In Missouri, one judge could not wait for the Supreme Court to decide whether law enforcement agencies can monitor your every move without obtaining any warrant. US Magistrate Judge David Noce ruled that the FBI does not need a warrant in order to affix a GPS device to the car.What is most troubling about this ruling is that there was never a need for it since FBI had enough reasons to be suspicious. Even if they were using the immediate opportunity to plant a tracking device, there is no way that FBI couldn't find a judge to approve any surveillance necessary (even post factum).
No, this entire FBI move is just another in the series of intentional "
expedience mistakes" that work toward slowly disbanding the First and the Fourth Amendments.
In this particular case, the accused was illegally paid as a "ghost" employee, collecting $175,000 in compensation while on the payroll of the St. Louis City Treasurer's Office. Nobody could say that the man is not guilty or that FBI caught a wrong person. Still, how come that the FBI couldn't talk to other employees of Treasurer's Office, gathering enough supporting evidence to get a judge to issue a warrant?
The Judge made a ruling that "
when police have reasonable suspicion that a particular vehicle is transporting drugs, a warrant is not required when, while the vehicle is parked in a public place, they install a non-invasive GPS tracking device on it for a reasonable period of time."
In other words, as long as the law enforcement agents do not damage your car or you, they are free to plant any kind of remote surveillance gadget on you. Now, just think about it. Using your computer, your webcam, your cell phone and even your clothing for planting surveillance software or hardware are all "
non-invasive" measures.
In 2010, the ruling in the case of United States v. Antoine Jones was reversed by a Washington appeals court because law enforcement officers installed a GPS device on Jones' automobile, without obtaining a warrant, while it was parked in a public lot outside of Washington DC.
Now, for the really scary part. Obama administration asked a Supreme Court to revise the decision made by a Washington appeals court. The reasons Obama administration stated are that "
GPS tracking is an important law enforcement tool," and if not resolved, "
The issue will continue to arise frequently."
The administration went even further and stated that needing a warrant could keep authorities from gathering information to establish probable cause, thus "
seriously impeding the government's ability to investigate leads and tips on drug trafficking, terrorism and other crimes."
It really looks like the new police state is impatient in establishing and enforcing its rights to monitor and track, without warrant or any accountability, every citizen of United States.