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

 
--
http://www.poi-factory.com/node/21626 - red light cameras do not work
<<Page 2

The bickering in this thread

The bickering in this thread needs to end here. No more!!!

Miss POI

I Don't think it is right

I don't think the authorities should be able to come on to private property for ANY reason with out a warrant!! (or probable cause like a crime in progress that is visible from the street)

Just my two cents.

Crew.

I have also heard that the EPA is about to try and regulate lead in bullets and fishing sinkers. I do think our government is over-reaching BIG TIME!

It looks like the NRA slowed them down - (I don't think they are stopped)...

http://politics.usnews.com/news/washington-whispers/articles...

Let them watch, I'm not up

Let them watch, I'm not up to anything wrong, they have no reason to turn their eyes to me.

--
Knowing where you are going is as important as knowing where you've been.

Hmmm...

b25crew wrote:

I have also heard that the EPA is about to try and regulate lead in bullets and fishing sinkers.

I don't think cops would be too happy if the only bullets available are the armor-piercing type. Unless their ultimate agenda is to eliminate bullets and then the right to bear arms.... oh wait... razz

--
Garmin nuvi 1300LM with 4GB SD card Garmin nuvi 200W with 4GB SD card Garmin nuvi 260W with 4GB SD card r.i.p.

life safer

drdelaron wrote:

Let them watch, I'm not up to anything wrong, they have no reason to turn their eyes to me.

Yes, why are you concern that they are following you unless you are doing something wrong.

At least they are trying to make our life more safer.

Breakdown

Too much big brother watching.

--
Val - Nuvi 785t and Streetpilot C340

Safety vs. Liberty

gdlcjr wrote:

At least they are trying to make our life more safer.

I read the dissenting opinion, and while I applaud the man for speaking out, once again am ashamed of my country. It won't be long now before the US becomes a total police state. In fact, it's already on the way, though most don't realize it.

As I've so often quoted in similar discussions all across the Internet, "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Benjamin Franklin said that, over 250 years ago. It still holds true today. So, how much of your liberty are you willing to cede to the government in order to maintain the illusion of safety?

--
"Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job." --Douglas Adams

This is pretty freaky stuff

This is pretty freaky stuff

clarify please

scyntax wrote:

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?

Not sure what you mean?

The government shouldn't have to announce it, but if they want to track someone, they should go to the court to get the proper warrant.

That's why we have different branches of government, to keep checks and balances on each other, to minimize one branch from becoming too powerful and abusing its powers.

--
http://www.poi-factory.com/node/21626 - red light cameras do not work

reading the comments on Gizmodo

Although I disagree with the ruling, one of the comments stated that a judge would have to rule if the evidence gathered is admissible in the criminal case at hand. Good point.
The dissenting judge mentioned that a rich man can secure his car at night and a poor man can not.

--
1490LMT 1450LMT 295w

Control

I guess that the auto makers bail out comes with a price smile More control, less freedoms.

Seriously though the left coast has serious issues this just magnifies there thought process.

I'm for less government etc.

but sometimes I have to ask myself some questions.

1. Is it more "big brother" for the police to put a listening device in a place to listen in on criminal activity, or is it more "big brother" to put an undercover person into a situation where they can listen and observe criminal activity? Is it necessary to get a search warrant for undercover work? I don't know.

2. And to keep this on topic, is it more "big brother" to put a GPS device to track someone than to have a LEO do it personally?

--
If you don't know where you are going, you might wind up someplace else. - Yogi Berra

The problem really isn't the

The problem really isn't the GPS tracker itself. The problem is that police no longer need probable cause or a warrant to mount that tracker on a car in a driveway. So, if the police wanted to monitor your whereabouts because you're of Middle-Eastern descent, despite the fact that you are likely an upstanding citizen and have never gotten more than the occasional speeding ticket, they can and you can't do a thing about it.

Tell me how that makes things more safe, because I'm not seeing it.

--
"Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job." --Douglas Adams

Another scenario

Strephon_Alkhalikoi wrote:

The problem really isn't the GPS tracker itself. The problem is that police no longer need probable cause or a warrant to mount that tracker on a car in a driveway. So, if the police wanted to monitor your whereabouts because you're of Middle-Eastern descent, despite the fact that you are likely an upstanding citizen and have never gotten more than the occasional speeding ticket, they can and you can't do a thing about it.

Tell me how that makes things more safe, because I'm not seeing it.

Well using your scenario, no you won't be safer. But if you want, I could list a scenario where tracking someone could make you safer.

How 'bout if you were threatened with your life by a former business partner and you were so afraid for your life that you went to court and got a order of protection against this person. And further, the police thought this person was so threatening that they put a GPS device on that person's car and because of that, they caught him just before he blew your brains out?

--
If you don't know where you are going, you might wind up someplace else. - Yogi Berra

It's all about . . .

Strephon_Alkhalikoi wrote:

The problem really isn't the GPS tracker itself. The problem is that police no longer need probable cause or a warrant to mount that tracker on a car in a driveway. So, if the police wanted to monitor your whereabouts because you're of Middle-Eastern descent, despite the fact that you are likely an upstanding citizen and have never gotten more than the occasional speeding ticket, they can and you can't do a thing about it.

Tell me how that makes things more safe, because I'm not seeing it.

probable cause . . . gotta have it or this is kind of intrusion is out of bounds.

--
dja24 - garmin nuvi 200W, etrex vista, etrex vista Cx

What should be the proper focus?

