Rocky Mountain Tracking

By Harriette Halepis

A Taiwanese woman suspected her husband of cheating, so she did what any (slightly paranoid) woman would do - she hired private investigators to install GPS tracking devices on all of her husband’s vehicles.

GPS Tracking Products

Undoubtedly there are thousands of women in the world who have used the same investigative tactics, though this woman got caught attempting to catch her cheating husband.

Normally, a small GPS tracking device would be virtually undetectable to the human eye. However, the husband in question noticed a few suspicious wires sticking out of his car. Upon investigation, he found that the wires were connected to an audio bug that was installed next to a GPS tracker.

Later that week, after a failed attempt to start his scooter, an engine mechanic discovered the source of the problem - a GPS tracker was preventing the scooter from starting. Needless to say, this husband immediately suspected his wife. As it turned out, the wife was, indeed, guilty.

Spurred by anger, the husband suspected of cheating sued his wife and her two private investigators. There’s no word of an impending divorces, but it’s highly unlikely that the two will have a trusting relationship after this debacle.

The woman that began this whole mess never did find out if her husband was cheating, though she did gain a valuable lesson in espionage: while a GPS tracker can certainly be helpful if you are suspicious of someone…it’s a good idea to hire a P.I with a bit of technical knowledge. This way, the GPS tracker that you are using won’t be so obvious.

By Greg Bartlett

We often talk about the amazing new ways that GPS tracking is aiding law enforcement. Officers all over the country have used GPS trackers to follow suspects, track drug shipments, and keep tabs on parolees. However, a recent case highlights the ability of GPS trackers to keep some over-zealous police in line.

GPS & Radar

Garath Powell was driving near Bristol, UK last November on a street marked with the limit of 50mph. A police officer staked out near road A4174 used his laser gun to clock the man at 61mph, a speed well worth pulling over. Powell took the ticket, but he was nearly certain that he had stayed below the limit. Thankfully, he had installed a GPS tracker on his vehicle, and that gave him an idea. He called the tracking company and asked if they could provide him some speed and location data at the point in time he was passing the officer. Navman Wireless, a GPS company that operates in the UK, gladly gave Powell the information he needed.

As it turns out, the GPS tracker logged him as going no more than 48mph in the 50mph zone. Somehow the officer had clocked him wrong. Powell took this information to the hearing, and a Navman technology official came along to serve as an expert witness. The Notice of Intended Prosecution was torn up, and the case was thrown out. Though Powell’s prosecution was only dismissed this past October, nearly a year after the initial ticket, his case will set a clear precedent for incorporating data from personal GPS trackers into a body of evidence for the defense.

Whether or not the officer’s assessment of Powell’s speed was an accident, this will likely encourage the use of GPS trackers in vehicles, if only to provide an extra bit of information during a dispute. The case certainly highlights the accuracy of these devices, even when compared to the standard laser gun, whose accuracy is subject to a variety of environmental factors.

Of course, the efficiency of GPS trackers can be less than helpful to speeding drivers. Parents in both the UK and the US have discovered the benefits of keeping tabs on their younger drivers’ speed. Instead of searching for peel marks on their driveway, Mom and Dad can now just place a worry-free GPS tracker under the dash. The accuracy and efficiency of GPS tracking can keep almost anyone in line.

By Greg Bartlett

Police have long employed GPS trackers to monitor to movements of those suspected of involvement in criminal activity. Certainly the technology is effective. GPS trackers are becoming far more accurate and efficient with each development generation. However, privacy advocates have brought up legitimate concerns about how or when officers can use these devices. The Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution prohibits arbitrary government search and seizure without a warrant. The question for police, lawmakers, and judges is therefore simple: does the unwarranted placement of a GPS tracker on someone’s property constitute an illegal invasion of privacy?

GPS & Criminals

The answer, as is often the case in complex issues, is yes and no. Yes, it would be illegal for officers to place a GPS tracker on your vehicle in an environment where you would have some reasonable expectation of privacy. That means no sneaking into your garage to plant one on your back bumper. But no, it would not be illegal for police to place a GPS tracker on your car while it was parked in some public place. However, in the act of placing the device must not involve intruding into legally “private” areas of your car, like the trunk or the glove compartment.

These principles were established over twenty years ago in cases such as United States v. Knotts and United States v. Karo, where suspects were tracked with radio “beepers” planted on items they planned to use in the production and distribution of drugs. In each case, the defendants argued that the tracking devices violated their privacy and could not be used as evidence against them. However, the Supreme Court ruled that as long as police used police trackers to supplement their conventional tracking activities, such as following a car along a public highway, the evidence obtained by the tracking data would be valid and admissible in court.

