June 28, 2011

Supreme Court to Hear Case on GPS Tracking
— rdbrewer

Washington D.C. police placed a GPS tracking device on the vehicle of suspected drug dealer. The police tracked the movements of the vehicle for a month and were able to use that information to obtain a conviction. An appeals court in Washington overturned the conviction, holding that the evidence obtained in the GPS surveillance cannot be used since there was no search warrant.

From the Washington Examiner:

Two other courts have ruled that police can use GPS monitoring without a warrant.

The Virginia Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the tactic when Fairfax County Police put a GPS device on the van of a convicted rapist suspected in a series of attacks. The court said he had no expectation of privacy on a public street.

California's 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, ruling that installing a GPS to track a suspect is no different than having an officer tail him, also authorized the use of warrantless GPS tracking.

The Supreme Court will answer two questions regarding the high-tech surveillance, said Marc Rotenberg, executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center: the constitutionality of installing a warrantless GPS device, and then using one to track a vehicle's movements.

Rotenberg said that allowing GPS surveillance without a warrant could have far-reaching implications.

"If the court does not establish constitutional safeguards, the police will have unrestricted authority to monitor the travels of virtually anyone they want," he said.

As most know, the Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable search and seizure. For a search to be lawful, a warrant must be issued. Some may not know that the only teeth the Fourth Amendment has is the exclusion of evidence obtained in violation of its provisions. This is meant to discourage law enforcement.

There are exceptions to the warrant requirement. One of those has to do with whether a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy that a certain location or activity is private. If there is no reasonable expectation of privacy, no warrant is necessary.

This is a general description. Be aware that every word in Fourth Amendment jurisprudence is a mine in a minefield, and lawyers and judges strive to be exact at all times.

The appeals court said that the government must obtain a warrant for such prolonged electronic monitoring. The government argues that placing the device on the car is no different from having an officer tail the vehicle in public. Certainly, the police can do that. But 24/7 for a whole month? It is the intensity and duration of that surveillance that is likely to push this set of facts into the unreasonable search category.

The government will also argue that this form of surveillance is very valuable to law enforcement. "Gee, we like it a whole lot" is a silly argument, though, since any form of unlimited search would grow to become valuable to law enforcement.

I think the appeals court will be upheld. Chief Justice Roberts behind the scenes in the Supreme Court building later this year . . .

Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Roberts will crib extensively from this scene, probably taking all of that stuff about slurring the meaning of the words and the line "tall words, proudly written." Justice Kennedy will play the dumb guy in the llama-skin tunic who must be dragged to the truth.

Posted by: rdbrewer at 09:35 AM | Comments (130)
Post contains 568 words, total size 4 kb.

1 Fuck them.  Fuck them all!

Posted by: IE Con at June 28, 2011 09:36 AM (c1684)

2 We ..... the .... PEEE .... PULLL !!!

Posted by: Capt. James T Kirk at June 28, 2011 09:39 AM (so1xa)

3 Don't they have to get a warrant to conduct surveillance?  You know, like wire tapping phones and the like? Seems to me that a GPS tracking device on a private vehicle is akin to wire tapping.

Posted by: mpurinTexas supports Rick Perry, bitch at June 28, 2011 09:41 AM (5d6vv)

4 Warrantless GPS tracking. Our big brother Google will watch this one closely.

Posted by: t-bird at June 28, 2011 09:41 AM (FcR7P)

5

Not only does the extensive length, to me, paint this as a search requiring a warrant, but at what point if any do police have to take the thing off the car? Do they have to notify you? Do they have to ever have to take it off?

Once suspecting anyone of anything, if they can throw a GPS on your car and just leave it there and monitor it whenever they want...

Posted by: Entropy at June 28, 2011 09:42 AM (IsLT6)

6 The only people needing GPS devices on their cars are my bitches, cuz I gots to know when to choke a bitch.

Posted by: David Prosser at June 28, 2011 09:42 AM (k0TKJ)

7 I don't get how this is even an issue.

Yeah, they can follow you around but they can't violate your private property without a warrant (or any of the normal exceptions).

It's like saying, if we stand on the sidewalk we can hear everything that you say by that open window but that's too hard so we're going to stick a mic on the outside of your house and record it all.

Um...not in a free fucking country.

I know cops say this is an inconvenience well motherfucker, the only truly convenient thing for any government is unlimited and unchecked power. That's the point of the Bill of Rights....to inconvenience the motherfucking government.

Posted by: DrewM. at June 28, 2011 09:42 AM (Fz+L5)

8 Ee plebnista, dammit!

Posted by: A wise latina at June 28, 2011 09:43 AM (RD7QR)

9

Some may not know that the only teeth the Fourth Amendment has is the exclusion of evidence obtained in violation of its provisions. This is meant to discourage law enforcement.

Isn't that the point? So if law enforcement tries to use illegal/prohibited methods then the information gained from using those methods can't be used in court.

I think that is reasonable, no?

Posted by: Ben at June 28, 2011 09:43 AM (wuv1c)

10 That's the point of the Bill of Rights....to inconvenience the motherfucking government.

Posted by: DrewM. at June 28, 2011 02:42 PM (Fz+L5)

Reverend!

Posted by: garrett at June 28, 2011 09:44 AM (Ka1c5)

11 Some may not know that the only teeth the Fourth Amendment has is the exclusion of evidence obtained in violation of its provisions.

Yeah and there is no real basis for that either.

I think based on what I have sen with this court the cops will win. This is not search of papers, effects, or one's home. This is following someone in public where they have no reasonable expectation of privacy.

Also on that exclusionary rule, I am thinking that the Supremes made a ruling some time ago that States may elect to do away with it if they have placed other substantive procedures in effect to protect fortyh amendment right.

The problem I have with the exclusionary rule is that two guilty parties go free.

Posted by: Vic at June 28, 2011 09:44 AM (M9Ie6)

12 Is GPS tracking legal? I'm marking Drew down as a maybe.

Posted by: Dr Spank at June 28, 2011 09:44 AM (k0TKJ)

13 Ride the high-speed trains, bitchez, and this won't be a problem.

Posted by: Barry The 0 at June 28, 2011 09:46 AM (FcR7P)

14 Once suspecting anyone of anything, if they can throw a GPS on your car and just leave it there and monitor it whenever they want...

Wait until your all driving Chevy Volts!  Then the cops won't even have to worry about sneaking the GPS onto your car in the first place.  It will already bethere!

Look, we have this handled, okay?  Just sit down and be quiet while we take care of you.

Posted by: Prez Killah B. at June 28, 2011 09:46 AM (3Okgs)

15 We know what to do with GPS trackers

Hanna's crew found one on a bus to San Bernardino


Posted by: Neil McCauley at June 28, 2011 09:46 AM (so1xa)

16

Also, what do the laws (I know it varies by state) say in regard to public recording and wiretapping?

You have no expectation of privacy in public.

But you do have an expectation of privacy on your person. Can they stick a bug on you or slip it into your purse or your pockets walking down the street and tape record any conversation you have in public on the sidewalk? Would such a thing be admissible in any situation?

