Sign up for daily news updates from CleanTechnica on email. Or follow us on Google News! Over the years, we’ve gotten quite a few e-bikes in to review. I don’t do every kind of riding, and I don’t have time to do long-term tests on every bike, so I often recruit friends and family to […]
I started reading this thinking it was going to be about defense in depth, meaning using multiple layers of security like locks, cables, parking location, time of day, proximity to other bikes, etc.
This article touched on that, and then went further into an appropriate amount of depth into the US Fourth Amendment, probable cause, recalcitrant and varying police and judicial responses, and ultimately some possible policy changes to advance the goal of a cleaner transportation future.
Not a bad read at all!
The fourth amendment is irrelevant here. It’s not news that they need a warrant to enter someone’s property. GPS coordinates are more than enough probable cause to get one - the real reasons are judges being dumb, and cops being lazy.
The Fourth Amendment is very relevant here, since the whole reason why cops/prosecutors/judges need to have probable cause is because the Fourth Amendment demands having it prior to issuing a warrant. While most people might be aware that cops need to present a warrant before letting them into their house, not everyone is so aware of the details stemming from American constitutional jurisprudence.
Then there’s the legitimate question of how much weight should be placed on GPS evidence. Courts and judges don’t just blindly accept GPS, since even it has flaws. It’s very good, but degraded GPS can have a circle as wide as dozens of meters, which is enough to implicate the wrong house, or the wrong apartment in a complex. For a related example of geolocation gone horribly wrong, refer to the MaxMind Kansas glitch.
With all that said, your conclusion is correct that some judges just simply don’t want to do the required probable cause analysis, and neither do some cops.