Maybe you read that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in January that the Department of Justice does not have the authority to plant a GPS tracking device in your car unless it has a warrant.
The Department of Justice has issued a ruling that the Supreme Court’s ruling doesn’t apply to the Department of Justice.
“What’s that?” you say. “You mean the Supreme Court’s word is not final? That’s correct.
You see, the Supreme Court said that the GPS tracking devices were unconstitutional. But that didn’t mean that all GPS devices are unconstitutional. Only the ones that the FBI does not install. Those are clearly unconstitutional, but not the ones that it does want to install.
You may not understand the law, as interpreted by the Department of Justice.
A lawyer for the US Department of Justice (DOJ) on May 31 defended the use of GPS tracking bugs in cases where no warrant has been issued. This negates the January Supreme Court ruling. In oral arguments in the Ninth Court of Appeals, the Department of Justice made it clear to the Court the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Jones did not require warrants for all GPS tracking situations, because the search could still be reasonable in certain situations.
The Supreme Court said that warrantless searches are a violation of the Fourth Amendment; therefore, so is warrantless tracking. This seemed like a comprehensive ruling, but not according to the Department of Justice.
The Obama administration has argued in that was submitted to the Ninth Circuit that “requiring a warrant and probable cause would seriously impede the government’s ability to investigate drug trafficking, terrorism and other crimes.”
That should settle it. The government needs this information.Therefore, it should be allowed to get it.
The government doesn’t need no stinking warrants.