Tempers Flare as DNR Stalls on Providing Warrants for GPS Trackers

[Spot77]

http://mobile.wboc.com/?targetURL=ht...gation-meeting

Tempers Flare Over Tracking Devices on Watermen's Boats

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Story posted 2012.01.27 at 04:09 PM EST


ANNAPOLIS, Md.- Tempers flared at Friday's Eastern Shore Delegation meeting in Annapolis, where lawmakers sparred with Maryland Department of Natural Resources officials over tracking devices the DNR placed on the boats of several watermen.

A year ago, several Dorchester County watermen found a tracking device underneath the sterns of their boats. DNR Secretary John Griffin admitted to placing the devices on the vessels to monitor any illegal activity. He said his department had warrants for the devices.

"We followed all lawful procedures, including securing search warrants from courts," Griffin said.

However, the DNR has refused to show the warrants to lawmakers.

"Here we are a year later, we still don't know what judge issued the warrant to authorize the tracking devices to be installed," said Sen. Richard Colburn, a Republican who represents Caroline, Dorchester, Talbot and Wicomico counties.

"They (DNR) say trust us, we are looking out for your best interest, we're doing everything constitutionally, and yet they will not provide any documentation that they followed the constitution," said Del. Michael Smigiel Jr., a Republican who represents Cecil County.

Earlier this week, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that court authorization is necessary to place tracking devices on cars. Colburn believes that ruling also applies to boats.

Scott Todd, who serves as president of the Dorchester Seafood Harvesters Association, thinks the DNR's investigation of watermen has been a waste of time and money.

"It would be a much better use of the state's resources to put these black boxes on murderers, drug addicts, thieves and drug dealers, than just somebody who is looking for a fish," he said.

Probable cause needs to be established in order to obtain a search warrant. Probable cause statements and warrants are public records after they are returned to the court.

Delegates also asked Griffin times to produce the probable cause statements for the warrants his department obtained, but as with the warrants, he has refused to show them.



Story posted 2012.01.27 at 04:09 PM EST

[Chesapeake Rock]

Sure sounds like DNR is covering something up

[garlien]

I understand the personal freedom thing and all...I would not want the police to "bug" my car...

However, if it were used for "business" purposes only, there is a place that I could understand, especially in light of recent events...

I dont like the stealth way they go about it, but if it was a "regualtion" I dont see the issue.

If they are not doing anything wrong, while using their boats for "work" why is it a big deal ?

[reds]

This is the whole thing in a nutshell.

"Probable cause needs to be established in order to obtain a search warrant. Probable cause statements and warrants are public records after they are returned to the court.

Delegates also asked Griffin times to produce the probable cause statements for the warrants his department obtained, but as with the warrants, he has refused to show them. "

[Skip]

Scott Todd should run the names of convicted poachers through the Md court system search.

He'll find more then a few who have convictions for drug use and thief.

Got to question why any one would be against a simple GPS tracker if they are not doing any thing wrong.

Also have to question who is buying the stolen fish / oysters from poachers.

The more DNR can do to stop poaching - more fish / oysters there will be for everyone.

The more poachers steal - less there is for everyone.

[Spot77]

Why not put speed recorders on personal vehicles that transmit speed data to the state police so they can mail you a ticket everytime you break the speed limit?

Who would oppose such a thing since it's in the public's best interest? And if you're not doing anything wrong, then what do you have to worry about?

If the conditions of obtaining a commercial fishing license included the random tracking of boats, that might be different. MIGHT be...I don't know enough about the red tape those guys deal with really.


And the fact that the LAW REQUIRES a judge to sign off on the probable cause warrant, and may have been circumvented worries me greatly.

I don't want ANY law enforcement entity having carte blanche to violate the law, or our constitutional and civil rights. I don't care what the goal is; to me the means will never justify the ends.


How about we track charter boat captains too? Surely there's some kind of law enforcement issues or enviromental impact data that can be harvested from this.

I mean....what charter captain would ever use his boat for personal pleasure fishing, or a family cruise right?

I'm all for stopping poaching using EVERY LEGAL MEANS POSSIBLE, with the emphasis on LEGAL. Don't like the laws? Lobby your elected representatives in the general assembly to change them.

Anyway, I'm curious if this is just some political hardball being played, or whether some laws were actually broken. I won't condemn the DNR yet, but I'll be watching closely.

[reds]

Originally Posted by Skip

Scott Todd should run the names of convicted poachers through the Md court system search.

He'll find more then a few who have convictions for drug use and thief.

Got to question why any one would be against a simple GPS tracker if they are not doing any thing wrong.

Also have to question who is buying the stolen fish / oysters from poachers.

The more DNR can do to stop poaching - more fish / oysters there will be for everyone.

