If GPS tracking is okay for them, is it okay for us?

Thursday, May 12th, 2011

Another Agitator fan sent me a link to a story regarding a recent Ohio court ruling that upholds warrantless GPS tracking of people in their cars.

[Judge] Holbrook wrote that “a reasonable expectation of privacy” does not exist for those parking and traveling on public roads.

This topic has been in the news for some time and the practice apparently dates back for some years.   I first heard about it when an American born Muslim student discovered a GPS tracker on his car and the FBI demanded it back.    That student has since filed a lawsuit against the FBI for violating his right to privacy.  According to this recent article in WIRED, federal district courts have been inconsistent, but Obama, being no more of a champion of privacy than his moronic predecessor, is trying to get the issue before the Supreme Court so they can dispense with that silly warrant nonsense once and for all.

If it is legal for a cop to follow you when you’re driving, then I believe SCOTUS will rule that GPS tracking constitutes the same thing and is therefore Constitutional.

The person who sent me the link asks this:   If the courts ultimately rule that it’s okay for cops to attach one of these to a car without a warrant, would it not then be perfectly legal for ordinary citizens to do it back to the cops?

My answer would be, no.   There are two kinds of people in this world:   the rulers and the ruled.   If there is anything we know from watching our government in action, the rules (made by the rulers) apply only to the ruled.    But, using the “reasonable expectation of privacy” angle,  it would be hard (not impossible) to argue that cops have an expectation of privacy that citizens don’t have.  We’ve seen Radley make this argument with regard to citizens recording cops, and vice versa.

Anyone else care to weigh in on the question?

[Posted by Dave Krueger]

Digg it |  reddit |  del.icio.us |  Fark

57 Responses to “If GPS tracking is okay for them, is it okay for us?”

  1. #1 |  John Q. Galt | 

    If it’s not an issue of privacy, then it is certainly an issue of trespassing, stalking, harassment and breaking-and-entry of a vehicle. Derp goes the Idiocracy.

    4) Ammo box.

  2. #2 |  SJE | 

    If there is no reasonable expectation of privacy, then it should be OK for citizens to do it, just as it is OK for me to watch you walking down the street.

    If you find a tracking device on your car, you should go and put it on a cop car. After all, you are only returning it to them. Or, go and have fun with it. e.g. interstate truck, and have them following you for weeks. Just make sure you park your own car somewhere else.

  3. #3 |  Boyd Durkin | 

    There are two kinds of people in this world: the rulers and the ruled.

    I think you answered it.

    Along a similar vein, I heard a couple predictions of the future:

    1. Computers not connected to the Internet will be illegal.
    2. Cars without GPS tracking will be illegal.

    For the children, of course.

  4. #4 |  Chris | 

    >> If it is legal for a cop to follow you when you’re driving, then I believe SCOTUS will rule that GPS tracking constitutes the same thing and is therefore Constitutional.

    The problem is this – Cops can’t arbitrarily follow you around on private land. The GPS tracker doesn’t know the difference. It’s definitely an issue of privacy since I have a reasonable expectation that my non-public movements are private.

  5. #5 |  matlock expressway | 

    It’s illegal (I assume) for me to affix a decal to someone else’s car without their permission. Why wouldn’t it be vandalism for anyone else to do so?

    So, it might be legal for a cop to follow my car anywhere because there’s nothing illegal in that. But I’d like to see a cop affix a tracking device to my car without vandalising it. Crucial distinction, no?

  6. #6 |  Tyro | 

    If I still believed that the US courts valued equality under the law, I would love to see someone try this to establish a precedent that placing trackers on cars was an invasion of privacy. But I fear Dave is right, not merely in a cynical practical sense that the powerful and wealthy have more connections but in the legal sense where we’ve seen courts say that cops can expect privacy when conducting traffic stops (and so can’t be recorded) but we citizens can not expect privacy under the exact same conditions.

    There is increasingly one law for the rulers and one for the ruled. Not merely a practical power imbalance but a legal one as well.

  7. #7 |  Jim Collins | 

    Police cars are public property and Police Officers are public servants, therefore they have no expectation of privacy while on duty. There it is plain and simple.

  8. #8 |  Boyd Durkin | 

    Can the regular TA readers try to treat the guest posters with a little respect. We get it…you miss Radley, but he asked these people (none of which are Radley clones) to guest. Civility.