In this case, you can say it's no different than following someone... it's no different to the police. But they are putting stuff on/in your private car.

Posted by: Entropy at June 28, 2011 09:46 AM (IsLT6)

17

 This is following someone in public where they have no reasonable expectation of privacy.

they put a GPS device in his vehicle. That's as much his property as his home.

If they wanted to follow him that's one thing, but they put a gps device in his vehicle without a warrant.

I think that's the issue. Not that you can expect privacy driving around, but that the government can't bug your proerty without a court order.

Posted by: Ben at June 28, 2011 09:47 AM (wuv1c)

18 Good point, Drew.  How can they touch the car?

Posted by: rdbrewer at June 28, 2011 09:47 AM (gSLe2)

19 A lot of cops don't like it when people legal record them on public streets. Try and put a GPS tracking device on a cop car and say, "I could follow you around all day long officer but this is easier".

See how that flies.

Posted by: DrewM. at June 28, 2011 09:47 AM (Fz+L5)

20

Barry, "Constitutional shmonstitutional."

Biden, "Huh? What?  Somebody say something?"

Posted by: Hussein the Plumber at June 28, 2011 09:48 AM (jx2j9)

21 Some may not know that the only teeth the Fourth Amendment has is the exclusion of evidence obtained in violation of its provisions.

Yeah and there is no real basis for that either.

I think based on what I have sen with this court the cops will win. This is not search of papers, effects, or one's home. This is following someone in public where they have no reasonable expectation of privacy.

Also on that exclusionary rule, I am thinking that the Supremes made a ruling some time ago that States may elect to do away with it if they have placed other substantive procedures in effect to protect fortyh amendment right.

The problem I have with the exclusionary rule is that two guilty parties go free.

Posted by: Vic

 

There's a significant difference between following someone and attaching items to someone's car. What if the device is lost, damaged or discovered and removed? If attaching this is legal, then I'd be guilty of interfering iwth a police investigation and destroying public property.

While we're thinking of things like that, If police planted a bug in my house, and I found it and flushed it, would I be guilty of something?

Posted by: Blue Hen at June 28, 2011 09:48 AM (6rX0K)

22

A lot of cops don't like it when people legal record them on public streets. Try and put a GPS tracking device on a cop car and say, "I could follow you around all day long officer but this is easier".

See how that flies.

Reason has been doing a great job of covering the current war on photography and recording.

Posted by: Ben at June 28, 2011 09:49 AM (wuv1c)

23 The drug lords can hire specialists to find those bugs and stick them onto cop cars so they end up chasing each other or the drug lords know where the cops are ..

The best crooks are always 5 steps ahead of the police

Posted by: kbdabear at June 28, 2011 09:49 AM (so1xa)

24

Of course we thought we were protected from unlawful search and seizure too.

Posted by: Hussein the Plumber at June 28, 2011 09:49 AM (jx2j9)

25 They didn't even have GPS when the Constitution was written.  How can it have anything to say about GPS tracking?

Posted by: Ezra Klein at June 28, 2011 09:50 AM (QKKT0)

26

The best crooks are always 5 steps ahead of the police

Inner city drug dealers don't fall into that category.

Posted by: Ben at June 28, 2011 09:50 AM (wuv1c)

27

OT:

I’m guessing he said this with a straight face?  Government programs are now sacrosanct?  That’s this dimwit’s argument?  Sheesh we are so screwed.

Posted by: Hussein the Plumber at June 28, 2011 09:50 AM (jx2j9)

28 Drew not always right, but he is correct today. They already can subpoena your cell phone movements, what's next?

Posted by: El Kilo at June 28, 2011 09:50 AM (le5qc)

29 Try and put a GPS tracking device on a cop car and say, "I could follow you around all day long officer but this is easier".

LOFL.

Posted by: Entropy at June 28, 2011 09:51 AM (IsLT6)

30

They didn't even have GPS when the Constitution was written.  How can it have anything to say about GPS tracking?

back then they would strap a paint can to the bottom of your mule and then poke a small pin sized hold into the bottom of the can and follow the paint trail.

Posted by: Ben at June 28, 2011 09:51 AM (wuv1c)

31 That's the point of the Bill of Rights....to inconvenience the motherfucking government.

Posted by: DrewM. at June 28, 2011 02:42 PM (Fz+L5)

Exactly.

DrewM, you are sounding suspiciously like a rational being. What has happened?

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at June 28, 2011 09:51 AM (LH6ir)

32
just so happens I am re-watching The Wire series

Posted by: soothie at June 28, 2011 09:52 AM (G/zuv)

33 Drew not always right, but he is correct today. They already can subpoena your cell phone movements, what's next?

Posted by: El Kilo

 

There's a difference between obtaining a supoena for something and just slapping something on a car. If a warrant was issued for the GPS device, this would be a moot point.

Posted by: Blue Hen at June 28, 2011 09:52 AM (6rX0K)

34 See, the Constitution is just an old piece of paper which isn't relevant to us cool hip wired up kids

Mommy put a GPS on my lunchbox and I'm no worse for the wear

Posted by: Ezra Klein at June 28, 2011 09:52 AM (so1xa)

35

Isn't a vehicle a piece of property?  I think it is when it comes to search warrants.  Unless the officer notices something out in the open to give cause to get a warrant or the owner gives verbal permission to search.  So if that suspected drug dealer never gave any permission, the police had no reason to slap that device on the car. 

The KGB would have loved to have GPS devices to track the dissidents, diplomats, and spies.  Could have saved a lot of money on hiring and training people to follow them.

Posted by: Anna Puma at June 28, 2011 09:52 AM (Zd0YP)

36 G?  P?  S?

*blink  blink blink

Posted by: Charlie Gibson at June 28, 2011 09:52 AM (3Okgs)

37

But, he would have a reasonable expectation of Privacy AT HOME, or on Private Property.

The bug does not stop transmiting or keeping location information when it enters private property...

Thus, it IS an illegal invasion of Priavcy... because it goes to places, a Policman could not without a Warrant.

Posted by: Romeo13 at June 28, 2011 09:52 AM (NtXW4)

38

They already can subpoena your cell phone movements, what's next?

Three words:

Bugged.  Hobo.  Lairs.

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at June 28, 2011 09:53 AM (B+qrE)

39

Honestly if they can do it to us, we should be able to do it to them.

If it is ruled you have no reasonable expectation of not having a GPS bug on your car and being followed on public streets, what stops anyone from putting a GPS tracker on anyone's car?

Can I GPS track my neighbor? It's just like following him and there's no law against that (unless he notices me tailing him around and files for a restraining order, but that's just one of many reasons why the GPS is easier).

Posted by: Entropy at June 28, 2011 09:54 AM (IsLT6)

40 The GPS vs Tail analogy fails once the car drives on to private property.

But I bet the Court will find for the police.

Posted by: toby928 at June 28, 2011 09:54 AM (GTbGH)

41 The problem I have with the exclusionary rule is that two guilty parties go free.
Posted by: Vic at June 28, 2011 02:44 PM

That's the price we gladly pay in a society based on a social contract that limits government power.  Look at the treatment of people in totalitarian countries or read something like Orwell's 1984 to acquaint yourself with the other option.


