Another attack on the fourth amendment

[Psychoclown]

On one hand, I do agree with the basic argument that its no different than if the police tailed your movements. Once I leave my home, my movement is open for all to observe, including the police. There is no reasonable expectation of privacy.

On the other hand, I find unrestricted electronic survailence like this a bit disturbing. You don't have to be paranoid (despite what some posters say) to see the potential for abuse. The whole "if you don't have anything to hide" argument is BS. If you apply that type of thinking, then why do we have the 4th and 5th amendments in the first place? I'd like to see this be done under the standards of a warrant so there is some supervision and accountability in place.

One place where I think the court got it wrong is saying there is no reasonable expectation of privacy on your own driveway. As the article said, the courts have long upheld that the reasonable expectation of privacy extends to the curtilage of one's home. I think its entirely reasonable to expect the government won't sneak onto to your property (aka driveway) and attached some electronic survailence gear to your property (aka your car). And the dissenting judge was spot on when he said how ruling that a driveway was exempt would affect all but the rich, who can afford to hide behind fences and gates around their entire estates.

 

[Tucker Case]

On one hand, I do agree with the basic argument that its no different than if the police tailed your movements. Once I leave my home, my movement is open for all to observe, including the police. There is no reasonable expectation of privacy.

On the other hand, I find unrestricted electronic survailence like this a bit disturbing. You don't have to be paranoid (despite what some posters say) to see the potential for abuse. The whole "if you don't have anything to hide" argument is BS. If you apply that type of thinking, then why do we have the 4th and 5th amendments in the first place? I'd like to see this be done under the standards of a warrant so there is some supervision and accountability in place.

One place where I think the court got it wrong is saying there is no reasonable expectation of privacy on your own driveway. As the article said, the courts have long upheld that the reasonable expectation of privacy extends to the curtilage of one's home. I think its entirely reasonable to expect the government won't sneak onto to your property (aka driveway) and attached some electronic survailence gear to your property (aka your car). And the dissenting judge was spot on when he said how ruling that a driveway was exempt would affect all but the rich, who can afford to hide behind fences and gates around their entire estates.

Here's the thing, the cops can and have placed devices on cars on private property before. There was a mix-up one time at our local PD because a guy who lived in the area with the same name as my father had a bunch of parking tickets so they came on to my dad's driveway and attached a boot on hs car. It was after my dad's accident so I had to go in to clear it up (which took forever). I'm not ****ting you, but they tried to get me to pay this other guy's parking tickets at first, even after they knew it was a mix up.

To me that's far more eggregious than a GPS tracker, but it's legal.

The point is that they go onto private property to **** with people's private property already, and for **** that isn't even a real crime (the tickets were all parking tickets for not having a city sticker or some other revenue generating bull**** like that).

 

[Slartibartfast]

So is there an expectation of privacy in one's driveway in the USA?

Also, does the USA Constitution prohibit local or state authorities tracking a person's movements?

Just because you don't like something does not make it unconstitutional.

.

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.

 

[Caine]

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.

Okay... So the investigators covertly follow you to a public parking lot location, and once you are inside, they install the device on your vehicle at such time...

:roll:

Does it really ****ing matter if they do it in your driveway? Honestly? What are you really bitching about here?

What are you losing by them coming into your driveway?
Would they come into your driveway if they wanted to do a knock and talk to find out if you saw anything in relation to a recent burglary at your neighbors house? DaMn Skippy......

Would your neighbor come into your driveway to knock on your door to deliver you a ****ing welcome to the god damned neighborhood pie? Yep.

So, where is your reasonable expectation of privacy?

 

[Slartibartfast]

They should not be touching any of your possessions without a warrant (or probable cause). That was my point.

 

[Tucker Case]

They should not be touching any of your possessions without a warrant (or probable cause). That was my point.

The wording of the amendment is pretty clear. You just got to underline the important bit:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated

It's not about a prohibition of a vague "violation" of property. It's a specific prohibition about Searches and Seizures.

The issue then becomes whether this is a search or a seizure of some sort.

Actualy, we can knock out seizure right away without any discussion at all because there is actually something added, not taken away.

So the real issue is whether or not this is a search.

If it is a search, there is a clear answer to the question "What is being searched?". So what does a GPS "search", exactly?

 

[Slartibartfast]

The wording of the amendment is pretty clear. You just got to underline the important bit:



It's not about a prohibition of a vague "violation" of property. It's a specific prohibition about Searches and Seizures.

The issue then becomes whether this is a search or a seizure of some sort.

Actualy, we can knock out seizure right away without any discussion at all because there is actually something added, not taken away.

So the real issue is whether or not this is a search.

