9th court of appeals rules it's okay for government to implant GPS on your car to track you without court order

Government is out of control.

It seems to me that if the government wants to follow you, they will do it GPS or not. Cameras in space can tell you which species of gnat is buzzing your head. A GPS is just a cheaper way of following you. Big Brother is here, and has been here for a long time. You can pretend that the courts will protect you, but that isn't going to happen.

If you aren't in favour of this bill, you support terrorists!

Unless you have lots of money... Just sayin' truth.

....seemingly without question.

Did you know that the word "gullible" is not in the dictionary ???

If you want to know the real story....instead of one that is slanted to suit some special interest....then look up the actual court decision and post a link to THAT here.

The whole subject is politically charged.....and that kind of stuff is discouraged here.

Hope I never find a GPS bug on my vehicle.. or else it'll be introduced to my 4lb. hand sledge.

Nuvi1300WTGPS

Perhaps there is some wording here that I am not interpreting correctly.

I think that the decision is somewhat shocking, especially since courts in other appeals districts have found just the opposite. This is clearly one that will go to the supreme court and I have no idea how they would rule.

While I think the comment by juggernaut "If you aren't in favour of this bill, you support terrorists!" is too strong, I certainly would favor tracking suspected terrorists given some reasonable suspicion.

As I understand the issue, a tracking device was attached to a suspects car without a warrant and in the suspects driveway.

I got lost on the

Since the question seemed to be serious, I actually went to a dictionary and found it was there. I just could not connect the word "shocking" and the word "gullible".

I do agree with

but would add that personal attacks are not helpful either.

As many readers know, I find that the real story can be uncovered by following the links in even the most biased of articles. For instance thenewspaper.com has extremely slanted articles but has always given me links so that I can make up my own mind - and it has mostly (but not always) been just the opposite to what the article headline would have implied.

I suggest that whenever one of us has a different view, if we comment at all, then we ourselves should provide the links to the facts that we wish to make known.

"There are no facts, only interpretations."
- Friedrich Nietzsche

Wouldn't that be a reasonable understanding concerning the expectation of privacy? Doesn't this case show it to be true that the rich have the privilege of having an higher expectation of privacy while poor folks who cannot afford, for example, to erect a fence might be deemed to have lesser rights?

The opinion is U.S. v. Pineda-Moreno, 591 F.3d 1212 C.A.9 (Or. 2010). And it does hold that the government can secretly attach a GPS device to your car, parked in your driveway, without a warrant. Personally I find this very offensive. Judges like O'Scannlain, the one who wrote it, are, when it comes to the Fourth Amendment, nothing more than foot soldiers for the prosecution in the war on drugs. This, combinded with the so called "Patriot Act" passed after 911, will allow the judiciary to completely erode the protections in our Bill of Rights, and all with the blessings of law enforcement and congress. I am all in favor of law enforcement, but if they don't have probable cause, then they have no business sneaking onto peoples' driveways to install GPS tracking devices. Just my humble opinion.

First of all your talking about the 9th court. Known throughout America as the most overturned court in the land.

Next. I wonder if I would be liable, if the person monitoring my travels, were to die of boredom?

My travels would read: Walmart, Lowes, Gas station that sells ethnohol free gas, then a stations that sells diesel, then a trip to the backcountry of Idaho.

Then repeat, as required.

The dissent by Chief Judge Kozinski can be read in its entirety here: http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/page.htm?shortname=infco20100...

You might think it doesn't amount to a hill of beans but check out some of the other decisions involving the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals: http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2010/02/18/08...

Please, tell me how this differs? Both are suspects, right?

Or, is the law applied unequally when it comes to 'terrorist' suspects? Is that ok? Guilty until proven innocent?

I fail to follow your logic in human rights.

While I personally believe that no one should have the right to stalk me - not the police and not a private individual - the reality is that had the police been prohibited from attaching their tracker to the defendant's vehicle when it was parked on his driveway for reasons related to the Fourt Amendment (or any other), no such prohibition would have applied when the car was parked on the street or at the defendant's workplace.

In other words, as is usually the case a minor change to the situation would have made it legally acceptable to have done this and they'd still be prosecuting the case.

I tend to wonder whether they could simply have used that argumant to make the challenge moot ("Yes, your honor, we could have attached it when he was in having his hair cut, but this was much simpler and the result was the exact same, so let's just dismiss the complaint and move forward")

I think a sign that says "Private Property Keep out" would work so I am not sure the rich vs poor comment has to apply.