    If I find a police GPS on my car, that thing is getting coated in feces.

  9. #9 |  Jesse | 

    Even if the government can’t ban placing GPS trackers on cop cars without creating a blatant double-standard, we all know how this would functionally work. Prosecutors would file charges against citizens for vandalism of public property or “obstructing”. They’ll find something. And at the same time, they will forever refuse to file identical charges against police for the same thing.

  10. #10 |  Yizmo Gizmo | 

    Well, photography is a good analogy. It’s legal for them to record us
    and us to record them, except Illinois, but attempts of civilians to video cops are met with frivolous arrests on trumped up charges.
    So it’s technically legal, but your ass is still going to jail.
    Same with trying to put a GPS device on a police car.
    ——————-
    BTW Remember James Mandarino, Illinois cop caught on camera beating a
    guy with his baton. Found guilty, wants a new trial. I read the article, the explanation for a new trial is laughable:

    “At the heart of the argument for a new trial is the stack of letters from family, friends and former colleagues.”

    “They’re really very emotional when you go through them. We didn’t send a notice out there asking people to submit letters to us, they were just coming in and they continue to come in every day,” Beuke said.

    http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/120640889.html

  11. #11 |  Bob | 

    “Police cars are public property and Police Officers are public servants, therefore they have no expectation of privacy while on duty. There it is plain and simple.”

    Except in Illinois, of course. The “Film a cop, go to jail” state.

  12. #12 |  Difster | 

    If I found a tracker on my car, I’d take it to a municipal airport and attach it to a small plane. That would be freaking hilarious! Let’s see the cops follow that.

    In any case, they should not be able to attach a GPS to your car without a warrant because I believe that constitutes a search. And, as others have pointed out, it doesn’t know when you’re on private land so it can deactivate.

    I could start a business: Drive through GPS detector. People could have their vehicles scanned for GPS units. Through some research, I could probably learn to tell the difference between the signals of different types of units.

    If you have a vehicle with OnStar, there’s no reason for police to put a GPS on your vehicle, they’ll just call OnStar and have them track you. I’m not sure how they are about warrants.

  13. #13 |  Xenocles | 

    In my view a good thumbrule for this question is that if I would object to a stranger doing the same thing to my property*, a police officer should need a warrant to do it. I know I would react poorly to seeing a guy open the hood of my car to wire a tracking device into its electrical system. Likewise, if I owned a large tract of land, I would object to someone following me as I traveled through it.

    *This would not apply to someone following me around on the streets as I drove, since it has nothing to do with my property. It would certainly raise my hackles, but people have the right to go to the same public places as me.

  14. #14 |  Abersouth | 

    Here’s a teardown of a found gps tracker.

    http://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/Tracking-Device-Teardown/5250/1

  15. #15 |  Greg | 

    1. Computers not connected to the Internet will be illegal.
    2. Cars without GPS tracking will be illegal.

    @Boyd,

    I’m afraid you’re right, in the short term. However, looking out 30-ish years I highly doubt you’ll be driving as we know it. At least in urban areas.

    We already have self-driving cars. From Google experiments that are roaming the roads of NorCal, to fully “assisited” S-class Benzs, it’s already in the works.

    First it’ll be a high-cost option on an S-class. Then it’ll filter down to the rest of the Benz range and highline imports and maybe Caddy. 5 years out from there, it’ll be on Corollas.

    Once enough data proves that humans are the weakest link in the automotive chain, the results are inevitable. You ain’t gonna be the one at the wheel. You may be the one who files their driving program with the States’ computers “for your own protection” to “prevent terrorism” and “for the children”. But you won’t be steering. Or operating the go pedal.

    Technology is inevitable. Government using it against us is also inevitable. Anyone who didn’t see that the gov would not only track your car, but listen to your conversations at will with OnStar in their ride must believe in Santa. And the Easter Bunny. And the SuperBestFriends.

  16. #16 |  Wavemanns | 

    I think TMZ should start affixing GPS tracking devices to celebrity cars as a test case for us.

  17. #17 |  Dante | 

    I remember a sci-fi book about the future I read long ago, “An Canticle for Liebowitcz” or something like that.

    All cars were computer-driven, people were never in control of them. The police all had little black boxes they could point at your car and “take control”. It made car-chases obsolete, they could lock your doors and shut down the engine whenever they wanted. Cars became another tool of state control over the people.