The more poachers steal - less there is for everyone.

He'll find more then a few who have convictions for drug use and thief.

Running names thru the court system can bring up many surprises.

Got to question why any one would be against a simple GPS tracker if they are not doing any thing wrong.

If you have never defended the US Constitution, I'm sure it is easy to give someone's freedom away.Try convincing the dead war veterans who took the oath and then died defending it.

[Spot77]

http://www.phoebuslaw.com/blog/landm...ithout-warrant

In a landmark decision issued today, the United States Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the Fourth Amendment requires law enforcement to get a warrant before they may attach a GPS device to a vehicle in order to track the movements of a suspect in a criminal investigation. In the case of United States v. Jones, investigators had attached a GPS unit to the undercarriage of a vehicle driven by a suspected drug dealer. The GPS unit was configured to use a cell phone to call and report his location. Over about a month of time, nearly 4,000 pages of data about his location was sent to law enforcement. During the month-long surveillance, they went underneath Jones' vehicle a second time and replaced the battery.

The Supreme Court held that the property interests of the vehicle's driver required the police to first obtain a warrant before using a GPS device. Importantly, the Court distinguished the case of Jones from a prior decision of U.S. v. Knotts, which had upheld the use of a beeper hidden in a canister to track a chemical shipment. Because the beeper in that case was placed with the consent of the container's owner before it was transferred to the suspect, it was different than Jones. No one in Jones consented to the placement of the GPS device.

Decision confirms Maryland DNR's 2011 monitoring of watermen was illegal

Last winter, commercial watermen located GPS tracking devices that had been surreptitiously placed on their workboats, allowing Maryland's DNR and the Natural Resources Police to monitor their movements. When questioned by lawmakers on whether they had a warrant, DNR would only say that they "followed all necessary law and procedure". Today's Supreme Court decision makes clear that DNR's monitoring of watermen was illegal. Lawmakers in Annapolis had already introduced legislation to prohibit DNR from using these devices without a court order, a requirement that today's Supreme Court decision will make the law of the land.

BUT, there's two sides to every story, and the truth is usually somewhere in between.

This article does confirm the Supreme Court ruling, but it also includes info carefully ignored by the piece written above:

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/201...us-gps-ruling/

The Supreme Court said Monday that law enforcement authorities might need a probable-cause warrant from a judge to affix a GPS device to a vehicle and monitor its every move — but the justices did not say that a warrant was needed in all cases.The convoluted decision, in what is arguably the biggest Fourth Amendment case in the computer age, rejected the Obama administration’s position that attaching a GPS device to a vehicle was not a search. The government had told the high court that it could even affix GPS devices on the vehicles of all members of the Supreme Court, without a warrant.“We hold that the government’s installation of a GPS device on a target’s vehicle, and its use of that device to monitor the vehicle’s movements, constitutes a ‘search,’” Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the five-justice majority. The majority declined to say whether that search was unreasonable and required a warrant.

All nine justices, however, agreed to toss out the life sentence of a District of Columbia drug dealer who was the subject of a warrantless, 28-day surveillance via GPS.
Four justices in a minority opinion said that the prolonged GPS surveillance in this case amounted to a search needing a warrant. But the minority opinion was silent on whether GPS monitoring for shorter periods would require one.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor voted with the majority, but wrote in a separate, solo opinion that both the majority and minority opinions were valid. She also suggested that Americans have more rights to privacy in data held by phone and internet companies than the Supreme Court has held in the past.

It was a unanimous decision, even if many Justices had differing opinions on why it was illegal.

So now some questions remain: Did the MD DNR have warrants allowing them to attach tracking devices to these peoples' boats?

Regardless of the answer, how long will they stall before either providing the warrants or admitting they never got them?

And will they, in typical MD government fashion simply ignore the ruling until some waterman has the money to challenge the government in court?

[garlien]

Ah the political BS thread....Love it...

Now who is actually going fishing this week, nice weather ahead and its a hell of a lot more fun to talk about than politics !

[Spot77]

Originally Posted by garlien

Ah the political BS thread....Love it...

Now who is actually going fishing this week, nice weather ahead and its a hell of a lot more fun to talk about than politics !

Touche'.

But unfortunately protecting the natural resources has become a very divisive political issue, and the obligations of responsible and reasonable fishermen are to protect the resources as much as possible while enjoying them.

Shame that some have to polarize the issues for financial or other personal gain.

I'm not one to just complain ion an internet forum when something pushes sand in my mangina. All of my representatives, and the representatives in my former district know who I am and they've all heard from me plenty over the years. I save every letter and email from them and hold them responsible for their actions or inactions. I encourage everyone to do the same regardless of one's position or issue.



And yes, I said, "mangina."