title="Security Policies Procedures

This template has everything that is needed to comply with all mandated and industry regulated requirements. Includes a full AUDIT PROGAM.”>Privacy<br vspace=10 align=right src="http://e-janco.com/images/Securitymanual.gif">
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court
of Appeals in California ruled last year that using a GPS tracker was no
different than physically trailing a suspect in public and that such
surveillance was not protected by the Fourth Amendment so a warrant was
unnecessary. The court protected federal agents even if they placed the device
on a suspect’s car which was parked in his or her own driveway.


In a different case last year, a federal appeals court in Washington D.C.
ruled differently, insisting that collecting data from a GPS device from a
person’s car amounted to a search and required a warrant. Even though
prosecutors argued that the device collected information that anyone on the
street could obtain by following the suspect, Judge Douglas Ginsburg disagreed,
noting that the GPS tracker’s persistent, nonstop surveillance was different
from physically tracking a suspect. Unlike one’s movements during a single
journey, the whole of one’s movement over the course of a month is not actually
exposed to the public because the likelihood anyone will observe all those
movements is effectively nil.

Resources
Post Your Resume to 65+ Job Sites
Resume Service

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post