Posted by: rdbrewer at June 28, 2011 09:55 AM (gSLe2)

42

Thus, it IS an illegal invasion of Priavcy... because it goes to places, a Policman could not without a Warrant.

A cop could sit outside your house and know when you're home.  Unless you live on the Ponderosa, what's the difference?

Posted by: Ezra Klein at June 28, 2011 09:55 AM (QKKT0)

43 17
If they wanted to follow him that's one thing, but they put a gps device in his vehicle without a warrant.
I think that's the issue. Not that you can expect privacy driving around, but that the government can't bug your property without a court order.
Posted by: Ben at June 28, 2011 02:47 PM (wuv1c)

This.

Posted by: No Whining at June 28, 2011 09:55 AM (FcKXR)

44 Everyone who thinks the ultimate purpose of vehicle GPS tracking is NOT to catch drug dealers or terrorists, but to log your mileage and tax you for it, say AYE

AYE

Posted by: kbdabear at June 28, 2011 09:55 AM (so1xa)

45
Don't go to bed, with no price on your head
No, no, don't do it.

Don't do the crime, if you can't do the time,
Yeah, don't do it.

And keep your eye on the sparrow.
When the going gets narrow.


Posted by: Baretta at June 28, 2011 09:55 AM (G/zuv)

46 Another thing that I beleive they are already doing in oregon is putting a gps on your car to see how far you drive in order to tax you per miles driven instead of by the gallon. I assume that would be legal because you can refuse to drive a car if it bothers you but it's just more of big brother.

Posted by: robtr at June 28, 2011 09:56 AM (MtwBb)

47 Git, Ezra

Posted by: Cicero at June 28, 2011 09:56 AM (QKKT0)

48

I assume that would be legal because you can refuse to drive a car if it bothers you but it's just more of big brother.

Wait 'til you see our new skull graft GPS models.  Dude, you'll have an awesome shark fin on your head!

Posted by: Your Friends At The IRS at June 28, 2011 09:57 AM (QKKT0)

49 While we're thinking of things like that, If police planted a bug in my house, and I found it and flushed it, would I be guilty of something?

The difference is inside your home and outside on the road. Keep one thing in mind, this whole wire tap/privacy thing is an interpretation to begin with.

Read the 4th amendment exactly as it is written.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Posted by: Vic at June 28, 2011 09:58 AM (M9Ie6)

50

There's a significant difference between following someone and attaching items to someone's car. What if the device is lost, damaged or discovered and removed? If attaching this is legal, then I'd be guilty of interfering iwth a police investigation and destroying public property.

What if you find one of these things and remove it and they don't come knock and your door and tell you it was theirs?

What do you do if you find a fucking mystery GPS tracking bug on your car????

How many divorces could that cause? Or seriously freaking out women to the point of 'emotional suffering'?

Posted by: Entropy at June 28, 2011 09:58 AM (IsLT6)

51 I have problems with this. No one would argue that the govt has the right to implant a GPS device inside a person (say, a pill-like device). And no one would argue that the govt has the right to plant motion detectors/cameras inside a person's house without a warrant. But the govt can climb under a person's car and attach a GPS device? That is VERY different from following a person as he walks or drives. Yea, its a helpful LE tool to put GPS devices on us all or on our vehicles. But that doesn't mean it doesn't violate expectations of privacy.

Posted by: USA at June 28, 2011 09:58 AM (6Cjut)

52

California's 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, ruling that installing a GPS to track a suspect is no different than having an officer tail him, also authorized the use of warrantless GPS tracking.

The 9th Circus Court of Appeals is even wrong on the "gimme" cases. 

And seriously, how hard would it have been to get a search warrant for this suspected drug dealer? 

Posted by: Kratos (Ghost of Sparta) at June 28, 2011 09:58 AM (9hSKh)

53

what is so hard about getting a warrent for this sort of tracking ?  My bet is that 99% of judges would ok it if it was based on reasonable grounds, like a wiretap ...

This is clearly a unreasonable search ... 

Posted by: Jeff at June 28, 2011 09:59 AM (A3tpD)

54

A cop could sit outside your house and know when you're home. Unless you live on the Ponderosa, what's the difference?

Posted by: Ezra Klein at June 28, 2011 02:55 PM (QKKT0)

But not onto my Girlfriends Ranch... they one with a gate and posted no trespass signs... with more than one road leaving...

Nor can he look in my CLOSED garage, without a warrant.

Some of us don't live in the City...

Posted by: Romeo13 at June 28, 2011 09:59 AM (NtXW4)

55

"There are exceptions to the warrant requirement. One of those has to do with whether a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy that a certain location or activity is private."

Not quite. The lack of a reasonable expectation of privacy is not an exception to the warrant requirement for a search. It's actually a way of saying no search has even occurred. You can't search something that's "exposed to the public" or "in plain view" or however you want to phrase it. Searching involves examining something hidden, rifling through belongings, listening in on private matters, etc. So if no search has occurred, there's no reason to consider if an "unreasonable" search occurred, and there's no reason to consider whether a warrant was required to make the search reasonable. There simply was no "searching" either reasonable or unreasonable.

"The government argues that placing the device on the car is no different from having an officer tail the vehicle in public. Certainly, the police can do that. But 24/7 for a whole month? It is the intensity and duration of that surveillance that is likely to push this set of facts into the unreasonable search category."

What about 24/7 for a week? 24 hours a day for three days? One day? Six hours? Two hours? 15 minutes? Where do you draw the line? There's no real legal difference that comes about from mere duration of the monitoring. Any test that draws lines on duration would call into doubt the legality of well established and completely acceptable methods of investigation. For instance, stakeout operations. Nothing stops cops from parking a van outside your home for a week so they can watch when you enter/exit except that it would cost a lot.

If the court of appeals' position (not argument - this is a different argument from the DC Circuit) has merit, it's that the monitoring of the car for more than a single trip directly reveals information that was in fact protected by a reasonable expectation of privacy. For example, information regarding when the suspect in the case was at home and when he wasn't, even if he wasn't visible through the windows of the house. Or information about whether the car was still concealed within a garage. Such an action could be a "search" and thus subject to the warrant requirement because -- per Scalia's test in Kyllo -- it was a use of technology to garner information that would have required a physical invasion of a protected area if done without the technology. 

If the DC Circuit's decision is upheld, it will be under completely different logic from the mangled, demented opinion it shat out. And I'd still put my money on it being reversed. It is settled law that a person has no reasonable expectation of privacy in their movements over public roadways. Attaching a GPS to someone's car doesn't reveal anything but their movements over public roadways. Therefore it is not a search.

Posted by: sayyid412 at June 28, 2011 09:59 AM (EjnMv)

Posted by: the Clash at June 28, 2011 10:01 AM (Ka1c5)

57 That's the price we gladly pay in a society based on a social contract that limits government power.

No, what should happen is that both of them suffer punishment for their illegal actions. If a cop illegally breaks into your house, searches it and obtain evidence to convict you of a crime then if you are actually guilty.

