Another attack on the fourth amendment

[Ikari]

We don't HAVE to do anything. That's why you really mean "Should".

No, I view the restriction of government in its ability to spy on us as an essential act; thus it is a must. I have enough command of the English language to know what words I wish to use. I did not misspeak on that, I said must because I meant must. Because I view this as a necessary and essential act. If I thought it wasn't necessary, but could have beneficial applications; then I would said should.

It's not illegal to do it, so I can be fairly confident I wouldn't end up in jail for it. Hyperbole's fun and all, but lets not get too carried away.

Hyperbole is fun, but I meant what I said. I'll bet you dollars to donuts that you get arrested for doing something like that.

Your property would not be tampered with or augmented. That's why you are using fallacious reasoning. It's called 'equivocation". You are using those words to mean something they do not actually mean.

No, you've augmented my property without my knowledge. Just because something is attachable doesn't mean it has no function or does not augment the tool. When you attach a GPS device to my property which automatically and remotely records my position and transfers that information elsewhere. you've augmented the functionality of my vehicle. Now when I take it somewhere, it reports my location. That's not the normal operation of my vehicle though. Thus they have added something on my property which then acts to remotely spy on my locations. You have thus augmented the functionality of my property.

Cops can put tickets ounder your windshield wiper. That's about as much "****ing" with your property as magnetically attaching a GPS is. Like I said, the argument you are presenting is fallacious. It doesn't have a solid logical framework. It's merely hyperbole and equivocation used to make an emotional appeal. It wouldn't even begin to work as a legal argument.

If a ticket reported my location at all times or automatically deducted money out of my savings account; then we would be on the same page. But it doesn't. You're using hyperbole and misleading statements to distort what I am saying. If it doesn't track, record, or transmit information; it is an inanimate object and does not alter the overall functionality or abilities of my property. You can put a piece of paper on my car in plain sight and that's one thing. It doesn't do anything to my property. You can attach a tracking device, hidden away so I won't find it, that actively records and transmits my location and now it's something else. See the difference?

 

[Ikari]

Im still waiting for what privacy someone is losing from this............................

This is a rather authoratative statement. It is not the People who are limited, but the government. I have the right to secure my property and reasonable expectation that it remain secure even if on public ground.

While I still say that a warrant is a good idea, in this particular case... the arguments some of you are using are so out of this world when it comes to what rights you think exist.

It's based on property and privacy rights.

Im starting to wonder if you folks think the Police should need a warrant to look up registry information for a DMV License plate........

The DMV is part of government. Though it should be restricted on what sort of information it can keep and store. However, I would say that if they want lists from private companies, then yes they would need a warrant to obtain it.

 

[Caine]

This is a rather authoratative statement. It is not the People who are limited, but the government. I have the right to secure my property and reasonable expectation that it remain secure even if on public ground.



It's based on property and privacy rights.



The DMV is part of government. Though it should be restricted on what sort of information it can keep and store. However, I would say that if they want lists from private companies, then yes they would need a warrant to obtain it.

Its an extremely skewed and weak example you use of how your property is "altered" or some gay ass **** like that, and you have that specific right.

 

[OldDominionWhig]

You need to reread the ruling on the case...If I make no reasonable effort to conceal something in public whatsoever, it is not subject to the 4th amendment.

I do not know what to say to you Tucker. You I have read the case, the concurring opinions, the dissenting opinion, and the syllabus of the ruling.

The court pointed out how both parties erred in assigning so much importance to the phone booth. The petitioner argued that the phone booth was a “constitutionally protected area” and the government argued the opposite. The court clarified the issue for both parties…

…whether or not a given "area," viewed in the abstract, is "constitutionally protected" deflects attention from the problem presented by this case. For the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places.

The section you bolded in your response follows this section. It is funny, when you read the section you bolded without the previous case citations it read like this…

What a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection. But what he seeks to preserve as private, even in an area accessible to the public, may be constitutionally protected.

In the ‘modern’ world of cell phones, I think the court’s logic applied would state a “loud talker” on a cell phone in any setting has little expectation that their portion of the conversation is private. But if they are quietly speaking on their cell phone, regardless of setting, the conversation goes to the realm of constitutional protection.