    Couldn’t happen to us, though.

  18. #18 |  Aresen | 

    Jim Collins | May 12th, 2011 at 11:39 am

    Police cars are public property sacred conveyances and Police Officers are masters of all they survey public servants, therefore they have no expectation of privacy are above the law and the common people, who should respect their authoritah while on duty as well as when they off duty. There it is plain and simple.

    (Corrected to reflect Official Policy.)

  19. #19 |  Mario | 

    GPS trackers completely change the context within which we understand notions of privacy, and that is what the courts, prosecutors, police, et al. are either missing or willfully ignoring.

    Being visible as you travel through various public places means that you can be observed in discrete instances, not continually observed. Sure, any random stranger can see what you are doing at any given time. That’s not the same as every random stranger observing you, taking notes, and comparing and compiling notes with one another, which is essentially what GPS tracking accomplishes.

    Moreover, being tailed by a police car, or several cars, or being shadowed on foot by a patrolman or team of them is different as well. Available manpower operates under a completely different level of scarcity than technological devices, which only seem to become ever more cheaply manufactured and deployed. In the past, if the police were tailing someone, we had to assume that the incentives demanded that police prioritize and only tail people of interest. With electronic surveillance, however, as these devices become even more inexpensive it is possible that everyone will now be “of interest.” Again, it represents a completely different context in which we understand public and private.

    There is an old adage: legal training sharpens the mind by narrowing it. That is exactly what is going on with these broken analogies the courts are employing. GPS tracking is a completely different animal and requires fresh consideration. It is a threat to privacy.

  20. #20 |  BamBam | 

    @12, the cops would hijack a plane to follow it. Your premise reminds me of an episode of The Office where Michael Scott followed the GPS directions into a river because it told him to go there.

  21. #21 |  Tolly | 

    Why would we wanna follow cops in the first place? “Donut shop, donut shop, donut shop…”

    Seriously though, I think cops in some metro areas have transponders on their cars already. These are used to track them on duty and make sure they’re not sleeping or running errands. It happens that some officers are fired o disciplined (although always with full pensions!) for sleeping in the car or staying home and faking duty hours. It’d be interesting if those logs are accessible to the public.

    Also, #12 stated a great free-market/tech solution : GPS tracker detectors. Maybe an easy thing to spec up, given the transmitting nature of a planted tracker. Although then some chickenshit senators would “politely request” that the manufacturer stop producing a device that harms law-enforcement (like the DUI checkpoint apps).

  22. #22 |  Jerith | 

    So can we take off the tracker and just leave it there in the street? Then call in a suspicious box/package.

    Just doing our duty! See it report it. Have the SWAT team piss off the FBI or whoever.

  23. #23 |  Mike | 

    Get creative. Soak the tracker in sugar soda, then take it apart and snip every wire possible. Hand it back + a bill for your “services”, and ask them to pay a rental fee.

    Yes, I know I’m not faced with a pissed off FBI agent while I’m writing this.

  24. #24 |  Windy | 

    @15 “Technology is inevitable. Government using it against us is also inevitable. Anyone who didn’t see that the gov would not only track your car, but listen to your conversations at will with OnStar in their ride must believe in Santa. And the Easter Bunny. And the SuperBestFriends.”

    Which is why we need to get rid of this big, overbearing, intrusive government, at the very least, and perhaps all government (if we’re smart and lucky).

    @19 “GPS tracking is a completely different animal and requires fresh consideration. It is a threat to privacy.”

    Absolutely!

  25. #25 |  Highway | 

    Gotta remember that these trackers are not real-time reporting. They attach, track for a period of time, and are then retrieved by the agency for reporting. So if you send it on a plane or attach it to a random long-haul trailer, it’s the same functionally as taking it off and chucking it into a stream. Don’t think you’re sending them on some wild goose chase. They’ll just try to retrieve it and not find it.

    Meanwhile, I’ll just be over here, lamenting the fact that I’ve just thought about how the justification for being civil to police agents is “So they won’t illegally abuse their position against me.”

  26. #26 |  Pablo | 

    I agree with #1, I see it as less an issue of privacy (the courts are correct that one does not have an expectation of privacy when one is in a public place) and more of a trespass issue. To me it should be obvious that if LEOs trespass against ones property–land, house, car, whatever–without a warrant then that is a violation of the 4th amendment.

