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

RE: [infoguys-list] GPS tracking

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 4 , May 5, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      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


      Fax 615.523.0300



      "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
      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
      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._

      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.