You pay the penalty for the crime and the cop pays the penalty for breaking and entering.

Posted by: Vic at June 28, 2011 10:01 AM (M9Ie6)

58
As I recall, one of the arguments was that the expectation of privacy didn't extend to the suspect's own driveway.

Even if we accepted that argument as valid, what happens when the suspect puts the car in his garage the next day, since the garage is pretty universally seen as having that expectation of privacy?

Extend this to voice bugs. Legal on a public street, but if a cop attaches one to your car while parked on a public street, won't this mean that they can then monitor your voice anywhere, including inside your own garage, simply because they planted the bug on the outside of the car while it was in a public area?

Posted by: IllTemperedCur at June 28, 2011 10:03 AM (8rHXV)

59 Everyone who thinks the ultimate purpose of vehicle GPS tracking is NOT to catch drug dealers or terrorists, but to log your mileage and tax you for it, say AYE

That is two separate issues.

Posted by: Vic at June 28, 2011 10:03 AM (M9Ie6)

60

Also, what's the deal with a police tail? Can they really tail anyone they like without a warrant?

I'm like 70% sure there are some laws or rules about how far they're allowed to intentionally follow you for no good reason without pulling you over. They can't just follow you around all day without some sort of justification.

Also, they cannot follow you outside their jurisdiction, can they? If Chicago police are bugging me and I drive into Indiana, so long eh? But the GPS keeps following me outside their jurisdiction.

Posted by: Entropy at June 28, 2011 10:04 AM (IsLT6)

61 Everyone remember:  Vic doesn't get to be king.

Posted by: rdbrewer at June 28, 2011 10:04 AM (gSLe2)

62 We know what to do with GPS trackers Hanna's crew found one on a bus to S an Bernardino What do you mean you lost them? I was just sitting down with McCauley A HALF HOUR AGO!

Posted by: Detective Vincent Hanna at June 28, 2011 10:04 AM (lbo6/)

63 Yeah, I think the decision should be that the police had no right to tamper with his property.  In that case, I'm not sure that it's really a 4th amendment decision.

Question: Can a judge issue a warrant to put a GPS device on a person's car?  I presume yes, it'd be approximately like tapping a phone in terms of the extent of the surveillance and the length of time.

Posted by: AmishDude at June 28, 2011 10:04 AM (T0NGe)

64 "Even if we accepted that argument as valid, what happens when the suspect puts the car in his garage the next day, since the garage is pretty universally seen as having that expectation of privacy?"

The particular GPS devices that police use for these sorts of things usually stop recording/transmitting their locations automatically when they're not on a public roadway.

Posted by: sayyid412 at June 28, 2011 10:05 AM (EjnMv)

65 Where did all this heat come from? OK, assume they got our houses, our cars ....

Posted by: Neil McCauley at June 28, 2011 10:05 AM (so1xa)

66 They can't just follow you around all day without some sort of justification.

Why not?  I can.

Posted by: Entropy's creepy stalker at June 28, 2011 10:05 AM (T0NGe)

67

Extend this to voice bugs. Legal on a public street, but if a cop attaches one to your car while parked on a public street, won't this mean that they can then monitor your voice anywhere, including inside your own garage, simply because they planted the bug on the outside of the car while it was in a public area?

Like I said - can they even do that?

You can bug a public place yes... but can you go round putting bugs on people in public without their knowledge?

The heck with listening to them inside their own garage. Is it legal to eavesdrop on them on the sidewalk... with a bug you put on their person without a warrant? Does anyone know?

Posted by: Entropy at June 28, 2011 10:06 AM (IsLT6)

68

Everyone remember:  Vic doesn't get to be king.

 

careful rd...that thought might be a crime, now.

Posted by: garrett at June 28, 2011 10:06 AM (Ka1c5)

69 You Morons would love for me to be King for a few months.

Posted by: Vic at June 28, 2011 10:09 AM (M9Ie6)

70 Justice Kennedy will play the dumb guy in the llama-skin tunic who must be dragged to the truth.

I think that's Danny Bonaduce behind him too.  Before the tattoos, steroids and such. Small world.


Posted by: dfbaskwill at June 28, 2011 10:10 AM (71LDo)

71 What about 24/7 for a week? 24 hours a day for three days? One day? Six hours? Two hours? 15 minutes? Where do you draw the line? There's no real legal difference that comes about from mere duration of the monitoring.

I disagree.  "Reasonableness" is paramount here.

Any test that draws lines on duration would call into doubt the legality of well established and completely acceptable methods of investigation. For instance, stakeout operations. Nothing stops cops from parking a van outside your home for a week so they can watch when you enter/exit except that it would cost a lot.

Posted by: sayyid412 at June 28, 2011 02:59 PM

I don't think a stakeout can be argued to be the same thing as tailing someone or monitoring their movements by GPS. 

Do you think the government should be able to stick a GPS device on the heel of your shoe?


Posted by: rdbrewer at June 28, 2011 10:10 AM (gSLe2)

72

No, what should happen is that both of them suffer punishment for their illegal actions. If a cop illegally breaks into your house, searches it and obtain evidence to convict you of a crime then if you are actually guilty.

Assuming he didn't plant the evidence.

A legitimate reason to suspect you means there's other evidence that points to you, and makes the discovery of such evidence plausible.

If the cop doesn't have a warrant, he can just go into anybodies house. If there wasn't a reason for suspicion to start with, and we're already automatically talking about a cop that doesn't go by the book or follow lawful procedures....

Eh. I don't think you're doing yourself any favors. That's riddled with reasonable doubt now.

Plus, what you don't consider is it promotes 'suicide policing'. Especially if the cop doesn't get slapped hard, as they usually don't. But tell me there isn't some dude 3 weeks to retirement willing to get the 4th ammendment punishment if it means bringing a nice white whale down because the unlawfully procurred evidence sticks now?

The 4th ammendment is there to protect us from cops. The way the evidence is inadmissable and unusable unless properly collected is the perfect way to go, as there is no reason to collect evidence improperly and it motivates police to do their job correctly.

Posted by: Entropy at June 28, 2011 10:12 AM (IsLT6)

73 Isn't that the point? So if law enforcement tries to use illegal/prohibited methods then the information gained from using those methods can't be used in court.

I think that is reasonable, no?

Posted by: Ben at June 28, 2011 02:43 PM


I think you should be able to file a lawsuit in civil court for Fourth Amendment violations.  That'd put some real teeth in it.

Posted by: rdbrewer at June 28, 2011 10:14 AM (gSLe2)

74 Attaching a GPS to someone's car doesn't reveal anything but their movements over public roadways. Therefore it is not a search.

Posted by: sayyid412 at June 28, 2011 02:59 PM (EjnMv)

Except that is untrue... as it also reveals their movements over private property... with no way to 'turn off' the device when it hits private Property.

And it also places an UnWanted device UPON my Private Propety, my car... and my CAR, being Property, would then not be 'secure'.

When they cross the line from outside nonintrusive surveilance, to placing devices INSIDE your property, I think that crosses a Property Rights Line.... and thus they would need a warrant.

