A cousin of mine in MI state got bust for an outdoor crop cause the cops put a gps on his car but ended up beating the charges because the came on his property to install it with out a warrent if the wouldn't have came on his property to install it the lawyer said the charges would've stuck it still cost him a lot
-
ICMag with help from Landrace Warden and The Vault is running a NEW contest in November! You can check it here. Prizes are seeds & forum premium access. Come join in!
Some stuff I learned about GPS Tracking devices
- Thread starter ItsGrowTime
- Start date
i got aa bug and gps detector. no worries . same model as LA undercovers use.
GPS tracking device use by LEO
GPS tracking device use by LEO
Heres an article released today about how a drug kingpin in Washington DC had his life conviction overturned because the cops illegally put a GPS device on his jeep.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/aug/8/gps-use-voids-conviction/
Ruling that federal agents erred in attaching a satellite tracking device to a vehicle without a search warrant, a federal appeals court has reversed the life sentence of man accused of running a major Washington drug ring.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on Friday found that the government's use of GPS technology to track defendant Antoine Jones' Jeep violated the Fourth Amendment.
Civil liberties groups that aided in the appeal of Mr. Jones, whose case involved the largest cocaine seizure in city history, called the ruling an important legal victory for privacy rights.
The three-judge ruling called the GPS information key to the federal prosecution of Mr. Jones, who owned Club Levels in Northeast Washington across the street from the Metropolitan Police Department's Fifth District headquarters.
"The GPS data were essential to the government's case," the court ruled. "By combining them with Mr. Jones's cell-phone records, the government was able to paint a picture of Mr. Jones's movements that made credible the allegation that he was involved in drug trafficking."
Stephen Leckar, one of the lawyers on the Jones appeal, said the ruling "recognizes the Fourth Amendment's continued significance in promoting privacy in a high-tech age."
"The decision simply tells law enforcement agents that they need a judge's decision before trespassing on a person's car and attaching a device that tracks and records him or her relentlessly over time and space."
The decision was also hailed by outside groups that aided in the appeal.
"Today's decision brings the Fourth Amendment into the 21st century," Arthur Spitzer, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of the National Capital Area, said in a statement announcing the decision.
Jennifer Granick, civil liberties director at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which also worked on the case, said she hoped other courts grappling with the same issue would follow the decision.
prety crazy story! guy gets caught with record cocaine bust, and gets a life sentence, and its turned around! sounds like a victory IMO. both for privacy rights but against the oppressive theives aka LEO. i was pretty paranoid about having my car bugged like that...but now since LEO needs a good warrant it cant be so easy for them to do....like posting outside a hydro shop and slapping devices on certain cars, etc.
how easy do yall think it is to get a GPS tracking warrant.
also, what are ways to counter the GPS unit. I heard stories about a magic wand but later read thats hollywood BS. i guess the only way is to jack your car up on stands and visually inspect?
anybody ever been GPS tracked? i remember watching it in THE WIRE...and when you think about it, it can lead to ALOT of shit. your drop spots, stash spots, secret grows, etc etc etc. they can take down a whole network if they see a dealer driving to his growers house and then to his customers house....gotta take that shit seriously!
GPS tracking device use by LEO
Heres an article released today about how a drug kingpin in Washington DC had his life conviction overturned because the cops illegally put a GPS device on his jeep.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/aug/8/gps-use-voids-conviction/
Ruling that federal agents erred in attaching a satellite tracking device to a vehicle without a search warrant, a federal appeals court has reversed the life sentence of man accused of running a major Washington drug ring.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on Friday found that the government's use of GPS technology to track defendant Antoine Jones' Jeep violated the Fourth Amendment.
Civil liberties groups that aided in the appeal of Mr. Jones, whose case involved the largest cocaine seizure in city history, called the ruling an important legal victory for privacy rights.
The three-judge ruling called the GPS information key to the federal prosecution of Mr. Jones, who owned Club Levels in Northeast Washington across the street from the Metropolitan Police Department's Fifth District headquarters.
"The GPS data were essential to the government's case," the court ruled. "By combining them with Mr. Jones's cell-phone records, the government was able to paint a picture of Mr. Jones's movements that made credible the allegation that he was involved in drug trafficking."
Stephen Leckar, one of the lawyers on the Jones appeal, said the ruling "recognizes the Fourth Amendment's continued significance in promoting privacy in a high-tech age."
"The decision simply tells law enforcement agents that they need a judge's decision before trespassing on a person's car and attaching a device that tracks and records him or her relentlessly over time and space."
The decision was also hailed by outside groups that aided in the appeal.
"Today's decision brings the Fourth Amendment into the 21st century," Arthur Spitzer, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of the National Capital Area, said in a statement announcing the decision.
Jennifer Granick, civil liberties director at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which also worked on the case, said she hoped other courts grappling with the same issue would follow the decision.
prety crazy story! guy gets caught with record cocaine bust, and gets a life sentence, and its turned around! sounds like a victory IMO. both for privacy rights but against the oppressive theives aka LEO. i was pretty paranoid about having my car bugged like that...but now since LEO needs a good warrant it cant be so easy for them to do....like posting outside a hydro shop and slapping devices on certain cars, etc.
how easy do yall think it is to get a GPS tracking warrant.
also, what are ways to counter the GPS unit. I heard stories about a magic wand but later read thats hollywood BS. i guess the only way is to jack your car up on stands and visually inspect?
anybody ever been GPS tracked? i remember watching it in THE WIRE...and when you think about it, it can lead to ALOT of shit. your drop spots, stash spots, secret grows, etc etc etc. they can take down a whole network if they see a dealer driving to his growers house and then to his customers house....gotta take that shit seriously!