States are still debating the finer issues within lower courts, so activities will vary in legality across the country. In State v. Jackson, for instance, the Supreme Court of Washington ruled that GPS trackers could violate the privacy clauses within that state’s own constitution. Likewise, a Maryland court believed that GPS trackers could conflict with the Fourth Amendment, but the federal justice in charge of that case stopped short of reversing the sentence of a suspect who had been tailed with the aid of a GPS tracker on his back bumper.

Privacy questions still remain, but GPS trackers will continue to play a role in law enforcement, letting police tail offenders at a safe distance.

By Greg Bartlett

GPS tracking devices are becoming more and more common in the courtroom as proof in criminal cases. Recently the Massachusetts Supreme Court denied the appeal of Everett Connolly, who claimed that the police violated his privacy when they placed a tracking device on his vehicle in 2006.

GPS & Crime Prevention

The state of Massachusetts decided that the law enforcement officers were well within their rights to place the GPS tracking device on Connolly’s minivan, which was parked outside his apartment. The officers had a warrant, and they followed the procedure correctly and did not break privacy laws.

The court also decided that the police officers could have gone as far as breaking into the vehicle if it was necessary in order to place the tracking device, as long as they had a warrant. In order to protect the privacy of the individuals being tracked, the Supreme Court of Massachusetts placed a limit of 15 days on the GPS tracking warrant.

In Connolly’s case, this was enough time to convict him. After the tracking device was placed on his vehicle, he took a trip to New York. Police suspected this trip was to buy drugs and stopped his vehicle on a highway after he returned to Massachusetts. 124 grams of cocaine were found in the vehicle and Connolly was convicted in 2006.

Now that Connolly has lost his appeal that the law enforcement officers were acting illegally, he faces another 10 to 12 years in prison for trafficking and distributing cocaine.

The GPS tracking devices that law enforcement officers use to track suspected criminals are real time or active trackers. This enables them to watch the movements of their suspect and allows them to act more quickly. In this case, an active tracking device made it possible for the police officers to catch Connolly while the drugs were still in his vehicle, making it very easy to convict him.

State courts across the country are making their own ruling about GPS tracking systems and their use. Some states are making the warrant a necessary step in police procedure, but others, Wisconsin for instance, are not requiring a warrant in specific circumstances. In most states when a car is parked in an open space and the tracking is in a public place, police officers are free to put a tracking device on the vehicle.

State courts will continue to debate this topic to make sure that the Fourth Amendment, which protects against “unreasonable search and seizure”, is upheld and the citizens’ rights are protected.

by James Neely, freelance writer: click | HERE | to check out GPS products from Rocky Mountain Tracking

Using GPS tracking technology to track sex offenders often sparks debate, but what about using the same technology to track prison guards? Topeka, Kansas, has been in an uproar lately regarding the accusation that prison guards repeatedly attack female inmates.

GPS Tracking & Prison Systems

Two Topeka women recently spoke with the Topeka Capital Journal detailing the sexual abuse that they were forced to endure at the hands of male prison guards. The women claim that the prison guard in question picked them up in a state vehicle, drove them to remote areas, and sexually attacked them.

Following these declarations, other female inmates within Topeka have made similar claims — one of these alleged attacks even resulted in an unwanted pregnancy. This has prompted state officials to look into the matter further.
Presently, the state is still looking into these claims. Even though the prison guard who was originally accused has been relieved of his job position, Topeka citizens are demanding further justice. The likelihood that additional cases may arise is high, which has prompted state officials to consider GPS tracking.

Many believe that equipping state vehicles with GPS tracking systems is a worthwhile investment. Currently, these vehicles are not tracked. By tracking state vehicles, authorities will be able to determine whether or not prison guards are making unauthorized detours.

Recently, many states across the United States have begun equipping state vehicles with GPS tracking systems. Thus far, the systems have proven to be highly effective. In the case of Topeka inmates claiming sexual abuse, the installation of a GPS tracking system would eliminate the need for court guesswork.

By Greg Bartlett

State Rep. Anthony Weiner is concerned about the number of restraining orders in New York City. He believes that restraining orders would be more useful if they came with a GPS tracking system. Over a hundred thousand people in New York City file a restraining order every year. Most of these people are women.

Weiner believes that restraining orders are too difficult to enforce by themselves. He pointed out studies that have found 60% of restraining orders to have been violated within the first year. This politician believes that a real time GPS tracking system should be required for those who are issued a restraining order.