I would think that most think its a Natural Right, that the Government cannot come in, and modify your property without at least Notifying you they are doing so....

Posted by: Romeo13 at June 28, 2011 10:15 AM (NtXW4)

75
So, if I find a GPS tracker on my car, is it legal for me to destroy dispose of it?

Posted by: I R A Darth Aggie at June 28, 2011 10:15 AM (1hM1d)

76 Everyone remember:  Vic doesn't get to be king.

It would be better than being under Jeff's iron boot, except for the rapey fringe benefits.

Posted by: toby928 at June 28, 2011 10:15 AM (GTbGH)

77

"I disagree.  "Reasonableness" is paramount here."

This is why the nit-picky first paragraph of my reply is so important. Reasonableness only matters where a search has actually occurred. The question in this case is whether a search has occurred in the first place. Reasonableness comes later. The cops' argument in this case is "We didn't search him. We didn't learn anything that wasn't public knowledge. There's no need to even bring the Fourth Amendment into this case."

"Also, what's the deal with a police tail? Can they really tail anyone they like without a warrant?"

They can without violating the Fourth Amendment, yes.

"I'm like 70% sure there are some laws or rules about how far they're allowed to intentionally follow you for no good reason without pulling you over."

There are often internal police procedures or state laws that regulate this, yes. The question in this case is whether the Constitution itself serves as a barrier.

"They can't just follow you around all day without some sort of justification."
'I felt like it' is sufficient reason as long as you were in public all day.

"Also, they cannot follow you outside their jurisdiction, can they? If Chicago police are bugging me and I drive into Indiana, so long eh? But the GPS keeps following me outside their jurisdiction."

If I remember my jurisdictional law properly, they're perfectly capable of following you. The reason they generally don't is that they can't arrest you, and any information they gained from following you would be worthless in their home jurisdiction anyway. "This guy committed crimes outside of our jurisdiction!" doesn't matter in court. It's a case of "not my job" more than anything.

Posted by: sayyid412 at June 28, 2011 10:18 AM (EjnMv)

78

Attaching a GPS to someone's car doesn't reveal anything but their movements over public roadways. Therefore it is not a search.

Is the GPS sticky-taped to my windshield?

OK... so they ... searched for a place to put the GPS on my car....

I'm not trying to make that a semantic argument, but when they go putting devices in/on your property, I think it very clearly fits into what constitutes a 'search'.

The whole point of putting the bug on someone's car is that "their movements over public roadways" is evidence of a crime. They are searching for evidence of a crime.

An unlawful search of someone's home may not "reveal anything" - at all period - if the person is innocent. It's still a 4th ammendment violation.

Posted by: Entropy at June 28, 2011 10:18 AM (IsLT6)

79 Assuming he didn't plant the evidence.

Entirely different issue not under discussion

If the cop doesn't have a warrant, he can just go into anybodies house. If there wasn't a reason for suspicion to start with, and we're already automatically talking about a cop that doesn't go by the book or follow lawful procedures....

As I said, if he is breaking the law let's punish him. If I am not mistaken breaking and entering is a felony in most States.

The 4th ammendment is there to protect us from cops.

Yes it is but the exclusionary rule is not written into the 4th Amendment. It was constructed by the Warren Court.

Posted by: Vic at June 28, 2011 10:20 AM (M9Ie6)

80 installing a GPS to track a suspect is no different than having an officer tail him

If the police want to track me by putting a GPS on my car how do thet know it was me in the car? If police follow my car they will have a difficult time doing it without me knowing about it.

Posted by: dontheflyer at June 28, 2011 10:22 AM (vOcVu)

81

You can bug a public place yes... but can you go round putting bugs on people in public without their knowledge?

The heck with listening to them inside their own garage. Is it legal to eavesdrop on them on the sidewalk... with a bug you put on their person without a warrant? Does anyone know?




Actually, my first draft of that comment was the "bug on your person" variant. But I suspect that it's kind of far down the slippery slope before that would be considered legal.

Posted by: IllTemperedCur at June 28, 2011 10:25 AM (8rHXV)

82

The question also becomes then, when is it OK for Law Enfocement to break the laws they enforce on us?

In some States, you cannot Tape the Police, yet they have dash cameras to Tape you.... just as its OK for the Police to lie to you, but against the Law for you to lie to the Police.

I'm sure that if a normal citizen, put a tracking device upon someone elses car... there would be some stalker law against it... yet its OK, who are really nothing more than normal citizens, to get a Pass on that law?

This double standard flies in the Face of the idea that we are a Free People, with a Limited Government.

Posted by: Romeo13 at June 28, 2011 10:26 AM (NtXW4)

83 In some States, you cannot Tape the Police, yet they have dash cameras to Tape you.... just as its OK for the Police to lie to you, but against the Law for you to lie to the Police.

Now that I have a real problem with.

Posted by: Vic at June 28, 2011 10:30 AM (M9Ie6)

84

As I said, if he is breaking the law let's punish him. If I am not mistaken breaking and entering is a felony in most States.

That's my point with the "Entirely different issue not under discussion"

You seem to be saying that police who are themselves felons, in the commission of a felony crime, ought have the credibility of regular police???

At least, you're saying evidence collected by felons is admissable as evidence procurred during a police investigation by LEO?

Yes it is but the exclusionary rule is not written into the 4th Amendment. It was constructed by the Warren Court.

But it is damn effective, since it strikes directly at invalidating whatever motive the government may have for violating it.

The head honcho says the rookies into the house to find the goods. Oh noes! Unlawfull search! It's Rookie #3's fault, he's shitcanned.

But you still go to jail? What about the rest of them? The head honcho still gets his conviction and his press conferance.

There were 24 cops in my house (let's say, because it would be true if they raided my house). Which ones violated my rights? All of them? Action against the entire police department? Only the one's there? What about the supervisors? 

You're spelling out a way for them to send one of them down as a fall guy and still get what 23 of them wanted out of the illegal search.

Your strategy fails to actually protect the 4th ammendment, it just punishes people for violating it.

That to me, makes it much less desirable than something that actually prevents abuse by making abuse positively reward-less, rather than trying to attach punishment after the fact to the PD where it will not stick, and will not be stuck effectively and well anyway.

Posted by: Entropy at June 28, 2011 10:31 AM (IsLT6)

85 installing a GPS to track a suspect is no different than having an officer tail him

If the police want to track me by putting a GPS on my car how do thet know it was me in the car? If police follow my car they will have a difficult time doing it without me knowing about it.

Posted by: dontheflyer

Good point. We had someone avoid a manslaughter charge because he was driving his girlfriends' car. He hit and killed someone and took off. The girlfriend had an alibi, and they couldn't prove that he was driving. He was caught after he did it a second time (he struck and killed an EMT). He was identifed by people at the road side.

Posted by: Blue Hen at June 28, 2011 10:32 AM (6rX0K)

86

Posted by: IllTemperedCur at June 28, 2011 03:25 PM (8rHXV)

 

It depends on the State... some States have laws that say you MUST inform people of the taping... which is why on even private property that have signs saying there are cameras and such...

There the bugs would, I believe, be illegal as you are monitoring people without informing them...