The next section you bolded, the “shuts the door behind him” section, is only the third paragraph after the petitioner’s question to the court. Why do you elect to ignore the other 10 paragraphs of the opinion? Those paragraphs are equally germane to the final opinion of the court.

The opinion of the court was to reverse the conviction of the defendant. How could the government have prevented the overturning of the conviction? Obtaining a warrant to intercept the conversation. I know your are going to tell me I am wrong, but it is the facts of the case.

In the subsequent SCOTUS ruling United States v. United States District Court the court also wrote…

This case raises no constitutional challenge to electronic surveillance as specifically authorized by Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968. Nor is there any question or doubt as to the necessity of obtaining a warrant in the surveillance of crimes unrelated to the national security interest.

Odd this case, subsequent to Katz and the passage of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, also establishes the need for a warrant to intercept the communication of private citizens.

…these elementary truths does not make the employment by Government of electronic surveillance a welcome development -- even when employed with restraint and under judicial supervision. There is, understandably, a deep-seated uneasiness and apprehension that this capability will be used to intrude upon cherished privacy of law-abiding citizens. We [p313] look to the Bill of Rights to safeguard this privacy. Though physical entry of the home is the chief evil against which the wording of the Fourth Amendment is directed, its broader spirit now shields private speech from unreasonable surveillance.

Odd, there is no mention of a phone booth in that last line, I guess they forgot to include it in the opinion. Or maybe it was not really the issue in Katz after all.

You apparently believe the government has the right to listen in on conversations and I disagree. You have your argument and I have mine. But to accuse me of not reading an opinion of the court because I do not side with you, well that is quite childish.

 

[OldDominionWhig]

I wonder what would happen if we do this to the cops? Would we get in trouble? I bet dollars to donuts you do.

Yeah, you would get charged. Rightfully so, the laws that limits the government methods also makes it a crime for citizens to intercept others.

 

[OldDominionWhig]

Yeah, you would get charged. Rightfully so, the laws that limits the government methods also makes it a crime for citizens to intercept others.

My apologies, I confused this with the recording conversations not the GPS case. Absent my screw up Ikari, it is a good question.

Again my apologies.

 

[Caine]

My apologies, I confused this with the recording conversations not the GPS case. Absent my screw up Ikari, it is a good question.

Again my apologies.

Police vehicles are already affixed with GPS as it is in many places....... Big deal.

However, anyone who wanted to track the police.... I would question their motives, as most likely they are a worthless ****ing criminal trying to pick the best time/location to commit a crime.

****ing crooks.

 

[OldDominionWhig]

Police vehicles are already affixed with GPS as it is in many places....... Big deal.

However, anyone who wanted to track the police.... I would question their motives, as most likely they are a worthless ****ing criminal trying to pick the best time/location to commit a crime.

****ing crooks.

People wanting GPS information on police vehicles is similar to radio scanners, some people are very curious about police work, while others want to use the information/technology to aid in or cover up nefarious activity.

That is where the problem lies, how does a Department satisfy the merely curious while protecting the ability of Law Enforcement to Officers do their jobs? Actively "knowing" where the police are in “live time” is extremely detrimental to the safe and effective delivery of police services. The curious citizen generally does not want officers hurt or criminals to go free, so they would understand that information needs to be filtered prior to release, if released at all.

Perhaps some of the GPS information (if even available)could be given in response to a FOIA request, that way the citizen has to be specific in what date and time they want from the PD. The PD can limit what comes out due to ‘active investigations still on ongoing’ and numerous other exemptions outlined in FIOA. The response will take time to answer but the curious citizen would receive whatever information that passes through the procedural filters.

If a convicted criminal makes a FOIA request the Department would be on solid ground to refuse to release information.

 

[Caine]

People wanting GPS information on police vehicles is similar to radio scanners, some people are very curious about police work, while others want to use the information/technology to aid in or cover up nefarious activity.

That is where the problem lies, how does a Department satisfy the merely curious while protecting the ability of Law Enforcement to Officers do their jobs? Actively "knowing" where the police are in “live time” is extremely detrimental to the safe and effective delivery of police services. The curious citizen generally does not want officers hurt or criminals to go free, so they would understand that information needs to be filtered prior to release, if released at all.