Still, it seems that the old adage about a man's home being a castle is not really applicable any more.

As you have determined, I am torn on this one so I am not being logical. If I were logical, then I would have to say that, without a warrant, this would be illegal. However, having seen some documentaries about the knowledge that the authorities had about various of the 9/11 terrorists, I wish there were some way they could have done some illegal tracking and stopped the plot.

Perhaps someone will be able to frame a set of laws that will resolve what I suspect are similar illogical feelings in a lot of us.

I'm of the opinion that no kind of tracking should be done without a warrant, and that the place the device is attached shouldn't matter. But maybe current law needs to be updated to prevent it. We have a judiciary as a check on abuse of power by other branches of government. There should be a viable cause for spying on U.S. citizens, and law enforcement should be required to first get a warrant.

Agree, but we live in an age where the technology to "track" someone is all about us. Cell phones are passed from cell tower to cell tower as we drive.

There was a case here in Chattanooga where the speed cameras in our S-curves were used to provide evidence that a particular person was in that location at specific times tying the person to the area of a crime.

The science of iris-scanning that is being developed is moving rapidly and soon public places (say airports) may be able to know that certain people were at certain places at a particular time.

Attaching a tracking device is a direct action, but we all need to be considering what our positions are on the indirect actions. I really do not have a good answer.

The "gullible" thing was an example of how gullible people can be. You failed the test.

My point IS that the subject was posted on that site in a manner that was slanted and spun and inflamatory. It was designed to appeal to your primal insticts of fear and (likely) did not present the whole story.

Those who promote such biased "reporting" are just as guilty as the originators, in my opinion.

If that was your meaning, I agree.

Hmmm, if you want to tell us something the reporter has left out, feel free to look up the actual court decision and post the link.

And in addition to posting the link, please show us where exactly the story went astray, or left out key facts. Facts, not "gullible" challenges just because the story came from a journalist, is more meaningful.

Otherwise you have added nothing here.

So you're admitting that you do not know if the article did or did not present the whole story???

And you're calling people "gullible"?

You expected people to somehow buy into your rant of a post with no real relevant information to clarify or counter-act the information presented by a single news source?

Now this story has hit CNN and other major outlets, I still don't see anything that is wrong or interpreted incorrectly in the original link I posted.

Care to explain why you jumped to some strange conclusions so quickly, without any facts to backup your dismissal?

Thank you!!!

This is precisely the type of response that is relevant and useful.

Aside from the fact that you did not call people "gullible", you also presented additional facts that are very interesting and useful.

I found the dissenting opinion to be very interesting, and further validation to the shocking nature of this court's decision.

We now have a clear split in opinion before the 9th and 3rd Circuits. That puts the matter in a good position for appealing to the Supreme Court (to resolve the differences among circuits).

Might take a few years, but this will continue to be one to watch.

Not only is Kozinski chief judge for the 9th circuit, he's also a Regan appointee. His opinions are worth reading.

I curious - this S-curve - at no point is there a straight portion, are the radar guns above the straight portion if it exists, or are they on the side of the road? how sharp are the curves?

here are the two cameras at eather ends of the curves

-85.28178,35.09664,"Speed 40 - near Rivemont Rd","TN Chattanooga poi-factory Jun30 10"

-85.28075,35.09778,"Speed 40 - near Olde Towne Ln","TN Chattanooga poi-factory Jun30 10"

use google maps and put in lon lat like 35.09664 -85.28178

It is NOT my responsibility to take time to find the "truth" for a "story" like that which so obviously didn't include all the details.

The person who brought it here is being irresponsible. If you want to bait someone into a fight, try HIM.......or the people who run the site quoted.

What I "added" is the simple fact that you can't believe everything you hear; almost everything these days is twisted and tainted in some way.

Some people hear only what they WANT to hear and/or post stuff like this just for the shock factor.
At the very least, it is incomplete and it is NOT MY RESPONSIBILITY to fill in the blanks.

Let me bring up another point that I have not seen elsewhere: is not a person who enters your property purposely without your permission, or, in the case law enforcement, without a warrant (unless you permit) actually trespassing? Your driveway is your private property, except for the right of way across the sidewalk. No doubt their lawyers will argue that it's "technically" only trespassing if I order (warn) them off my property - or some claptrap to that effect. I have sadly reached a point of virtually complete cynicism.

You would need to make sure you're not on city easement or other public property.

