--- Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 11:50:43 -0600 From: "Allen S. Thorpe" <athorpe@private> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Declan McCullagh <declan@private> Subject: Re: [Politech] State v. Jackson I find this case puzzling, since officers surely could have tailed the car without a warrant. How many movements of vehicles aren't in the open? There are valid warrant issues in using technology to intrude into protected areas such as homes or car trunks, but the law has always recognized a plain view exception to requiring a warrant for search and seizure. Does this case signal a move away from that? It seems to me that technology in this case only made it possible to do something the police had the power to do anyway more efficiently. Allen S. Thorpe Orangeville, Utah Declan McCullagh wrote: >Attachmnent of GPS Devices to Private Vehicles Requires a Warrant > >William Bradley Jackson was convicted of first degree murder on October 5, >2000 in the death of his daughter. Jackson appealed to the Supreme Court >of Washington, raising, inter alia, whether a warrant was required under >Wash. Const. art. I, § 7 for the installation and use of a global >positioning system (GPS) device on his vehicle; and, if so, whether the >two warrants issued in this case were supported by probable cause. The >court held that a warrant is required before authorities can install and >use a GPS device on a private vehicle under Wash. Const. art. I, § 7. >However, the court found that the two warrants in this case were valid, >and, therefore, there was no constitutional violation. >State v. Jackson, No. 72799-6, 2003 Wash. LEXIS 659 (Wash. Sept. 11, 2003) _______________________________________________ Politech mailing list Archived at http://www.politechbot.com/ Moderated by Declan McCullagh (http://www.mccullagh.org/)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Wed Oct 15 2003 - 06:21:44 PDT