Hmmm... quck search but in Virginia...

An individual can record or disclose wire, oral, or electronic communications to which he is a party, or if one party to the communication consents. Otherwise, it is a felony. Va. Code Ann. § 19.2-62.

Interesting stuff...

 

Posted by: Romeo13 at June 28, 2011 10:33 AM (NtXW4)

87

I don't know about the legalities of a 24/7 stakeout/tail, but I can think of practicalities of it:

24/7 stakeouts/tails involve costs in times of manpower and materiel.  GPS monitoring is far easier and cheaper -- meaning the government (that's what the police are, an organ of executive power) has a wider reach to track anyone they wish to.

Stakeouts and tails mean the government has to balance one particular tail job against all the other duties.  That's a practical check.  Allowing warrantless GPS removes that check against EVERYONE.

Posted by: LibertarianJim at June 28, 2011 10:38 AM (PReJ3)

88
Okay, here's a hypothetical from a less-than-swift moron.

You have a police GPS tracker (warrant or warrantless) on your car and you  park in your garage.......for a month or more. Cops get impatient (or they catch another person for the suspected crime) and want their tracker back, so they knock on your door to ask permission to retrieve it. You say "what tracker? Get off my lawn."

Since there's no crime in progress, the cops can't legally gain access to your property without permission.

Presumably, they couldn't charge you with theft of the tracker because you haven't touched it or even have knowledge of it. THEY planted it on your property. It'd be like they tossed a stolen Huffy bike into your back yard and then arrested you for the theft.

A warrant to gain access for retrieval of the tracker would seem out of place. You are no longer suspected of a crime, indeed there IS no crime.

Posted by: IllTemperedCur at June 28, 2011 10:38 AM (8rHXV)

89 Your strategy fails to actually protect the 4th ammendment, it just punishes people for violating it.

That is exactly right and my point.

Posted by: Vic at June 28, 2011 10:39 AM (M9Ie6)

90 Except since it punishes them for violating it it does "protect it".

Posted by: Vic at June 28, 2011 10:41 AM (M9Ie6)

91

That is exactly right and my point.

I prefer the current setup.

Posted by: Entropy at June 28, 2011 10:42 AM (IsLT6)

92 "I don't think a stakeout can be argued to be the same thing as tailing someone or monitoring their movements by GPS. "
Why not? Both reveal nothing more than information regarding the location of objects fully exposed to public view.

"Do you think the government should be able to stick a GPS device on the heel of your shoe?"
Shoes go lots of places besides public roadways. Cars do not. Cars have a special place in Fourth Amendment law basically saying you get less protection when you're in one than when you're elsewhere, simply because cars are almost always in public areas and plainly visible. Does it make perfect sense? I'll admit it doesn't, but that's what the law currently says, and it's important to consider that when assessing which side will win the case.

"Except that is untrue... as it also reveals their movements over private property... with no way to 'turn off' the device when it hits private Property."
Generally the GPS devices that police use for these matters are similar to navigational GPS in that it matches the transponder's location with the road it's on. These only record when it matches with a public road.

In my opinion, that's too clever by half because by not recording, you've learned the location is almost certainly the garage next to the last-known location. But according to Justice Breyer, the Fourth Amendment doesn't protect against inferences - it protects against searches (Kyllo).

"OK... so they ... searched for a place to put the GPS on my car....

I'm not trying to make that a semantic argument, but when they go putting devices in/on your property, I think it very clearly fits into what constitutes a 'search'."

It's never a "search" to glance at something that's fully exposed to the public, under our current interpretation of the Fourth Amendment. The "searching" you're referring to fails that test.

On the other hand, a similar argument to the one you're making could be presented to the court as a "seizure" argument not a search argument. In other words, "They've co-opted my property and made it no longer fully mine by putting something on it. They seized the part that I no longer have exclusive control over." In my opinion, that's the second-strongest argument against GPS. The problem is that there is explicit Supreme Court precedent saying that sticking a radio transponder on someone's property is not in and of itself a search or seizure (United States v. Knotts, 460 U.S. 276; United States v. Karo, 468 U.S. 705). So no matter how much sense the argument actually makes, it's still arguing "please overrule past cases, they got it wrong" -- weak legal footing.

Posted by: sayyid412 at June 28, 2011 10:42 AM (EjnMv)

93

Posted by: IllTemperedCur at June 28, 2011 03:38 PM (8rHXV)

And even more fun scenario...

You find a bug planted on your car, and it NOT being yours, you destroy it.

Well, destroying Federal Property IS a crime, and these bugs aint cheap... so could they then arrest you for destruction of Federal Property for destroying somthing which was TRESPASSING on your private Property?

Posted by: Romeo13 at June 28, 2011 10:43 AM (NtXW4)

94

Except since it punishes them for violating it it does "protect it".

I don't think it will at all. Because the punishment isn't applied so neatly. It's going to be byzantine to try to prosecute cops for 4th ammendment violations and determine responsibility and deal with all that. And there will be besides corruption, loopholes that clever people will craft.

I don't think you can punish them in such a way as to sufficiently deter them, while still remaining practical and not sending up the whole police force which is non-workable.

Posted by: Entropy at June 28, 2011 10:44 AM (IsLT6)

95 75
So, if I find a GPS tracker on my car, is it legal for me to destroy dispose of it?
Posted by: I R A Darth Aggie © at June 28, 2011 03:15 PM (1hM1d)

Did you put it there? No?
Did you ask for it to be put there? No?
Dispose away!

Posted by: No Whining at June 28, 2011 10:45 AM (FcKXR)

96 What do you mean you lost them? I was just sitting down with McCauley A HALF HOUR AGO! Posted by: Detective Vincent Hanna at June 28, 2011 03:04 PM

I know, then McCauley drove his car into LAX where the surveillance can't follow because of the flight paths. His car's still there, he's gone!

Posted by: kbdabear at June 28, 2011 10:47 AM (so1xa)

97

Posted by: sayyid412 at June 28, 2011 03:42 PM (EjnMv)

There is no indication that the beeper was used in any way to reveal information as to the movement of the chloroform container within the [460 U.S. 276, 277] cabin, or in any way that would not have been visible to the naked eye from outside the cabin. Pp. 280-285.

From your own cited case... the precedent there is weak...

Posted by: Romeo13 at June 28, 2011 10:50 AM (NtXW4)

98

Posted by: sayyid412 at June 28, 2011 03:42 PM (EjnMv)

And in the other, they HAD a Warrant...

Posted by: Romeo13 at June 28, 2011 10:52 AM (NtXW4)

99 95 75
So, if I find a GPS tracker on my car, is it legal for me to destroy dispose of it?
Posted by: I R A Darth Aggie © at June 28, 2011 03:15 PM (1hM1d)

Did you put it there? No?
Did you ask for it to be put there? No?
Dispose away!

Posted by: No Whining at June 28, 2011 03:45 PM


Or do what McCauley's crew did and put it on a bus. Or better yet a government car or a cop car

Posted by: kbdabear at June 28, 2011 10:54 AM (so1xa)

100

You find a bug planted on your car, and it NOT being yours, you destroy it.