This plan would use the geo-fencing feature of the real time GPS tracking system. This could be set up to keep the offender away from the woman’s home or workplace. By notifying the police when the offender comes too close to the potential victim’s home, the authorities can respond before a beating or killing occurs. The main focus of this program is that lives can be saved if the police are alerted and can act immediately.

However, these systems could be helpful in other ways as well. Even if the police cannot get to the scene while the offender is still there, the GPS tracking system can be used as evidence in the case of domestic violence. The signal from the GPS could help a victim prove, for example that her ex-boyfriend broke into her home and beat her. Checking the GPS tracking system would show that he was indeed in that location and allow her to press charges.

Although this kind of a program would help police officers enforce restraining orders, it could also be seen as an invasion of privacy. A restraining order is not as serious as a criminal conviction, so it is debatable whether the authorities have a right to require the use of GPS tracking. Many New Yorkers are concerned that this program would invade the privacy of thousands of innocent people who have not done anything wrong.

More and more uses for GPS technology are being discovered every day. Unfortunately, many of those purposes that could be very helpful and could protect many lives could also be abused and misused to invade people’s privacy. In the next few years, lawmakers will be evaluating the many uses of GPS technology to ensure that it cannot be abused and that the rights of all citizens will be protected.

By Harriette Halepis

No parent wants to think of their teen driving a car while intoxicated. Yet, thousands of teenagers die in car crashes every year. That means that your teen may very well be drinking before driving. The problem is that preventing teens from having what they deem as “harmless fun” is no easy task.

What you don't know can hurt everyone!

Teens want the freedom to make mistakes, and why shouldn’t they have a bit of freedom? After all, most parents went through the same struggles while they were growing up. Is it possible to give your teen a bit of space while ensuring that they are safe?

Thanks to the dawn of the GPS tracking system, keeping your teen safe from drunk driving is easier now than it ever has been before. These tiny devices can be attached to your teen’s backpack of clothing. This way, if your teen winds up in a location that you don’t approve of, you can remove them from that situation almost immediately.

While some parents may consider tracking a teen with a GPS device a breach of privacy, knowing where your teen is at all times is the best way to keep them from drinking while driving. Of course, you can’t determine whether or not your teen has consumed alcohol, but you can determine whether or not your teen is where they claim to be.

Forget about following your teen all around town in your car. Instead, allow a small GPS tracker to do the dirty work for you. All you have to do is keep any eye on the movement of your teen. Tracking teens just may prevent teenage drunk driving from occurring.

Teen drivers are responsible for nearly 12% of all car accidents – most of these accidents involve alcohol. Not only are drunk drivers a hazard to others on the road, but they are also a hazard to themselves. Many teens wind up killing themselves by instigating a drunk driving accident.

Those that do not kill themselves often kill others instead. In either case, if you can keep your teen from harm then you will be doing the world a favour. Speak with your teen about drunk driving, tell them about the dangers of drinking before driving, and make sure to track their every move.

Is tracking your teen with a GPS tracker a violation of human rights? Not if it means keeping them (and others) safe. Driving should be a privilege for teens – not a way to push personal limits. Tracking your teen can keep them safe.

By Greg Bartlett

It seems like every week in the news there’s another story about someone who was killed by a former boyfriend or husband, or sometimes a girlfriend or wife. Many times victims even had an order of protection or a restraining order filed against their ex, but a piece of paper often won’t stop the offender.

Back in 2008, Cindy Bischof was shot to death by her ex-boyfriend, Michael Giroux. He had violated the order of protection she had taken against him at least two times, and even though he spent some time in jail for the second occasion, he shot her after he was released and then killed himself. As is often the case, the order of protection escalated the violence rather than stopped it.

In Indianapolis, 3 women were killed within the last few months by their husbands or ex-husbands, all of which had protective orders filed against them. Another woman reports feeling fearful for over a year because her former husband had been stalking her despite her order of protection.

Pieces of paper alone, such as orders of protection and restraining orders, can’t protect the victim. Recently, advocates have encouraged the use of GPS monitoring to help ensure the safety of domestic violence victims. But can these electronics really do the job?

Evidence indicates that they can at least help. No, GPS monitoring cannot actually stop an offender from killing someone, but it can keep track of the offender’s location at all times. If the offender goes within certain areas, such as the victim’s workplace or neighborhood, both police and the victim will be alerted. Police can pick up the offender for entering restricted areas, and since the victim is aware that the offender is in the area, she can take precautionary measures to ensure that he doesn’t find her.

