Pubdate: Wed, 08 Oct 1997
Source: Orange County Register
Section: metro, page 1
Contact:  Stuart Pfeifer and Mark Katches

LEGISLATION: Wilson rejects a measure requiring a warrant to affix such
devices to suspects' cars.

SACRAMENTO  Gov.Pete Wilson, saying he did not want to create new legal
loopholes for criminals, vetoed a bill Tuesday that would have required
police to obtain a court order each time they electronically follow
suspects' vehicles.

Senate Bill 443, authored in reaction to an Orange County Register report
that detailed how police across the country secretly follow cars on
computer screens, had been supported by a bipartisan majority in both the
Senate and the assembly.

State Sen.John Burton, DSan Francisco, and Ross Johnson, RIrvine, said
they feared the technology could be abused without judicial oversight. But
Wilson said there was no documented evidence of abuse.

The governor also said he was concerned about a portion of the law that
would have called for the suppression of evidence collected after
unauthorized monitoring by police.

"Too many murders and rapists have been set free on technical violations to
contemplate tossing out evidence based on speculative concerns regarding
conduct which has been held lawful by U.S.Supreme Court," Wilson said in a
statement.

In a 1983 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that police were within
the law when they followed a radio beeper hidden in a container of
chemicals as it was trucked to a clandestine drug lab.

The court ruled that a motorist has no "reasonable expectation of privacy"
while driving on a public road. It did not, however, address whether police
need a warrant to affix a transmitter to a vehicle.

Burton said he was disappointed by the veto, particularly because he had
amended the bill to address concerns raised by law enforcement. Police
organizations had lobbied heavily against the bill.

"I think it (the veto) defies logic," Burton said. "I understand law
enforcement wants to make their job easier. I also understand individuals
have a right to protection from the forces of the state."

Southern California police agencies have used Teletrac Inc.technology to
obtain more than 100,000 reports on vehicle locations since 1992, according
to billing records reviewed by the Register. Those records do not indicate
the number of cars that were monitored; police agencies have refused to
identify the cases.

Criminal defense attorneys and civil liberties advocates said they were
outraged to learn of the secret police surveillance, detailed in a series
of Register articles earlier this year.

But police maintain they use the technology only as a tool in undercover
surveillance. They note that the technology allows officers to keep a safe
distance while they follow cars.

In most instances, the tracking devicesabout the size of a
videocassetteare attached to the undercarriage of a car with a magnet,
police said. They said they do not need a warrant unless they make entry
into a vehicle.

"Fortunately some common sense prevailed, and the bill is dead," said
Orange County District Attorney Michael Capizzi.

Ramona Ripston, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of
Southern California, said the secret installation of a tracking device
violates the U.S.Constitution.

"The governor ought to go back and study American history," she said. "It's
really outrageous that he would not agree that a police officer should have
to get a warrant from an impartial judge."

The technology is utilized most often in narcotics cases, which rely
heavily on surveillance, police said. Deputy District Attorney Carl
Armbrust, who supervises narcotics prosecutions in the county, lauded
Wilson's decision.

"It was primarily a device for officer safety and citizen safety," Armbrust
said. "When crooks think they're being followed, they get scared and try to
run. That's when people crash; that's when people get hurt. If police can
follow a car from a reasonable distance, it's unlikely people will get
spooked."

Burton said he and Johnson will consider their options, which include
seeking to override the veto or amending the bill to address Wilson's
concerns.