Perhaps some of the GPS information (if even available)could be given in response to a FOIA request, that way the citizen has to be specific in what date and time they want from the PD. The PD can limit what comes out due to ‘active investigations still on ongoing’ and numerous other exemptions outlined in FIOA. The response will take time to answer but the curious citizen would receive whatever information that passes through the procedural filters.

If a convicted criminal makes a FOIA request the Department would be on solid ground to refuse to release information.

Many departments, through the awesomeness of the internet, provide "Call for Service" data on their public website. Which is slightly delayed, as it will usually only show a call that has already been "cleared" by an officer, but you can still see these calls for service, up to the last 8 hours.

Departments also provide up to date traffic crash location information, even when such a call is currently being investigated still, and has not yet been cleared.

 

[Tucker Case]

I do not know what to say to you Tucker. You I have read the case, the concurring opinions, the dissenting opinion, and the syllabus of the ruling.

The court pointed out how both parties erred in assigning so much importance to the phone booth. The petitioner argued that the phone booth was a “constitutionally protected area” and the government argued the opposite. The court clarified the issue for both parties…

The section you bolded in your response follows this section. It is funny, when you read the section you bolded without the previous case citations it read like this…

My point has been that it wasn't the actual phone booth that was the issue, it was the action taken by Katz with the phone booth that made the search a violation of the fourth. He took an action that created a reasonable expectation of privacy.

You seem to think the ruling does something which it does not. If a person has a conversation in the open and taes no steps to creat a reasonable expectation of privacy, then the conversation is not protected by the 4th.

In the ‘modern’ world of cell phones, I think the court’s logic applied would state a “loud talker” on a cell phone in any setting has little expectation that their portion of the conversation is private. But if they are quietly speaking on their cell phone, regardless of setting, the conversation goes to the realm of constitutional protection.

How would one define "loud talking"? It's pretty subjective. I think instead they would use the same criteria from Katz, i.e. if a person takes steps to assure a reasonable expectation of privacy (which would mean taking some action to prevent other people from being able to hear their side of the conversation. Something simple, like closing the phone booth door) would indicate that it becoems protected by the fourth. Not taking those steps would mean it doesn't get protected.

The next section you bolded, the “shuts the door behind him” section, is only the third paragraph after the petitioner’s question to the court. Why do you elect to ignore the other 10 paragraphs of the opinion? Those paragraphs are equally germane to the final opinion of the court.

Because that was the paragraph that gave an example of taking steps to create a reasonable expectation of privacy even in public. That makes it the most pertinent paragraph since I'm talking about recording instances where there were no steps taken to create a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Plus, there is evidence that such public recording ARE legal. Crime cameras. They are all over the place now, recording people's actions for the government. Tehy can be used as evidence and don't violate the 4th.

Why?

Because there are no steps taken to assure a reasonable expectation of privacy.

The opinion of the court was to reverse the conviction of the defendant. How could the government have prevented the overturning of the conviction? Obtaining a warrant to intercept the conversation. I know your are going to tell me I am wrong, but it is the facts of the case.

Yes. Because Katz took steps to assure a reasonable expectation of privacy.

The ruling is pretty clear in stating that it was the actions taken by the defendent that created the need for such a warrant since those actions led to a reasonabel expectation of privacy.

In the subsequent SCOTUS ruling United States v. United States District Court the court also wrote…

Odd this case, subsequent to Katz and the passage of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, also establishes the need for a warrant to intercept the communication of private citizens.

That case doesn't relate to what I'm talking about, though.

Odd, there is no mention of a phone booth in that last line, I guess they forgot to include it in the opinion. Or maybe it was not really the issue in Katz after all.

The phone booth itself wasn't important. The actions taken to ensure a reasonable expectation of privacy were. In the Katz case, the action was, specifically, closing the phone booth door.

You apparently believe the government has the right to listen in on conversations and I disagree. You have your argument and I have mine. But to accuse me of not reading an opinion of the court because I do not side with you, well that is quite childish.

