This One is Headed to the Supreme Court

A federal court in California has ruled that police don't need a warrant to place a GPS on the car of someone suspected of wrongdoing. This comes about a month after a different federal court in Washington DC said that the authorities should get a warrant before doing such a thing. Oh, what a tangled web we weave.

Those against the GPS call the move in California 'Orwellian'. Those in favor say that it's no different than tailing a suspect, and a whole lot cheaper. What to do, what to do?

We have to go with the Orwellian angle on this one. There's nothing wrong with making the job of the police relatively difficult. If that involves a slower pace in ferreting out the evildoers, then so be it. It strikes us that if the cops have enough evidence to place a GPS they ought to have enough that a reasonable judge would issue a warrant. If all they have on a guy (or a gal; women can be criminals too!) is enough to, ahem, warrant a tail, then that's what they have to do.

In the end, the folks who work for justice ought to have to work harder to achieve their ends relative to most other jobs out in the world. Not merely to keep them honest, but to ensure all the more that we are truly only pursuing the guilty. If we are indeed innocent until proven otherwise then the law has to lean a bit in our favor. Call it insurance against overeagerness, and a necessary adjunct to our pursuit of lawbreakers.

Having said that, however, we would argue that punishments ought to lean towards being harsh. But that question we'll leave for another time.