If it is a search, there is a clear answer to the question "What is being searched?". So what does a GPS "search", exactly?

I consider augmenting a person's property to be a clear case of unreasonable search since you are obtaining data and disrupting a person's property.

GPS would be search in a person's activities, at least how it pertains to them using that car.

 

[Caine]

The wording of the amendment is pretty clear. You just got to underline the important bit:



It's not about a prohibition of a vague "violation" of property. It's a specific prohibition about Searches and Seizures.

The issue then becomes whether this is a search or a seizure of some sort.

Actualy, we can knock out seizure right away without any discussion at all because there is actually something added, not taken away.

So the real issue is whether or not this is a search.

If it is a search, there is a clear answer to the question "What is being searched?". So what does a GPS "search", exactly?

This is why I say.... Warrant is a best bet.
However, I wouldn't necessarily find this to be a search, but I would leave the actual decision making on that issue up to the courts.

Even though I probably have a better understanding of how the courts would view this matter than many posters here (excluding our attorneys), I don't claim to know more than the judges who decided this case, even if it is the 9th circus.
(Which BTW, this is the opposite side of the spectrum from "Liberal", which is what the 9th circus is known for... they may be onto something.... but probably not).

 

[Caine]

I consider augmenting a person's property to be a clear case of unreasonable search since you are obtaining data and disrupting a person's property.

GPS would be search in a person's activities, at least how it pertains to them using that car.

Can you tell me what is being disrupted????

Also, can you tell me how it is a search to have a person follow a subject when they are out in public?

 

[Winston Smith]

The Government Can Use GPS to Track Your Moves




Winston loves Big Brother, but I don't. This sort of thing is happening too much (well, once is too much)

What do you think?

I resent that.

 

[Winston Smith]

On one hand, I do agree with the basic argument that its no different than if the police tailed your movements. Once I leave my home, my movement is open for all to observe, including the police. There is no reasonable expectation of privacy.

On the other hand, I find unrestricted electronic survailence like this a bit disturbing. You don't have to be paranoid (despite what some posters say) to see the potential for abuse. The whole "if you don't have anything to hide" argument is BS. If you apply that type of thinking, then why do we have the 4th and 5th amendments in the first place? I'd like to see this be done under the standards of a warrant so there is some supervision and accountability in place.

One place where I think the court got it wrong is saying there is no reasonable expectation of privacy on your own driveway. As the article said, the courts have long upheld that the reasonable expectation of privacy extends to the curtilage of one's home. I think its entirely reasonable to expect the government won't sneak onto to your property (aka driveway) and attached some electronic survailence gear to your property (aka your car). And the dissenting judge was spot on when he said how ruling that a driveway was exempt would affect all but the rich, who can afford to hide behind fences and gates around their entire estates.

IMO the distinction between curtilage and other property was a bad idea to begin with. It goes back to US v. Oliver, one of the most reviled decisions in constitutional law. Also a marijuana case, naturally.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Can you tell me what is being disrupted????

The vehicle. It is being modified by an additional device.

Also, can you tell me how it is a search to have a person follow a subject when they are out in public?

The difference is that light and sound emitted off a moving vehicle are not a person's property.

 

[Tucker Case]

The vehicle. It is being modified by an additional device.

How is the vehicle modified?

For example, If I put a magnet on a refrigerator, did I augment the refrigerator?

 

[Slartibartfast]

How is the vehicle modified?

For example, If I put a magnet on a refrigerator, did I augment the refrigerator?

Probably not because the magnet doesn't really do anything. However, if the magnet had a timer on it, it would be additional functionality. There is little difference between sticking something on with a magnet, gluing it on, bolting it on, etc. Its still adding something to the original device.

There is also the problem of the police touching their person's possession without legal authority, such as a warrant, probable cause, normal course of duty, etc. That goes against "secure" and "unreasonable"

 

[Caine]

The vehicle. It is being modified by an additional device.

Has it? in what way has it been "modified".

The difference is that light and sound emitted off a moving vehicle are not a person's property.

And neither is the GPS signal being broadcasted by the GPS tracking device.

Do you realize how petty you are sounding?

 

[Slartibartfast]

Has it? in what way has it been "modified".

Its above

And neither is the GPS signal being broadcasted by the GPS tracking device.

The GPS is a modification of the original functionality of the car.

Do you realize how petty you are sounding?

I do not believe the preservation of my rights is petty. Anything can be reasoned out of and justified.

 

[Tucker Case]

Probably not because the magnet doesn't really do anything. However, if the magnet had a timer on it, it would be additional functionality. There is little difference between sticking something on with a magnet, gluing it on, bolting it on, etc. Its still adding something to the original device.