  27. #27 |  Leon Wolfeson | 

    Mario – And yet who doesn’t carry a cell phone? In many cases, it will give a better record of your movements than GPS.

    I’d suggest reading David Brin (who’s, broadly, a libertarian himself)’s _The Transparent Society_. It’s from 1998, yes, but the issues he discussed with privacy have only become more urgent, if anything.

  28. #28 |  Aresen | 

    If you find one:

    1) Take it off your car.
    2) Put it in your closet (soundproof).
    3) Wait till they show up to claim it.
    4) Demand they prove ownership (“Please provide a receipt. I cannot risk giving found property to the wrong person.”)
    5) Have someone present to film the encounter in #4, which should be outside your house. Don’t let them enter without a warrant.

  29. #29 |  qwints | 

    It should be noted that the question of whether it is illegal for the police to attach a GPS device to your car is (in most states) separate from whether it is unconstitutional for them use the evidence from such an advice. As an example, police who enter without permission onto ‘open fields’ may use evidence they find without violating the 4th amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures. US v. Dunn, 480 US 294 (1987).

  30. #30 |  Dr X | 

    I wonder if the Illinois Electronic Eavesdropping law that makes illegal to audio record a person speaking in a public place without their consent would make it illegal to follow a person relying solely on an electronic tracking device without their consent. Why do I imagine that the police in Illinois are seeing apples and oranges?

  31. #31 |  Xaq Fixx | 

    @Highway – There are multiple versions, the one the kid is suing over, and the one ifixit disassembled, work in that manner but those are old tech. There are essentially 3 types. (http://howto.wired.com/wiki/Check_Your_Car_for_a_GPS_Tracker)
    1) Passive Tracker – the one you are describing, has to be picked up and has a big battery pack.
    2) Active Trackers – Broadcasts your location either continuously or in timed bursts (think more e-mail than TV), can also be set to broadcast only when car is moving. They can also be hardwired into your car so there is no battery pack (making them much smaller). Can’t be under the hood or in the trunk. GPS won’t work inside or often in cities.
    3)Deep Cover – Use cell tower tracking more than GPS, also only broadcast short messages, smallest, hardwired, hardest to find, can be ANYWHERE in car. Anywhere you can get a cell connection OR a GPS connection.

  32. #32 |  Chris in AL | 

    If somebody comes and puts something in my mailbox, on my front porch or in my garage they have given it to me. If you come and stick it on my car without my permission or knowledge you willfully gave it to me and made it my property, did you not? I am not obligated to properly care for it, leave where you put it or return it on demand am I? If you wanted it so badly you wouldn’t have stuck it on someone’s car and let them drive away with it. I am not even obligated to recognize it as a tracking device. If I find it and think ‘I don’t know what this car part is for, but my car seems to run okay without it’ and throw it away, how can I be found to have done anything wrong?

  33. #33 |  Samsam von Virginia | 

    License plate recognition technology is rather common and inexpensive now. If it needs to be cheaper, I can easily imagine an open-source project to develop such software, and to encourage citizens to erect cameras on property they have legitimate access to, and collect info on police vehicles to be posted on-line.

    Plates are easy, but other characteristics of the vehicle could also trigger recognition.

    Citizens could have an app running that monitors the collected info and informs them whenever a suspect vehicle appears to be headed their way.

  34. #34 |  BSK | 

    Regardless of privacy, what right do they have to store their shit in my car? I can’t drop of a box of old casette tapes at your place and demand that you hold on to them. What right do they have to put something of theirs onto my car without my permission? That is where I would argue. They violated my personal property rights.

  35. #35 |  BSK | 

    I see several others covered this issue far better than I. I tip my hat to them and echo their sentiments.

  36. #36 |  Marty | 

    the asshole govt already puts ugly inspection stickers on our cars, trucks, and motorcycles, forces us to have ugly license plates (so they can more easily track us), and now they’re putting gps units on us at their leisure. as the cost of the technology drops and their perceived benefit rises, we’ll all have them. at our expense, of course.

    walk up to someone’s prize vehicle and put an index size sticker on it and see if you don’t get punched. let someone catch you tagging their vehicle with a gps transceiver and see if you don’t get punched. I feel like I’m watching the wedding scene in Braveheart where the nobleman asserts his right to fuck the bride on her first night of marriage. No one gets away with this shit- except noblemen.

