In January the US Supreme Court heard a case about GPS tracking devices on cars. Read the article High Court: Warrant Needed for GPS Tracking Device and answer the following questions:
1. What did the Supreme Court rule?
2. Do you agre or disagree with their ruling?
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
This is a blog for students in Meredith Aby's Practical Law class at Jefferson High School in Bloomington, MN. There is an expectation by the instructor & the JHS administration that the same standards for behavior & respect at JHS apply to the blog.
Supreme Court Resources
- How to cite/write your bibliography: http://www.bloomington.k12.mn.us/indschool/tj/mediacenter/cite.html#internet
- Landmark cases: http://www.landmarkcases.org/
- Supreme Court: http://supremecourtus.gov/
- Oyez: http://www.oyez.org/
- Find Law: http://lp.findlaw.com/
14 comments:
They ruled a warrant must be obtained before a GPS device is placed on a vehicle. There were many different reasons and varied opinions within the court itself on way this decision has been made.
I agree with the decision the court made because the ramifications of non regulated warrants on any civilian vehicle would be momentous and not necessarily in a positive/beneficial manner.
1. What did the Supreme Court rule?
They must get a warrant from a judge before placing a GPS tracking device on a vehicle.
2. Do you agree or disagree with their ruling?
Yes because i have no other options. it is ether i agree or disagree there is nothing in the middle. How long does it take to get a warrant to do that?
1. What did the Supreme Court rule?
That the police must get a warrant before placing a GPS tracking device on a car
2. Do you agre or disagree with their ruling?
I agree because in some manner this is like looking into someones phone the police need a warrant other wise they could just put tracking device on anybody if they have done nothing wrong. People have the right to their privacy and should not just be taken with out a possibility of something illegally happening.
1. What did the Supreme Court rule?
That because the car was his property it is protected by the bill of rights, the cops need a warrant for that.
2. Do you agree or disagree with their ruling?
I agree with the ruling, but i don't know how much its going to matter. Like the article says the court said nothing about cell phones so the police will most likely just start tracking that way now.
1. What did the Supreme Court rule?
The court ruled that in order to use a tracking device, a warrant must first be obtained, otherwise the evidence cannot be used in court, and the information found is found illegally.
2. Do you agre or disagree with their ruling?
I agree with the idea of their ruling, but feel that there are more questions left unanswered. Not needing a warrant to use a GPS tracking device would be an infringement upon a person's privacy, and their private belongings, however, where the car goes is in the public. Also I feel that needing a warrant is not necessary because the police are not searching through the car, but are in a way just following it.
The supreme court ruled yes, you do need a search warrant to attach a GPS to someones car.
I disagree with this ruling. Like the article state, we can be tracked by satellite and undercover police officers. If the car is to be parked outside of the home, either in the driveway or on the road, they should be allowed to put a GPs onto your car. Anyone with a cell phone can be tracked so I don't see much of a difference.
Using it against someone in court should also be allowed. If someone is doing something suspicious enough to get the cops to want to put an expensive tracking device onto your car there is probably good reason for them to do so. It would probably cut down on crime and suspicious activity throughout the country.
1. The court made the decision that the conviction of Antoine Jones was unconstitutional because the method of which he was convicted went against the rights provided by the 14th amendment.
2. I agree with the courts decision not because I'm for illegal selling of drugs but because it is the job of the police to uphold the law and the government believes that no one is above the law, especially the ones who’s jobs it is to uphold it. Tailing someone without them knowing is one thing but putting a devise that monitors their whereabouts obviously conflicts with the rights of unreasonable searches and seizers. Just because the world is changing due to technological changes doesn’t mean the laws placed by the founding fathers changes, it is the job of the supreme court (as they did) to make sure changes in the world does not change the laws that are meant to keep things in order. If one right is taken away many more rights will begin to deteriorate.
1. What did the Supreme Court rule?
-They ruled that they must have a warrant in order to put the GPS tracking device on the car.
2. Do you agree or disagree with their ruling?
-I agree with this because they can't just put a tracking device on someone's car. They should only be able to do that if they think that there is an immediate threat. Also they could find stuff that he's doing that they aren't even looking for so that wouldn't be fair.
1. The supreme court ruled that the police must obtain a warrant before they place a GPS tracker on someone's car. And so they reversed the sentence that the man had already gotten.
2. When it comes to whether this is wrong or not it becomes a very sticky situation and is very hard to decide. But because the GPS was used to convict and obtain/seize materials that were in his possession then the act of placing a GPS on someone's car is unconstitutional. Also because it was on his property then it is against the fourth amendment.
1. What did the Supreme Court rule?
They ruled that police must get a warrant from a judge before placing a GPS tracking device on a vehicle.
2. Do you agre or disagree with their ruling?
I agree with their ruling because police shouldn't be allowed to spy on who ever they want without a warrant.
1. What did the Supreme Court rule?
The Supreme Court ruled that if they want to put a GPS tracking device on a car, they first need to get a warrant from a judge.
2. Do you agree or disagree with their ruling?
I agree with this ruling. I think that if the police want to track anyone for a period of time in any way, they should have a warrant. Otherwise I think that it is an invasion with our privacy. This also goes against the Constitution to do this without a warrant.
1. What did the Supreme Court rule?
The Supreme Court ruled that investigators do need a search warrant in order to put a GPS tracking device on a vehicle.
2. Do you agre or disagree with their ruling?
I disagree that a search warrant should be necessary for this because people are under surveillance all of the time and there is no need to have a warrant for that. If these tracking devices can help the investigators do their job, they shouldn't have to do so much to do it. Also, I don't really think that they are "searching" anything by attaching a GPS tracking device to a car, they are simply tracking the person, so there is no reason that they must have a search warrant.
1. What did the Supreme Court rule?
It was unanimous and they were split. half people say it wasn't good because it was on the persons property and they didn't have a search warrant. Others think it was appropriate. Unconstitutional, for not having a warrant.
2. Do you agre or disagree with their ruling?
I agree because I would rather not have the government put trackers on whoever they want. they need to have a warrant.
Post a Comment