But they are still two separate devices. For augmentation to occur, the original device must be altered in some way. It's not simply the addition of a second device. If I put a car radio in my dashboard, I've augmented the car.

But if I put a boombox in the trunk, I have not augmented the car since the devices remain separate.

The only way that augmentation can occur is if th eorignal device is changed in some way. Putting a clock magnet on a refrigerator doesn't alter the refrigerator. Embedding it in the refrigerator and using the refrigerator's power supply to power the clock DOES alter the refrigerator and thus it does augment it.

There is also the problem of the police touching their person's possession with legal authority, such as a warrant, probably cause, etc. That goes against "secure"

Secure in this instance isn't written in a vaccum. The only thing they are secure against is unreasonable searches and seizures. It's not "secure against unwanted touching".

 

[Tucker Case]

The GPS is a modification of the original functionality of the car.

No it doesn't. The GPS has a fully separate and distinct function from the car. The car's function is the same before and after the GPS is attached. Teh GPS's function is the same before and after.

 

[Slartibartfast]

But they are still two separate devices. For augmentation to occur, the original device must be altered in some way. It's not simply the addition of a second device. If I put a car radio in my dashboard, I've augmented the car.

But if I put a boombox in the trunk, I have not augmented the car since the devices remain separate.

The only way that augmentation can occur is if th eorignal device is changed in some way. Putting a clock magnet on a refrigerator doesn't alter the refrigerator. Embedding it in the refrigerator and using the refrigerator's power supply to power the clock DOES alter the refrigerator and thus it does augment it.

Secure in this instance isn't written in a vaccum. The only thing they are secure against is unreasonable searches and seizures. It's not "secure against unwanted touching".

I think we are going to have to leave it at a disagreement, because I see attaching a device (the boombox is not attached) as augmenting the original.

Also, I do not believe police or anybody should be messing with my stuff, unless it is officially sanctioned by the necessary authorities. To me, it goes against the spirit of the fourth amendment.

 

[Tucker Case]

I think we are going to have to leave it at a disagreement, because I see attaching a device (the boombox is not attached) as augmenting the original.

The Boombox is fully encapsulated by the car, but let's say I used tape or magnets to attach the secure the boombox inside the trunk.

Also, I do not believe police or anybody should be messing with my stuff, unless it is officially sanctioned by the necessary authorities. To me, it goes against the spirit of the fourth amendment.

You are free to believe that, but it's not a violation of the fourth if there is no searching or seizing occuring.

 

[Slartibartfast]

The Boombox is fully encapsulated by the car, but let's say I used tape or magnets to attach the secure the boombox inside the trunk.

Because of the attachment to the boombox to the car, the car now plays music. Especially considering that the intention was probably to add that capability.

You are free to believe that, but it's not a violation of the fourth if there is no searching or seizing occuring.

I have explained how it occurs.

 

[Tucker Case]

Because of the attachment to the boombox to the car, the car now plays music.

No, the boombox plays music. The car drives and happens to carry the music playing boombox with it.

The only way the car actually plays music from a part of it is if the radio actually becomes a part of the car (as is th ecase with car stereos. It becomes intergrated with the car.

I have explained how it occurs.

But you haven't actually done this, Mega. You have yet to say what concealed item is being looked for by this. Movements in a car are, by their very nature, unable to be concealed.

 

[Caine]

Because of the attachment to the boombox to the car, the car now plays music. Especially considering that the intention was probably to add that capability.

Really?
So you are saying if I duct tape two footballs to my chest I now have given myself breast augmentation?

I have explained how it occurs.

In terms that would be laughed out of court, Yeah I guess you have.

 

[Slartibartfast]

No, the boombox plays music. The car drives and happens to carry the music playing boombox with it.

The only way the car actually plays music from a part of it is if the radio actually becomes a part of the car (as is th ecase with car stereos. It becomes intergrated with the car.

But you haven't actually done this, Mega. You have yet to say what concealed item is being looked for by this. Movements in a car are, by their very nature, unable to be concealed.

WTF does concealment have to do with being secure in your effects? This is about people touching and modifying your stuff without the right to do so.

In terms that would be laughed out of court, Yeah I guess you have.

Than I would consider the courts wrong. Unfortunately, in this case, I would not possess enough power to counter the government, so my belief that they are wrong would be meaningless as I would lose no matter what I tried to do about it beyond convincing enough people to my argument and that its important enough to vote in people who would override the courts either through new judges or amendment which is extremely unlikely.

 

[Caine]

WTF does concealment have to do with being secure in your effects? This is about people touching and modifying your stuff without the right to do so.

Face it, "I Don't Like It, Its not Fair." doesn't cut it.