SO Group
          Thanks, best newsgroup post ive seen in a while!!!!!!!! Mitch Davis TSCM/Special Operations Group Inc. 20 Music Square West,Suite 208 Nashville, TN. 37203 USA
          Message 4 of 4 , May 5, 2011
            Thanks, best newsgroup post ive seen in a while!!!!!!!!



            Mitch Davis

            TSCM/Special Operations Group Inc.

            20 Music Square West,Suite 208

            Nashville, TN. 37203 USA

            615.251.0441

            Fax 615.523.0300

            www.tscmusa.com



            ***********************************

            "Maintaining a higher degree of excellence"

            *****************************************



            This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this electronic transmission in error, please delete it from your system without copying it and notify the sender by reply e-mail so that the email address record can be corrected. Thank you.



            From: Slipinn@... [mailto:Slipinn@...]
            Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2011 3:57 PM
            To: infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com
            Subject: [infoguys-list] GPS tracking






            Case Law Update
            The Seventh Circuit Finds Warrantless GPS Tracking Constitutionally
            Permissible
            The Seventh Circuit held that a warrantless GPS tracking session, which
            lasted sixty (60) hours and tracked a suspect's journey from Arizona to
            Illinois did not violate the Fourth Amendment.
            In 2008, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers and local
            police in Phoenix, Arizona came to believe that Juan Cuevas-Perez was involved
            in the illicit distribution of drugs. On Feb. 6, 2009, Detective Matthew
            Shay placed a Global Positioning System (GPS) tracking device on
            Cuevas-Perez's Jeep Laredo. The GPS device was programmed to track the car's movements,
            and relay an update to Detective Shay every four minutes. Detective Shay
            did not have a warrant which authorized placing a GPS device on
            Cuevas-Perez's car.
            Shortly after the GPS device was installed, Cuevas-Perez set out on a trip
            from Arizona which ultimately lasted 60 hours and ended in Illinois. While
            Cuevas-Perez was in Missouri, the GPS batteries began to run low. Detective
            Shay asked local ICE agents to begin visual surveillance on Cuevas-Perez's
            Jeep. They did so until he crossed the Illinois state line, at which point
            the Illinois State Police (ISP) took up visual surveillance.
            ICE officers asked the ISP to pull Cuevas-Perez over and search the vehicle
            if any opportunity to do so presented itself. ISP officers followed
            Cuevas-Perez for 40 miles before they pulled him over for remaining in the
            left-hand passing lane, a minor traffic infraction under Illinois law. A police
            officer with a drug-sniffing dog was dispatched to the scene. The dog
            alerted officers that there were probably narcotics in the vehicle. Police
            officers then conducted a search and found nine packages of heroin hidden in door
            panels and the ceiling.
            Cuevas-Perez was arrested and charged with possession of heroin with intent
            to distribute. At trial in the United States District Court for the
            Southern District of Illinois, Cuevas-Perez sought to suppress the evidence,
            arguing that the GPS data had been obtained in violation of the Fourth
            Amendment. The district court denied the suppression motion. Cuevas-Perez pled
            guilty pending an appeal of the suppression denial to the United States Court
            of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
            On appeal, Cuevas-Perez argued that the evidence against him should be
            suppressed under United States v. Maynard, 615 F.3d 544 (D.C. Cir. 2010). In
            Maynard, the DC Circuit held that continual GPS monitoring for 28 days
            violated the Fourth Amendment. The DC Circuit reasoned in Maynard that "unlike
            one's movements during a single journey, the whole of one's movements over
            the course of a month is not actually exposed to the public because the
            likelihood anyone will observe all those movements is effectively nil."
            Furthermore, an extended GPS monitoring could effectively reveal a person's
            lifestyle and personal affairs; in the words of the Maynard court, "[r]epeated
            visits to a church, a gym, a bar, or a bookie tell a story not told by any
            single visit, as does one's not visiting any of these places over the course
            of a month." Thus, Cuevas-Perez argued, lengthy warrantless GPS monitoring
            violated the Fourth Amendment and the evidence against him should be
            suppressed.
            The Seventh Circuit rejected this reasoning and upheld the district court's
            decision to deny the motion for suppression. The court of appeals noted
            that the Maynard decision explicitly states that an individual's movement in
            a single journey, such as Cuevas-Perez's road trip, does not reveal the
            whole of that person's movements, which in turn is what the DC Circuit found
            to implicate the Fourth Amendment. Even if that were not the case, the court
            of appeals distinguished Cuevas-Perez's case from Maynard by noting that
            the observation in "Maynard was much lengthier than the 60 hour
            surveillance" of Cuevas -Perez.
            Finding Maynard unpersuasive, the court of appeals relied primarily relied
            on United States v. Knotts, 460 U.S. 276 (1983) and United States v.
            Garcia, 474 F.3d 994 (7th Cir. 2007) in its reasoning.
            In Knotts, the Supreme Court "held that the use of a beeper device to
            track a drug suspect did not violate the Fourth Amendment because it did not
            amount to a search or seizure [since] . . . ‘[a] person traveling in an
            automobile on public thoroughfares has no reasonable expectation of privacy in
            his movements from one place to another.'"
            In Garcia, the Seventh Circuit explained that GPS tracking did not
            constitute a search because "GPS tracking is on the same side of the divide with .
            . . surveillance cameras and . . . satellite imaging, and if what they do
            is not searching in Fourth Amendment terms, neither is GPS tracking."
            Instead, GPS surveillance merely substitutes "for an activity, namely following a
            car on a public street, that is unequivocally not a search within the
            meaning of the [Fourth Amendment]."
            From these two cases, and a realization that Maynard explicitly did not
            apply to a single journey, the Seventh Circuit held that the GPS monitoring
            of Cuevas-Perez's journey from Arizona to Illinois did not violate the Fourth
            Amendment. The information provided by the GPS was exposed to the public,
            could have been provided by visual monitoring, and did not reveal any
            information in which Cuevas-Perez had an objective expectation of privacy.
            However, the appellate court acknowledged that GPS tracking is a "Fourth
            Amendment frontier" and that it will be up to future cases to "delineate the
            boundaries of the permissible use of this technology."
            You can read the case by _clicking here._
            (http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/tmp/7L11CZ6P.pdf)

            Chuck Chambers
            _WWW.ChambersAgency.com_ (http://www.chambersagency.com/)

            Chambers Investigations
            606 49th st w
            Bradenton, Florida 34209
            Phone 941-798-3804
            Lic# A-0001959

            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.