Well, destroying Federal Property IS a crime, and these bugs aint cheap... so could they then arrest you for destruction of Federal Property for destroying somthing which was TRESPASSING on your private Property?

Posted by: Romeo13 at June 28, 2011 03:43 PM

By that description, you're guilty of destruction of federal property if an agent shoots you and your body mashed his bullet

Posted by: kbdabear at June 28, 2011 10:56 AM (so1xa)

101 Or put the warrantless GPS unit on a dog's collar, let the cops follow the dog through the woods.

Posted by: Anna Puma at June 28, 2011 10:58 AM (Zd0YP)

102 I think you should be able to file a lawsuit in civil court for Fourth Amendment violations.  That'd put some real teeth in it.
Posted by: rdbrewer at June 28, 2011 03:14 PM

You can. It's called a 1983 action, suing the government for violation of your rights. In fact this was the method to vindicate an illegal search before the exclusionary rule was dreamt up by the courts. Prior to that, they would not exclude evidence just because it was gathered illegally - if the evidence was reliable, it was admitted.

Posted by: real joe at June 28, 2011 10:59 AM (SlSoO)

103

And I still say, as a matter of course as a potential juror, any evidence collected illegally is basically worthless.

If (out of overzealousness, or lazyness and disrespect for proper legal procedures) they are breaking the law to collect the evidence, that evidence is not credible.

If we have them on record as violating the laws at least once, there's no good reason to suspect they haven't violated more laws in their handling of the evidence, corrupting it, planting it, rearranging it, whatever. When all you have is from the get go the knowledge that the evidence was collected illegally, there's no good reason to assume it was all kosher besides the procurement.

Posted by: Entropy at June 28, 2011 11:00 AM (IsLT6)

104 I like ripping on Kennedy as much as the next guy, but isn't quasi-libertarian Kennedy more likely than Roberts to find a violation here? 

Posted by: mrobvious at June 28, 2011 11:04 AM (G7Jng)

105 If (out of overzealousness, or lazyness and disrespect for proper legal procedures) they are breaking the law to collect the evidence, that evidence is not credible.

Not true. What if a cop illegally searches a crackhead and finds drugs? The evidence is reliable - it is definitely an illegal substance. The only problem is the illegal search.
Some say all the exclusionary rule did was encourage police perjury, not really protect rights.

Posted by: real joe at June 28, 2011 11:06 AM (SlSoO)

106 By that description, you're guilty of destruction of federal property if an agent shoots you and your body mashed his bullet

Posted by: kbdabear at June 28, 2011 03:56 PM (so1xa)

Well... Iran is a Tyranny by most people definition...

And there were Published reports that they do Charge the Family for the ammunition used to execute people...

And we ARE talking about the slippery slope to tyranny...

Some assembly required...

Posted by: Romeo13 at June 28, 2011 11:06 AM (NtXW4)

107 but isn't quasi-libertarian Kennedy more likely than Roberts to find a violation here?  Posted by: mrobvious at June 28, 2011 04:04 PM

Flip of the coin.

Posted by: rdbrewer at June 28, 2011 11:07 AM (gSLe2)

108 I don't really see Kennedy is much of a libertarian either.  Perhaps you mean libertine.

Posted by: rdbrewer at June 28, 2011 11:07 AM (gSLe2)

109 107 but isn't quasi-libertarian Kennedy more likely than Roberts to find a violation here? Posted by: mrobvious at June 28, 2011 04:04 PM

Flip of the coin.

Posted by: rdbrewer at June 28, 2011 04:07 PM (gSLe2)

Yeah, my personal Theory is that Kennedy has a Magic 8 Ball underneath his Robe...

/shake shake...

And the magic 8 ball says?

Posted by: Romeo13 at June 28, 2011 11:09 AM (NtXW4)

110

I am going to parse hairs here. Was the person in question a US CITIZEN? If the answer is yes, then the police needed a warrant. If the person in question wasn’t  , then they didn’t

Posted by: Coldwarrior57 at June 28, 2011 11:10 AM (nYTrG)

111 As the former owner of a federal reef fish permit I can tell you that I was required to purchase and maintain a six thousand dollar "VMS" on my vessel to keep the fishing permit. I would really like to know rdbrewers thoughts on this issue.

Posted by: td at June 28, 2011 11:12 AM (w7TI0)

112 If you all didn't have anything to hide, you wouldn't be worrying about this.

Posted by: Chief of Police, Anytown at June 28, 2011 11:19 AM (lRqIF)

113 I do have something to hide. Twenty years of running all over the gulf looking for fishing spots. Now I am required to broadcast every one of these locations to some one sitting in a federal office. I cant participate anymore.

Posted by: td at June 28, 2011 11:26 AM (w7TI0)

114 I like ripping on Kennedy as much as the next guy, but isn't quasi-libertarian Kennedy more likely than Roberts to find a violation here?

Kennedy is NOT a libertarian, or even leaning that way. He took Sandra day O'Flip Flop's place. He trades sides based on nothing more than pique.

According to the red Headed babe who specializes on the SCOTUS, Jan Crawford Greenburg it depends on whether he is pissed at Scalia that day or not.

Posted by: Vic at June 28, 2011 11:28 AM (M9Ie6)

115

"There is no indication that the beeper was used in any way to reveal information as to the movement of the chloroform container within the [460 U.S. 276, 277] cabin, or in any way that would not have been visible to the naked eye from outside the cabin. Pp. 280-285.

From your own cited case... the precedent there is weak..."

Snark first, then serious response below. Do you frequently drive your SUV around inside your rustic Wisconsin cabin? 

"And in the other, they HAD a Warrant..."

Re-read my post. I cited those cases on the issue of seizure, not search. On that point they are unequivocal -- putting the radio device in the jug, personal property of the person being searched, was not seizure. Just like how I expect the court to say sticking the GPS on a car isn't seizure. If there was a violation in the cases I cited, the justices agreed it had to be from the information gleaned from the device. Using the device to learn where the vehicles were on public roadways was not search. The only prohibitions were for gleaning information well beyond what cops would learn tailing the suspect. Specifically, the cases blocked learning information that could only be obtained by physically invading someone's home but for the use of technology.

Notice, that's the line of attack I suggested was strongest on the case -- "If the court of appeals' position ... has merit, it's that the monitoring ... directly reveals information that was in fact protected by a reasonable expectation of privacy." If GPS tracking is prohibited, it's not because of duration of the monitoring or because there's something inherently wrong with attaching GPS transponders to cars. Instead, it's because once the car comes to rest at its destination the information GPS gives is too detailed to avoid revealing protected information from within the home.


But again, I think that's a stretch as far as arguments go, and that argument is completely different from the argument from the DC Circuit.

Posted by: sayyid412 at June 28, 2011 11:32 AM (EjnMv)

116 Td, that's not a search for Fourth Amendment purposes; it's part of a licensing requirement.  Someone has determined this is the best way to preserve a limited resource.

It's not that much different from having to buy federal duck stamp to hunt a limited resource.  Use of the stamp also grants the government permission to search your stuff for type and quantity of the game you collect. And keep in mind, you're exercising a privilege, not a right.

