Removing a police-installed GPS is not theft...in Indiana.

jim bell jdb10987 at yahoo.com
Fri Feb 28 22:30:22 PST 2020


https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/02/removing-a-gps-tracking-device-from-your-car-isnt-theft-court-rules/


"An Indiana man may beat a drug prosecution after the state's highest court threw out a search warrant against him late last week. The search warrant was based on the idea that the man had "stolen" a GPS tracking device belonging to the government. But Indiana's Supreme Court concluded that he'd done no such thing—and the cops should have known it."
"Last November, we wrote about the case of Derek Heuring, an Indiana man the Warrick County Sheriff's Office suspected of selling meth. Authorities got a warrant to put a GPS tracker on Heuring's car, getting a stream of data on his location for six days. But then the data stopped."
"Officers suspected Heuring had discovered and removed the tracking device. After waiting for a few more days, they got a warrant to search his home and a barn belonging to his father. They argued the disappearance of the tracking device was evidence that Heuring had stolen it."                    [end of partial quote]


Jim Bell's comment follows:    In January 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a warrant is necessary to place a GPS tracking system on a car.  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Jones


"United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case which held that installing a Global Positioning System (GPS) tracking device on a vehicle and using the device to monitor the vehicle's movements constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment.[1]"

"In 2004 defendant Jones was suspected of drug trafficking. Police investigators asked for and received a warrant to attach a GPS tracking device to the underside of the defendant's car but then exceeded the warrant's scope in both geography and length of time. The Supreme Court justices voted unanimously that this was a "search" under the Fourth Amendment, although they were split 5-4 as to the fundamental reasons behind that conclusion. The majority held that by physically installing the GPS device on the defendant's car, the police had committed a trespass against Jones' "personal effects" – this trespass, in an attempt to obtain information, constituted a search per se."




-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/html
Size: 7025 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/attachments/20200229/5a8eb152/attachment.txt>


More information about the cypherpunks mailing list