PDA

View Full Version : Judge Rules: No warrant No Tracking "an Orwellian state is now technologically feasible."




aGameOfThrones
12-31-2010, 10:37 PM
Police in Delaware may soon be unable to use global positioning systems (GPS) to keep tabs on a suspect unless they have a court-signed warrant, thanks to a recent ruling by a superior court judge who cited famed author George Orwell in her decision.

In striking down evidence obtained through warrantless GPS tracking, Delaware Judge Jan R. Jurden wrote that "an Orwellian state is now technologically feasible," adding that "without adequate judicial preservation of privacy, there is nothing to protect our citizens from being tracked 24/7."

The ruling goes against a federal appeals court's decision last summer that allowed warrantless tracking by GPS.

Jurden was ruling on the case of Michael D. Holden, who police say was pulled over with 10 lbs. of marijuana in his car last February. Holden was allegedly named by a DEA task force informant in 2009, and in early 2010, without obtaining a warrant, police placed a GPS device on his car, allowing them to follow him whenever he used the vehicle.

That ruling is expected to be appealed to the Supreme Court.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/12/judge-warns-orwellian-state-gps/

Inflation
01-01-2011, 04:13 PM
Bump for liberty!

At least one Judge honors his Oath to the Constitution! It's a good start!

Bern
01-01-2011, 04:40 PM
Saw a duplicate reference/thread today:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?274441-Judge-warns-of-‘Orwellian-state’

t0rnado
01-01-2011, 05:13 PM
The judge actually suppressed the evidence in this case and the guy didn't get charged for possession or trafficking of weed.

ionlyknowy
01-01-2011, 05:37 PM
Any ruling on a suppression issue is done either pre trial in a motion to suppress or when the parties call "ready" for trial the day of trial. If the suppression issue is decided before the jury is empaneled i.e. in a motion to suppress hearing, then no double jeopardy attaches and the State can appeal the decision.

This means that the case cited above was most likely disposed of on a motion to suppress originally and the State appealed the decision. This also means that if eventually the appellate courts etc. rule that warrantless GPS tracking is legal then the Defendant will still be charged with the possession of marijuana. So he is not totally free yet.