Other than that, according to the 'order', everyone has to put up a gate, or barrier of some kind.

What a crock! I can see a criminal using this in court down the road, can't you?

'But, yer honour... they didn't have a gate and stuff to say it wuz private. I'z innercent!'

SCOTUS ruled, under the "open fields" doctrine in Oliver v. United States (1983), that a "no trespassing" sign in a field was insufficient to require the police to first obtain a search warrant prior to initiating a search.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0466...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_fields_doctrine

That's a real eye opener. Open fields sure seems like a slippery slope -- 4th Amendment rights only protected where you have a reasonable expectation of privacy? I can see a lot of ways to abuse that.

Thanks for bringing this up.

Once again you prove you have added nothing, but to try to muddle the topic.

You sir, failed, miserably, in trying to bring the topic down.

The rest of the people who are actually interested in an intellectual discussion will be free to ignore your useless rants from here on out, as you have proven your input to be useless.

I have to agree that this shouldn't be allowed. Its letting the police tamper with your personal property without any proof wrong-doing. I assume the GPS would have to be connected to the wiring of the car for power, plus secured to the body to keep it from falling off.

Don't worry, this discussion will be moot pretty soon. There is much better solution already on trial:

Biometrics R&D firm Global Rainmakers Inc. (GRI) announced today that it is rolling out its iris scanning technology to create what it calls "the most secure city in the world." In a partnership with Leon -- one of the largest cities in Mexico, with a population of more than a million -- GRI will fill the city with eye-scanners. That will help law enforcement revolutionize the way we live -- not to mention marketers.

"In the future, whether it's entering your home, opening your car, entering your workspace, getting a pharmacy prescription refilled, or having your medical records pulled up, everything will come off that unique key that is your iris," says Jeff Carter, CDO of Global Rainmakers. Before coming to GRI, Carter headed a think tank partnership between Bank of America, Harvard, and MIT. "Every person, place, and thing on this planet will be connected [to the iris system] within the next 10 years," he says.

And I just love the way, they say it will be voluntary:

And he has a warning for those thinking of opting out: "When you get masses of people opting-in, opting out does not help. Opting out actually puts more of a flag on you than just being part of the system. We believe everyone will opt-in."

source: http://www.fastcompany.com/1683302/iris-scanners-create-the-...

But I'm sure that it's worth if one life can be saved [irony off]. And there is quite few people even on this forum that will like that idea. After all, if you have nothing to hide...
And just think, that we started with some people applauding CCTV and RL Cameras. They must feel safe like hell.

What else could you expect from the 9th court of appeals?

.....that you apparently are unwilling or unable to provide.

I am asking that you (or the person making the original post) provide ALL the relevant information......instead of just a little snippet out of context that may or may not accurately represent the true story.

Providing ONLY a link to an obviously biased web site is, IN ITSELF, muddying the water right from the beginning.

Since you seem to be unwilling to do that, the obvious conclusion is that you are trying to cover something up.....and the whole story wouldn't be nearly as senstaional as your selected quote.

I can tell this upsets you but I don't understand quite why. Nuvic320 posted a link to a story and used one word "Shocking".

I had just heard of the decision by the 9th circuit on both CNN and the ABC news just before nuvic320 posted. I do not know the web site and it may very well be slanted one way or another but the feeling by the two news reports I had heard was that the case would be headed to the Supreme Court because of the lack of a warrant and the fact that the GPS had been attached on private property. My reaction was similar to nuvic320's - that was a shocking decision.

Had this particular suspect been a terrorist suspect, then maybe I would have been less concerned by the ruling, but the suspected crime was growing pot.

Was there some reason why the word shocking was not appropriate? I understood from CNN that a number of other appeals circuit courts had ruled just the opposite ( and I hate to present that as fact as I have not checked it out but when both CNN and ABC news report such, I am inclined to believe them). That being the case, it is highly unusual for another appeals circuit to rule exactly the opposite as a number of others.

I do not agree that the manner of the posting was inflamatory, but you are certainly entitled to your opinion.

I am sorry to be so dense. Tell me in a different way why my posts or my position make me "gullible". What have I believed that I should not have believed?

A guy I worked with found a GPS tracking device on a car. He showed it to me. Magnetic mount and self contained. I told him he might want to put it back. He put it on an 18 wheeler trailer that was parked nearby...ROAD TRIP!!

