9th Circuit Appeals Court rules that GPS tracking of vehicles doesn't require a warrant.

[Rhinox]

My gut instinct is to be against this, but what's the difference b/w this and the police just tailing him by sight?

^

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

Is there anything stopping them from tailing you, i.e. oversight? Again, what's the difference? If that question can't be answered then I don't see why this decision get's overturned. This has to be distinguishable from something police are already able to do to get overturned. One might say, "well they went on his property." So what, they could just wait for him to drive the car somewhere instead.

If that question can't be answered then all I see happening is the SCOTUS saying you need a warrant first or something.

I'm against the police from doing this. Can it be more clear? My question has nothing to do with left/right politics.

[pohibaba]

Is there anything stopping them from tailing you, i.e. oversight? Again, what's the difference? If that question can't be answered then I don't see why this decision get's overturned. This has to be distinguishable from something police are already able to do to get overturned. One might say, "well they went on his property." So what, they could just wait for him to drive the car somewhere instead.

I'm against the police from doing this. Can it be more clear? My question has nothing to do with left/right politics.

It seems to me that the main difference is that police couldn't tail a suspect to certain places (a gated community, deep into someone's personal property) without getting a warrant to do it. This, it would seem, would let them circumvent that.

[Kerberoz]

I wonder how long until someone gets jailed for destroying government property when they remove a GPS bug.