  37. #37 |  David | 

    It would still be problematic due to trespassing and vandalism laws. That said, since privacy apparently doesn’t matter here, I’d like to see people go after the cops for vandalism.

  38. #38 |  Dyspeptic Curmudgeon | 

    I think the proper reaction, if you find one on your car, would be to track down the address and car ownership of the local federal or superior court judge you like least and put the thing on HIS car. Wear gloves! (May require special effort not to break any laws along the way, but he probably will part on public property somewhere…shopping etc.).
    Especially good if you drive your car to where you do the transfer, so the trace track is seamless.
    Await fun to break out.
    Especially useful if said judge does go somewhere interesting.
    Deny all knowledge of *anything* from the get-go. Take Fifth at ‘what is your name?’.

  39. #39 |  albatross | 

    Surely the right way to handle this is to put GPS trackers on the cars of Supreme Court justices, and publish detailed traces of their movements. Since there’s no reasonable assumption of privacy when driving on public roads, clearly, they would have no reason to complain. Right?

  40. #40 |  Highway | 

    Xaq, thanks for the info.

    The whole attitude of government and police changed at some point, from “When someone commits a crime, we’ll find out who they were, and what they were doing, and where they were doing it” to “We’ll know, as much as possible, where everyone is and what they are doing, so when a crime happens, we’ll know presumptively who did it.”

    That they think it’s acceptable to know where everyone is at all times tells you everything you need to know.

  41. #41 |  Mario | 

    Leon Wolfeson @ #27

    I don’t see how cell phones are the same thing. Number one, I can choose whether to carry one; no one is slipping one in my pocket. Number two, I think that police should need to obtain a warrant to get cell phone records. The point concerning the GPS trackers is that they want to be able to use them without a warrant.

  42. #42 |  C. S. P. Schofield | 

    Those who were discussing controlled cars; I see this coming too, but with a slight wrinkle. It will be instituted first ( as with so many really bad ideas) in California. Since the California State Government is a seething collection of incompetent twits, it will be implemented badly, and will cause a number of increasingly horrific crashes, which the government will not have the sense to prevent by turning off the system until the bugs are out of it. There will be a huge scandal, and the idea will be dead for another fifty years.

  43. #43 |  Juice | 

    I wouldn’t try to have fun with it. I’d just destroy it. You put it on my car. It’s mine now.

  44. #44 |  maybelogics | 

    #40 “so when a crime happens, we’ll know presumptively who did it.”

    If you’re interested in such things, Highway, see Philip Dick’s short story, “The Minority Report” (1956) or the Tom Cruise movie from 2002, media theorist Richard Grusin’s work on Premediation, Donald Rumsfeld on the kinds of “knowns”, and eschatology in general.

    Horrifying, eh?

  45. #45 |  Leonson | 

    How does a police officer affix a gps tracking device to my vehicle w/o a warrant in the first place? Wouldn’t they have to trespass in order to put it on my vehicle in the first place?

  46. #46 |  John Q. Galt | 

    Common Pleas Judge Michael J. Holbrook has a car? Somebody should spray paint it with the words “I’m an asshole.” Seriously, that would be the lulz. Somebody find his dox and a local anon could do that. And they won’t get in trouble!

  47. #47 |  C. S. P. Schofield | 

    Write to your state legislator asking him to propose a law that all police cars MUST have active GPS at all times, and that the data MUST be posted on the net in real time. Sit back and listen to the squeals of outrage.

  48. #48 |  Highway | 

    I thought about bringing that up, CSP. “But then the criminals will know where the cops are!!!!” Like the probability of a cop being around when a crime is committed is anything greater than 2% anyway.

  49. #49 |  Greg | 

    C.S.P. Shofield,

    Short parts of the Desert SW, every cop in the US has a/multiple cellphone(s) and they is/are equipped with active GPS.

    Cops in any top 40-ish metro already have (car-based separate from their cell) active GPS on their cars and have for years. This is old ‘news’. How do you think they track and dispatch cars?

    Must be posted on the net in real time? Uhh yeah. That boat left port during the early days of the shrub.

    How’s that (anti)PatriotAct workin’ for ya’?