Giving a domestic violence victim safety and security involves more than a piece of paper. GPS monitoring allows the victim to be aware if the offender is in the area and to have the opportunity to escape. It will also alert police if the offender is attempting to threaten the victim by entering restricted areas.

While GPS monitoring cannot physically stop a domestic violence offender, it can protect victims and provide them with a layer of security that an order of protection doesn’t have. For some domestic violence victims, it may even be the difference between life and death.

by James Neely - freelance writer for hire

When it comes to debating the rights of criminals vs. those of victims there are no clear winners. What remains is a healthy debate between the two sides that seemingly will never be resolved.

Victims of theft are often left with feelings of violation and anger towards the subjects who took their property. Criminals always seem to have a reason why they did what they did.

Beyond this debate lies the landscape of theft prevention and prosecution. Both of these have their limitations, but that does not mean that they should not be used.

Looking at the prosecution side of the argument should be an examination of the role of GPS trackers and how they can help recover stolen property and return it to the rightful owners.

GPS tracking devices are neutral when it comes to the debate between these two sides, but when utilized properly, they are effective. Here’s how:

Attach to assets. When you use these units to make your property traceable if it is ever stolen, then you automatically place yourself in the position of being able to retrieve it right away and finding out who has the property. Being able to have access to this information is good for both yourself and society as a whole.
If you need additional information from GPS tracking devices, you can also track for use and abuse as well.

Tracking with precision. You can track your property to within a few feet of its actual location, track for direction of travel and even speed. This data can also be useful for when others are using them. Then, if there is a problem, it can be addressed based upon facts and not speculation.

Lower insurance costs. If you use your GPS trackers for your vehicles, you can obtain a reduction in your monthly premiums because of it. Insurance companies like to lower their risk on the things they insure and they are willing to give back by lowering premiums when it helps their cause as well.

Provide reports of activities. Need detailed reports of where and when your property was used in your absence? You can get it with a GPS tracker. By using NavIQ software and the right model of device this information is placed at your fingertips on your computer.

The debate between victims and criminal rights will continue, but for now, it is best to protect yourself and property by obtaining GPS trackers. It is a decision you will not regret.

By Harriette Halepis

Using GPS tracking systems to track criminals has been widespread lately. Various states have adopted policies that include the tracking of criminals, while other states are not too quick to implement GPS tracking technology.

While it seems as though the types of criminals that are forced to wear tracking devices varies from area to area, sex offenders and domestic abusers are generally pinpointed. This selectivity has caused a great deal of public anger. Further, it has prompted many different people to point towards other types of offenders that should be tracked in lieu of sex offenders and domestic violence offenders.

The question is: who should be tracked? What kind of criminal should be followed for the rest of their life, while other criminals are left undisturbed? Is the sex offender or domestic abuser any less of a threat to society than someone that has been convicted of drug smuggling or murder?

What about the accusations that tracking criminals via GPS is against human rights? Some might argue that convicted criminals lost their right to basic human rights when they violated the rights of their victims. Others may state that all humans living in a society have the right to basic necessities (food, water, shelter), but what about the right to be reintegrated into society without being tracked regularly?

Then there’s the practical side of the human rights debate – it’s just not possible to track every single criminal on the face of the planet. Even if it were possible, who would pay for all of that tracking technology?

Some states are now requiring criminals to pay for their own tracking devices (about $8 per day). Other states are setting up entire police tracking teams that exist solely to track criminals all day (and night) long.
These are some possibilities, but until a concrete solution to these tracking problems can be found, the logical thing to do is narrow down the list of criminals by selecting who should, and shouldn’t be tracked. How does a state or government go about creating such a list?

Perhaps our society should simply put into practice that age-old Exodus saying: “an eye for an eye.” Murderers might be best served by being murdered, and sex offenders may be punished by experiencing their own crimes – then again, “an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind” (Mahatma Ghandi).

Or, maybe we could resort to Ancient Greek and Roman standards by exiling criminals to distant locations. Execution seemed to work just fine for Henry VIII (who didn’t discriminate between murderers, gypsies, or petty thieves). Even our present society keeps “track” of criminals through the usage of parole officers and “check-ins.”

In the end, selecting the types of criminals that should be tracked via GPS is a near impossibility. While all criminals cannot be tracked, those that can be tracked should be. Why? Our society does not stone people to death, we do not take an “eye for an eye,” and we do not mutilate criminals.

Instead, we simply slap a GPS tracking device on those that pose the biggest threat to our society. In the end, the GPS tracking solution seems to be the easiest — and most humane — way of keeping an eye on criminals that has ever been invented.