The expense is problematic, though.  You can see where the government's real motivation here is to sit in their office drinking beer and watching a screen rather than doing the shoe-leather work of checking boats out in the gulf or as they roll in.  So you're paying for their convenience.  Some bureaucrat said, "Gee, sure would be nice if we didn't have to sweat so hard driving around in the gulf!"

I would want to know which came first, the permitted locations or the device.  I suspect the locations existed first.  But if the locations opened up because of the advent of convenient monitoring, they would have a stronger rationale. (And you would feel better about the situation.)  Regardless, what can you do?

Congress gives power to federal agencies to create rules and regulations.  They came up with that rule.  What can you say? 

Posted by: rdbrewer at June 28, 2011 11:40 AM (gSLe2)

117 Do you frequently drive your SUV around inside your rustic Wisconsin cabin?

Posted by: sayyid412 at June 28, 2011 04:32 PM (EjnMv)

Well... I do drive my SUV on my Girlfriends Ranch, and my Friends Ranch, qutie often... but thats Central California, not Wisconsin...

Now I guess that they Police 'could' do ariel surveilance over Private Property... as the Feds do own the Airspace, but even then the standard is a 'reasonable expectation of privacy'... and what reasonable law abiding citizen would expect the Feds to go to that length?

And of course, having been involved with Satellites at one part of my Military Carreer... I do have a bit of knowledge of their capabilities...

But it goes to the bigger question... of are we a people who are supposed to be Free?  Are we PRIVATE Citizens?  Or does the government have the Power to follow us and monitor us, without either telling us, or getting a Warrant?  and just where IS that Line?

It goes to the very question of the Nature of Modern Government, and how much power we wish to give it....

Posted by: Romeo13 at June 28, 2011 11:47 AM (NtXW4)

118 and what reasonable law abiding citizen would expect the Feds to go to that length?

Case law has generally been that "exterior of the house" is not reasonable expectation of privacy. That is why they can search your garbage.

Posted by: Vic at June 28, 2011 11:52 AM (M9Ie6)

119 Congress gives power to federal agencies to create rules and regulations. They came up with that rule. What can you say?

Posted by: rdbrewer at June 28, 2011 04:40 PM (gSLe2)

But the Constitution, which is the Contract between the People, and the Government, does NOT give these Federal Agencies the Power to make said rules...

It beggars the question of: Does the Congress have the ability to delegate its Powers?  Which are also LIMITATIONS on said powers?

The Constitution is pretty clear as to Who can Legislate... but can also be read as who CANNOT Legislate.

Posted by: Romeo13 at June 28, 2011 11:52 AM (NtXW4)

120 Case law has generally been that "exterior of the house" is not reasonable expectation of privacy. That is why they can search your garbage.

Posted by: Vic at June 28, 2011 04:52 PM (M9Ie6)

Hmmm... can they search your garbage, if it is behind a Fence, on Private Property?

Posted by: Romeo13 at June 28, 2011 11:53 AM (NtXW4)

121

"108I don't really see Kennedy is much of a libertarian either. Perhaps you mean libertine."
Maybe I'm wrong. I know the guy can be pretty flaky, but I'd always heard that if there was any unifying thread to his opinions, it was his personal libertarianism.

As to libertine, I'm pretty sure I don't mean that, unless he too has been "mugged" while "jogging" late at night in DC,

 

Posted by: mrobvious at June 28, 2011 12:01 PM (G7Jng)

122 Hmmm... can they search your garbage, if it is behind a Fence, on Private Property?

I believe so.

Posted by: Vic at June 28, 2011 12:02 PM (M9Ie6)

123

No, Kennedy is not a goddamn libertarian.

That's how democrats affirm him whenever he squishes on social issues, or explain him when he squishes back eventually.

From Reason mag (no link cuz linking on here sucks):

Political scientist Helen Knowles makes a similar point about the intellectual coherence of Kennedy's views in her book The Tie Goes to Freedom: Anthony M. Kennedy on Liberty, which I reviewed back in March. As Knowles provocatively argues, when it comes to free speech, race-based classifications, gay rights, and abortion, Kennedy's jurisprudence qualifies as "modestly libertarian." But Kennedy also voted to uphold New London, Connecticut's disastrous use of eminent domain in Kelo v. City of New London and sided with federal anti-drug enforcement over state medical marijuana legalization in Gonzales v. Raich, both of which place pretty severe limits on his respect for liberty.

Posted by: Entropy at June 28, 2011 12:38 PM (IsLT6)

124

Not true. What if a cop illegally searches a crackhead and finds drugs? The evidence is reliable - it is definitely an illegal substance. The only problem is the illegal search.

How do you know he found drugs?

If the man is making an illegal search to find them, who's to say he didn't illegally put them there?

If the guy is willing to knowingly violate the law to obtain the evidence of a crime, how do we know he's not willing to violate the law to obtain a conviction?

Posted by: Entropy at June 28, 2011 12:50 PM (IsLT6)

125

Seriously.

If the 'process' doesn't matter and he plays fast and loose... if a guy will break the law to get the evidence he thinks is there, he can just make the evidence he thinks is there to get the guy he thinks is guilty.

We're starting from the position that he's already done it once and the evidence was illegally obtained here.  As far as circumventing the law in pursuit of what he may think is justice, he's not only done it before, he just did it, with this very same evidence.

Posted by: Entropy at June 28, 2011 12:55 PM (IsLT6)

126

How do you know he found drugs?

If the man is making an illegal search to find them, who's to say he didn't illegally put them there?

If the guy is willing to knowingly violate the law to obtain the evidence of a crime, how do we know he's not willing to violate the law to obtain a conviction?


I was only trying to explain that before the exclusionary rule, courts would not suppress reliable evidence for a constitutional violation. The remedy lay in civil courts. We can posit any number of factual scenarios, it doesn't change the point  I was making.

Posted by: real joe at June 28, 2011 01:36 PM (w7Lv+)

127

'But Kennedy also voted to uphold New London, Connecticut's disastrous use of eminent domain in Kelo v. City of New London and sided with federal anti-drug enforcement over state medical marijuana legalization in Gonzales v. Raich, both of which place pretty severe limits on his respect for liberty."

OK, I'm an idiot.

Posted by: mrobvious at June 28, 2011 03:44 PM (G7Jng)

128 The appeals court will be overturned.

Look, even the 9th says you don't need a warrant.  I'll check back here in a year and see who's right. 

Posted by: Ray Miodge at June 28, 2011 06:29 PM (AYwDP)

129 I really hate to disagree with someone I admire so much rd. Driving is a privilege too. Thank you Romeo for the correct answer.

Posted by: td at June 29, 2011 08:58 AM (w7TI0)

130 They might have an argument that, since our cell phones already track us everywhere, we no longer have a reasonable expectation of privacy in regards to our location at any given moment. Which is bull.

Posted by: jordin at June 30, 2011 05:16 PM (zM3dN)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
161kb generated in CPU 0.3, elapsed 1.5644 seconds.
62 queries taking 1.4483 seconds, 366 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.