I find it suspicious that DEA agents just happen to hang around Home Depot to potentially tail customers who purchase fertilizer.

It’s not a foregone conclusion that these men were dangerous drug dealing criminals even though that’s the popular media depiction of this type of activity. Typically, a marihuana bust is sensationalized by the discovery of a weapons cache. That doesn’t appear to be the case here. For all we know, these men had a grow operation to supply a medical marihuana dispensary. Oregon is one of several states where the will of the people has validated the use of medical marihuana.

Of course, under federal laws marihuana remains illegal but my understanding is if the federal restriction is not invoked through the potential for interstate transfer of marihuana as regulated under the commerce clause, then the state law takes precedence (although in opposition to the ruling in Gonzales v. Raich). Basically, that means only grow what is necessary for personal consumption under medical necessity. This is reflected in the approach of both the current drug czar and the attorney general who stated that busts for marihuana possession for personal use would take lowest priority.

If prohibition for this drug were abolished then this case would probably never have happened in which event the continual chipping away of the protections under the 4th Amendment would also not have occurred.

Is a man’s home no longer his castle? If I recall correctly, the court ruled that the placement of the GPS device did not constitute a search under auspices of the 4th Amendment so there was no need for a warrant based on probable cause. The court determined this even though they admitted that the event where the device was placed occurred in the curtilage which is the area immediately surrounding a residence and which, according to preceding court cases, also is deemed to have the same 4th Amendment protections as the home itself. This court, however, deemed that the curtilege is not afforded the protections applied to the home itself unless there is some feature that enhances privacy in some manner. So, basically for those who live in the western states, if anyone can see into your residential area and can have easy ingress then you are not necessarily privileged to the same protections as you expect for your home.

Additionally and more disturbing, there definitely appears to be a class divide with a two-tiered system of constitutional rights: one for the rich and one for the poor.

Flawed Example Yours Is

Last Mrk wrote:

Well using your scenario, no you won't be safer. But if you want, I could list a scenario where tracking someone could make you safer.

How 'bout if you were threatened with your life by a former business partner and you were so afraid for your life that you went to court and got a order of protection against this person. And further, the police thought this person was so threatening that they put a GPS device on that person's car and because of that, they caught him just before he blew your brains out?

I would be happy as a pig in pig s***. However, at the same time I got an "order of protection", which means the police would have probable cause to mount a GPS tracker on his car. Of course, with this little ruling they don't have to ask for the warrant anymore, and that is a problem because even people suspected of crimes still have rights until the day they are convicted and sentenced.

My example is different because the person in the example hasn't committed a crime and hasn't been convicted nor sentenced. He's simply a normal citizen that is being monitored solely because of his heritage. Something which he obviously has no control over.

No matter how you slice it, until this gets overturned by SCOTUS, any one of us could be tagged, and there's not a damn thing we can do about it, except of course finding the tracker and smashing it to bits with a sledge.

--
"Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job." --Douglas Adams

hm...

Well big brother has done it again..

Lead in Shotgun Shells

b25crew wrote:

I have also heard that the EPA is about to try and regulate lead in bullets and fishing sinkers. I do think our government is over-reaching BIG TIME!

It looks like the NRA slowed them down - (I don't think they are stopped)...

The idea behind banning lead shot and sinkers is environmentally sound. I am not sure how the NRA sees it as an infringement of the right to bear arms.

In Manitoba (and other parts of Canada I believe) the use of lead pellets in shotgun shells has been banned for several years. It has not stopped people from hunting ducks and geese, and created a cottage industry for shell packers. My father-in-law guides a group of duck hunters from the southeast US. They didn't realize that he had changed shot until he told them two years ago. They still get their quota!

Revising this old thread

Revising this old thread just to post this information.

http://tinyurl.com/2f3l7lu

So I guess it's now illegal to use a GPS to track a bad guy but you can still use the age old method Sherlock Holmes used by trailing someone the old fashioned way, with a magnifying glass. smile

--
If you don't know where you are going, you might wind up someplace else. - Yogi Berra

Supreme Court docket

--
1490LMT 1450LMT 295w

The device was planted as in the word "attached".

In doing a quick review of the comments and what was cited, the concern expressed was "privacy". Well - privacy is "dead", we are recorded in everything we do.

Nevertheless, I believe that there is an overlooked issue. If I understand the situation correctly, the GPS device was attached to the car. The car was not the property of the government, so the government, to me, would not have a right to affix something to your car without your permission.

The government would have a right to record your movements in public places by observing your activities. But affixing a device to your private property crosses the line.

--
Garmin Nuvi650 - Morehead City, NC

Broad brush

gdlcjr wrote:
drdelaron wrote:

Let them watch, I'm not up to anything wrong, they have no reason to turn their eyes to me.

Yes, why are you concern that they are following you unless you are doing something wrong.

At least they are trying to make our life more safer.

Out of curiosity...could you define "doing something wrong"?

Just so the rest of us know how broad that catagory can be.

Not shocking at all!!!

We are speaking of the 9th District. Need I say more?

Jackson vs Washington State

The WA Supreme court ruled about search warrants for GPS devices. In the Jackson case, he killed his daughter & used a vehicle to transport the body.
The details are halfway down the page on the link.
http://www.forensic-evidence.com/site/Police/GPS_onCar.html
He is still in jail.

--
1490LMT 1450LMT 295w
<<Page 2