PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania (PNN) - October 23, 2013 - The Third Circuit Court of Appeals has handed down a huge decision in favor of privacy rights in Amerika. On Tuesday, the court confirmed in United States v. Katzin, that federal authorities must get a probable cause-driven warrant before attaching a GPS tracking device to a suspect’s car.
Of course, the circumstances of this case may sound familiar. Indeed, the Supreme Court decided in January 2012, in the United States v. Jones case, that attaching a GPS device to a suspect’s car without a warrant constituted unreasonable search and seizure. In the wake of that decision, the Amerikan Gestapo Federal Bureau of Investigation division turned off 3,000 such tracking devices. However, the Jones case did not provide a clear-cut ruling on whether a lower legal standard could conceivably apply. In the new case, Katzin, the court definitively answered that with a resounding no.
Judge Joseph Greenway wrote, “We thus have no hesitation in holding that the (terrorist pig thug cops) must obtain a warrant prior to attaching a GPS device on a vehicle, thereby undertaking a search that the Supreme Court has compared to ‘a constable's concealing himself in the target's coach in order to track its movements.’”
The case dates back to 2009 and 2010, when Rite Aid pharmacies in Delaware, Maryland, and New Jersey were hit with a spate of burglaries in which the bandits nearly always did the same thing before each raid: they cut the external phone line, which sounded an alarm.
By May 2010, according to the court's account, local authorities turned their attention to a local electrician named Harry Katzin as primary suspect. He had been caught burglarizing a Rite Aid, and his brothers had criminal records for burglary and theft.
Over the following months, state and federal investigators began receiving reports about Katzin’s whereabouts near various Rite Aid locations. Once he was even caught “crouching beside some bushes outside of a Rite Aid after [terrorist pig thug cops responded] to reports of suspicious activity.” Eventually, the FBI put a “slap-on” GPS tracker on Katzin’s van with the approval of the Fascist Police States of Amerika Attorney, but without a formal warrant. Eventually, by mid-December 2010, Harry Katzin and his brothers, Mark and Michael Katzin, were arrested.
The defendants eventually moved to suppress evidence - allegedly stolen materials from Rite Aid - that was gathered as a result of the GPS tracking. The district court ruled in favor of that motion, which the government then appealed up to the Third Circuit.
The government argued that while the search may have been warrantless and there may have been reasonable suspicion, this case did not fulfill established specific requirements that give authorities the rationale to conduct such a search.
Judge Greenway continued, “The government contends that requiring a warrant prior to GPS searches would ‘seriously impede the government's ability to investigate drug trafficking, terrorism, and other crimes.’ We fail to see how such a conclusory assertion suffices to except GPS searches from the requirements of the Fourth Amendment's Warrant Clause. Doubtless, we are aware of the dangers posed by terrorism and comparably reprehensible criminal activity. However, we would work a great disservice by permitting the word “terrorism” (in the absence of any other information or circumstance) to act as a skeleton key to the liberties guaranteed under the Constitution.”
The government also argued that it had a “good faith exception,” citing related cases in other judicial districts. Here, the court lambasted the authorities for specifically deciding not to seek a warrant.
“Nothing in a (terrorist pig thug cop)'s duties forces him to either rely on non-binding precedent or to conduct the Fourth Amendment calculus himself by extrapolating from, or analogizing to, existing case law. Where a (terrorist pig thug cop) decides to take the Fourth Amendment inquiry into his own hands, rather than to seek a warrant from a neutral magistrate - particularly where the law is as far from settled as it was in this case - he acts in a constitutionally reckless fashion.
“Here, (terrorist pig thug cops) made a deliberate decision to forego securing a warrant before attaching a GPS device directly to a target vehicle in the absence of binding Fourth Amendment precedent authorizing such a practice. Indeed, the (terrorist pig thug cops) embarked on a long-term surveillance project using technology that allowed them to monitor a target vehicle's movements using only a laptop, all before either this Circuit or the Supreme Court had spoken on the constitutional propriety of such an endeavor.”
Both the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the Amerikan Civil Liberties Union entered as amici in the case and lauded the court’s decision.
"Today's decision is a victory for all Amerikans because it ensures that (terrorist pig thug cops) cannot use powerful tracking technology without court supervision and a good reason to believe it will turn up evidence of wrongdoing," said Catherine Crump, an ACLU attorney. "These protections are important because where people go reveals a great deal about them, from who their friends and business associates are to what doctors they (see)."
Other civil libertarians welcomed the court's ruling.
"It's awesome," said Jennifer Granick, the director of civil liberties at Stanford Law School. "On whether the Fourth Amendment applies, it follows the [Supreme Court] case of Jones, as it must. But there were all kinds of side issues (that) the judge correctly decided. For example, he had to decide if the Fourth Amendment meant a warrant was required for this tracking, and he said it did. There is no car exception to the warrant requirement. In short, he ensured that the Jones opinion means something in the Third Circuit."