Positive development here. US Appeals Court has ruled GPS tracking requires a warrant.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...tracking-takes-another-blow-from-dc-court.ars
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...tracking-takes-another-blow-from-dc-court.ars
i have a device the tells you if your bugged or have gps. no worries. they reccomend having someone drive by slowly in your car as some gps dont activate till the car is in motion. afoaf found a tracking device on his car he was busted a week later
hey MODS i guess merge this with the other bigger GPS tracking thread. thanks.
for what its worth. greatsouthernsecurity.com
gronko
Member
TomTom GPS Device Forensics
TomTom GPS Device Forensics
Hey all,
Just thought I'd leave this here.
http://www.forensicfocus.com/tomtom-gps-device-forensics
TomTom GPS Device Forensics
Hey all,
Just thought I'd leave this here.
http://www.forensicfocus.com/tomtom-gps-device-forensics
gronko
Member
Court Rejects Warrantless GPS Tracking
Court Rejects Warrantless GPS Tracking
EFF-ACLU Arguments Against Always-On Surveillance Win The Day
August 6th, 2010
Washington, D.C. - The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit today firmly rejected government claims that federal agents have an unfettered right to install Global Positioning System (GPS) location-tracking devices on anyone's car without a search warrant.
In United States v. Maynard, FBI agents planted a GPS device on a car while it was on private property and then used it to track the position of the automobile every ten seconds for a full month, all without securing a search warrant. In an amicus brief filed in the case, EFF and the ACLU of the Nation's Capital argued that unsupervised use of such tactics would open the door for police to abuse their power and continuously track anyone's physical location for any reason, without ever having to go to a judge to prove the surveillance is justified.
The court agreed that such round-the-clock surveillance required a search warrant based on probable cause. The court expressly rejected the government's argument that such extended, 24-hours-per-day surveillance without warrants was constitutional based on previous rulings about limited, point-to-point surveillance of public activities using radio-based tracking beepers. Recognizing that the Supreme Court had never considered location tracking of such length and scope, the court noted: "When it comes to privacy...the whole may be more revealing than its parts."
The court continued: "It is one thing for a passerby to observe or even to follow someone during a single journey as he goes to the market or returns home from work. It is another thing entirely for that stranger to pick up the scent again the next day and the day after that, week in and week out, dogging his prey until he has identified all the places, people, amusements, and chores that make up that person's hitherto private routine."
"The court correctly recognized the important differences between limited surveillance of public activities possible through visual surveillance or traditional 'bumper beepers,' and the sort of extended, invasive, pervasive, always-on tracking that GPS devices allow," said EFF Civil Liberties Director Jennifer Granick. "This same logic applies in cases of cell phone tracking, and we hope that this decision will be followed by courts that are currently grappling with the question of whether the government must obtain a warrant before using your cell phone as a tracking device."
"GPS tracking enables the police to know when you visit your doctor, your lawyer, your church, or your lover," said Arthur Spitzer, Legal Director of the ACLU-NCA. "And if many people are tracked, GPS data will show when and where they cross paths. Judicial supervision of this powerful technology is essential if we are to preserve individual liberty. Today's decision helps brings the Fourth Amendment into the 21st Century."
Attorneys Daniel Prywes and Kip Wainscott of Bryan Cave LLP also volunteered their services to assist in preparing the EFF-ACLU brief.
Link > http://www.eff.org/press/archives/2010/08/06-0
Court Rejects Warrantless GPS Tracking
EFF-ACLU Arguments Against Always-On Surveillance Win The Day
August 6th, 2010
Washington, D.C. - The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit today firmly rejected government claims that federal agents have an unfettered right to install Global Positioning System (GPS) location-tracking devices on anyone's car without a search warrant.
In United States v. Maynard, FBI agents planted a GPS device on a car while it was on private property and then used it to track the position of the automobile every ten seconds for a full month, all without securing a search warrant. In an amicus brief filed in the case, EFF and the ACLU of the Nation's Capital argued that unsupervised use of such tactics would open the door for police to abuse their power and continuously track anyone's physical location for any reason, without ever having to go to a judge to prove the surveillance is justified.
The court agreed that such round-the-clock surveillance required a search warrant based on probable cause. The court expressly rejected the government's argument that such extended, 24-hours-per-day surveillance without warrants was constitutional based on previous rulings about limited, point-to-point surveillance of public activities using radio-based tracking beepers. Recognizing that the Supreme Court had never considered location tracking of such length and scope, the court noted: "When it comes to privacy...the whole may be more revealing than its parts."
The court continued: "It is one thing for a passerby to observe or even to follow someone during a single journey as he goes to the market or returns home from work. It is another thing entirely for that stranger to pick up the scent again the next day and the day after that, week in and week out, dogging his prey until he has identified all the places, people, amusements, and chores that make up that person's hitherto private routine."
"The court correctly recognized the important differences between limited surveillance of public activities possible through visual surveillance or traditional 'bumper beepers,' and the sort of extended, invasive, pervasive, always-on tracking that GPS devices allow," said EFF Civil Liberties Director Jennifer Granick. "This same logic applies in cases of cell phone tracking, and we hope that this decision will be followed by courts that are currently grappling with the question of whether the government must obtain a warrant before using your cell phone as a tracking device."
"GPS tracking enables the police to know when you visit your doctor, your lawyer, your church, or your lover," said Arthur Spitzer, Legal Director of the ACLU-NCA. "And if many people are tracked, GPS data will show when and where they cross paths. Judicial supervision of this powerful technology is essential if we are to preserve individual liberty. Today's decision helps brings the Fourth Amendment into the 21st Century."
Attorneys Daniel Prywes and Kip Wainscott of Bryan Cave LLP also volunteered their services to assist in preparing the EFF-ACLU brief.
Link > http://www.eff.org/press/archives/2010/08/06-0