  50. #50 |  Kevin Carson | 

    A similar issue came up regarding cops who dig through people’s curbside trash without a warrant. A court in some Pacific NW town, in response to a legal challenge, ruled that the material on the curb was discarded, and therefore no reasonable expectation of privacy exists. Fine, said a local underground newspaper — and did a centerfold story on the results of their dig through the mayor’s, judge’s and C of P’s curbside trash. As you might expect, they squealed like — ahem — stuck pigs.

    If the fucking filth (as our British cousins so aptly call them) haven’t done anything wrong, they’ve got nothing to hide. Right? Right?

  51. #51 |  AlgerHiss | 

    Judges….courts….legislators….are not going to fix these situations.

    The people that actually hold these government jobs, and we all know some, need to feel uncomfortable having them.

    From frontline LEOs to the prosecutors….to their secretaries…even the janitor that cleans the courthouse….these people need to be shunned…mocked….their family members embarrassed….that cop that lives next door to you needs to be told to keep his kids away from yours.

    We should not put up with our neighbors and fellow citizens screwing us daily, and then let them be comfortable when they get home.

  52. #52 |  Laura Victoria | 

    Attn: Dave Kreuger – Wanted to get this out for posting by Dave or one of the other guest bloggers, so posted here because it’s a 4th Am. case. http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/article_ec169697-a19e-525f-a532-81b3df229697.html

    The Indiana Supreme Court held in a divided vote that there is no right to resist unlawful entry into your home by the police. This eliminated magna carta common law wholesale and went far beyond what even cop loving/statist “conservatives” needed for the case at hand.

    This ruling followed on the heels of another one that eliminated the need for a warrant to do a no-knock raid. The cops on the scene could decide on their own if knocking was appropriate or not. At least now they can stop lying about knocking.
    Apparently the statist Chief Justice was recently appointed by Mitch Daniels.

    Also, if anyone has email info for any of the guests, please let me know. Thanks.

  53. #53 |  C. S. P. Schofield | 

    Greg,

    I wasn’t proposing a system to allow tracking of cops – I assumed one was in place. I was proposing a law to explicitly allow the public to track cops, because of the fun of watching the cops explain how this could be a bad idea.

    Public “Servants” always deeply resent being reminded that THEY work for US, and not the other way around. Any time you propose a measure that makes their hireling status explicit they puff and blow and gibber.

    In a day and age when bureaucracy is spreading like an ever growing termite nest, it’s vital to cultivate a sense of humor about it – or sooner or later your head will explode, making a lot of work for some crime-scene cleanup people.

  54. #54 |  Mannie | 

    #50 | Kevin Carson | May 13th, 2011 at 2:18 am

    A similar issue came up regarding cops who dig through people’s curbside trash without a warrant. A court in some Pacific NW town, in response to a legal challenge, ruled that the material on the curb was discarded, and therefore no reasonable expectation of privacy exists.

    That is old news.

    If I have something mildly sensitive to discard, I shred it and mix it with syrup made from the treasures in the cat box. They had better want it really badly. ;-)

    Really sensitive stuff, of course, would be shredded and burned, but that’s more of a pain.

  55. #55 |  Mannie | 

    #53 | C. S. P. Schofield | May 13th, 2011 at 10:50 am

    I wasn’t proposing a system to allow tracking of cops – I assumed one was in place. I was proposing a law to explicitly allow the public to track cops, because of the fun of watching the cops explain how this could be a bad idea.

    If you want to make it really interesting, eliminate the requirement for real time posting. Put a 30 day delay on it, to eliminate any intelligence value. Let Officer Friendly explain why he spent six hours parked under the railway bridge, or in the donut shop.

    Public Serpents should be responsible to their Masters.

  56. #56 |  Dave Krueger | 

    #52 Laura Victoria

    Attn: Dave Kreuger – Wanted to get this out for posting by Dave or one of the other guest bloggers, so posted here because it’s a 4th Am. case. http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/article_ec169697-a19e-525f-a532-81b3df229697.html

    I just noticed this. I will post this if no one else beats me to it.

    Thanks.

  57. #57 |  markm | 

    The best idea: #22 | Jerith | May 12th, 2011 at 12:58 pm

    “So can we take off the tracker and just leave it there in the street? Then call in a suspicious box/package.”

    How do you know what that strange electronic device is? Take a tip from the TSA and various big city police departments – be safe and call the bomb squad to blow up any unknown electronics. After moving it to a safe distance from your property, of course.

Leave a Reply