Difference between revisions of "GPS Evidence and the Fourth Amendment"
From Criminal Defense Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search| Line 40: | Line 40: | ||
In Maynard the police used a GPS device on the defendant's vehicle 24 hours a day for four weeks. The police did not have a warrant to use the GPS device. | In Maynard the police used a GPS device on the defendant's vehicle 24 hours a day for four weeks. The police did not have a warrant to use the GPS device. | ||
| − | The court rejected the government's contention that Knotts was binding precedent. They distinguished Knotts by concluding that the kind of comprehensive, sustained monitoring that comes from GPS use was of a different nature than the beeper information in Knotts: | + | The court rejected the government's contention that Knotts was binding precedent. They distinguished Knotts by concluding that the kind of comprehensive, sustained monitoring that comes from GPS use was of a different nature than the beeper information in Knotts and that the information gleaned from the GPS unit was not in fact "public": |
| + | |||
| + | |||