I have a friend who is a world traveler mostly to 3rd world countries for missionary work and he got called in by someone for a suspected bomb threat (in the aftermath of 9/11). Some one had left a garbage suitcase next to his car in the parking lot. He was in the US at the time (Canadian citizen) and they tracked him down and he got the whole 9 yards - hours of interrogation and everything. They put a tracer on his car inside of the locked garage of the friends house where he was staying and then called his cell every time he went anywhere. And the story goes on.... He was released as innocent but it was quite the story. He asked one of the agents how they got the tracer on his car and he was told 'Oh that's easy, we could put one on it inside a solid concrete box.'

actually jgermann was being the opposite of gullible. by consulting the dictionary he was displaying his skepticism. if he were gullible he would have simply taken your word for it.

the reason I asked is I haven't run accross radar guns placed on curves and I was trying to see if a physics professor I had eons ago was right that radar guns cannot measure speeds on curves accurately.

you realize the government is not the only ones doing this kinda of stuff.

and it was a good question.

Actually the cameras are at either ends of the "s-curves" so the line of sight is fairly straight at those points.

Seems there are a number of assumptions:

1. Surveillance technology is only used to catch those who are guilty of committing crimes whether as evidence during the commission of an act or in conjunction with the offense. Note I didn’t say ‘suspected’ as opposed to ‘guilty’.

OR

2. Fighting crime is a prime directive that overrules the common adage of ‘innocent until proven guilty’ in reference to the idea that the justice system is skewed to protect some innocent people at the risk of letting some guilty ones go. It was once believed that it is a greater injustice to society for innocent men to be deprived of life or liberty. The opposite of this is the dragnet approach which ensnares innocent people along with the guilty; in other words, expediency takes precedence over due process.
3. There is no significant difference between a device which merely augments a human’s abilities and a device that actually surpasses and replaces a human’s abilities. Thus, technology is lumped together only as a tool in assisting law enforcement. See number 2 above.
4. The evolution of technology and its initial adoption indicates implicit societal acceptance of both the positive and negative aspects of said technology despite the absence of a public dialogue to discuss the nature of the impact and its mitigation. The idea is to introduce the technology to the market first then let the courts and other government bodies work at the intricacies of the new laws. The benefits of the new technology are touted as a boon to society, e.g., productivity increases despite the loss of privacy.

Most of us fall somewhere within the 4th assumption, that we see the upside of technology if used correctly. However, although GPS and GPS-related information has enhanced my life but that doesn’t mean my tacit acceptance of the negative aspects of this technology either.

LOL Just because I quoted a single story, doesn't mean I haven't reviewed other sources.

On the other hand, it is quite rude, and trollish of you to be calling people "gullible" without any facts whatsoever, something you still have failed to provide.

Everyone in this thread can see that you are doing nothing but threadcrapping. You have added ZERO value in your inputs.

People are smart, they're going to be checking information from other sources themselves. They don't need a troll like you to tell them to not be "gullible" and buy everything online just because it's "on the internet".

You on the other hand have some sort of problem with people sharing links and information online, and challenge them to "share all information" when in fact you have no idea if any information is missing or not.

Very sad.

You are not dense nor have you missed anything my friend.

Once again on another thread in as many days we are dealing with individuals who somehow cannot logically or reasonably discuss a topic, and have to throw emotion into a thread without any facts or basis for it.

This ain't my first trip to the Rodeo.

I've been on the Internet since it was in the testing stages.

Incomplete and biased postings are easy to identify.
If YOU can't recognize the originally linked site as biased and incomplete.......then you have provided proof enough that someone needs to point it out.

And I'm a little surprised that this thread hasn't been locked yet. If you post "hot button" topics, you should expect for them to get a little "hot".
Things like that have been discouraged in the past.

Please, just stop it.

You're adding NOTHING of value to this thread, just trolling us.

Topics can be hot if people are adding relevant discussion. You're just wasting people's time. Please do us a favor and just stay away from this thread unless you have some useful information to add.

The rest of the participants in this thread are discussing this topic like adults, please just leave us to discussing the topic at hand.

I agree. The dissenting judge's opinion was pretty revealing and alarming as well.

No, you absolutely are not.

I made my comment and would have been content with a few short replies......but NO....a couple of you seem to be determined to beat me into the ground for having the gaul to speak up in the first place.

That qualifies as neither discussion or adult.

Stop kicking me and I will stop kicking back. Simple.

alpine1, too funny. but i think most are missing this point: why would anyone, government or otherwise, knock on your door and announce that they want to secretly track your vehicle?