I said reread the decision. I never said you didn't read it. I implied you need to read it agian becuase the issue was about the actions taken by catz with the phone booth. He took steps to create a reasonable expectation of privacy and THAT was why his conversation was protected by the fourth even though it was in a public place.

The ruling states that the fourth applies to people, not places, but that peopel must take certain actions to gcreate a reasonable assurance of privacy in public. If they don't, there is no fourth amendment protection.

My argument has always been that if no steps are taken by an individual to assure a reasonable expectation of privacy in public, then there is no protection from the fourth amendment.

 

[Ikari]

Its an extremely skewed and weak example you use of how your property is "altered" or some gay ass **** like that, and you have that specific right.

No, you're just making excuses for the authority by:

A) Pretending that the people are limited, not the government
B) that alterrations to property and the functionality of devices are properly within the unrestricted powers of the government and is not an infringement upon our property or privacy
C) That the 9th and 10th amendments do not exist.

 

[Caine]

No, you're just making excuses for the authority by:

A) Pretending that the people are limited, not the government

Huh? Hyperbole... yawn

B) that alterrations to property and the functionality of devices are properly within the unrestricted powers of the government and is not an infringement upon our property or privacy

Nothing is being altered. This is example of the lame ass attempt to have an argument I was talking about.

C) That the 9th and 10th amendments do not exist.

They do exist, nor do they apply here.

 

[OldDominionWhig]

How would one define "loud talking"? It's pretty subjective. I think instead they would use the same criteria from Katz, i.e. if a person takes steps to assure a reasonable expectation of privacy (which would mean taking some action to prevent other people from being able to hear their side of the conversation. Something simple, like closing the phone booth door) would indicate that it becoems protected by the fourth. Not taking those steps would mean it doesn't get protected.

I am sorry Tucker, I thought through your proclaimed expertise in the Katz case you had at least listened to the oral arguments presented to the Supreme Court in this matter. The “loud talking” comment is derived from the multiple lines of questions from various Justices to the Honorable John S. Martin Jr. (ret.) in regards to the “reasonableness” of the government recording conversations in different scenarios.

 

[Tucker Case]

I am sorry Tucker, I thought through your proclaimed expertise in the Katz case you had at least listened to the oral arguments presented to the Supreme Court in this matter. The “loud talking” comment is derived from the multiple lines of questions from various Justices to the Honorable John S. Martin Jr. (ret.) in regards to the “reasonableness” of the government recording conversations in different scenarios.

No, I've never heard the oral arguments. But oral argumetns aren't what define the law, or in this case, the reasonable expectation fo privacy test, which is the foundation of my argument.

You seem to be denying the existence of this test when you claim that the closing of the phone booth door had nothing to do with the decision. In fact, it set's up the first part of the "test" as described by Justice Harlan.

 

[OldDominionWhig]

That great but you seem rather limited in your research of the case.

 

[OldDominionWhig]

That great but you seem rather limited in your research of the case.

You elect to ignore precedent and subsequent case law that is contrary to your opinion. You elect to ignore statutory laws implicitly passed to regulate interception of communication by the government (the pending legislation referenced in the oral arguments of Katz). You admit that you have not heard the oral arguments and questions by the Justices, these are available online but you elect to dismiss them.

The test you refer to also is discussed in the oral arguments, but in your opinion oral arguments

…aren't what define the law, or in this case, the reasonable expectation fo privacy test, which is the foundation of my argument.

The very test you refer to as the foundation of your argument was presented during legal filings and further defined in the oral arguments to the court, wait you stated oral arguments do not define the law or the privacy test and yet in this case they did define the privacy test and the law. How can that be, the very “rule” you created violates your “rule” that you require everyone else to follow.

 

[Tucker Case]

You elect to ignore precedent and subsequent case law that is contrary to your opinion. You elect to ignore statutory laws implicitly passed to regulate interception of communication by the government (the pending legislation referenced in the oral arguments of Katz). You admit that you have not heard the oral arguments and questions by the Justices, these are available online but you elect to dismiss them.

The test you refer to also is discussed in the oral arguments, but in your opinion oral arguments

The very test you refer to as the foundation of your argument was presented during legal filings and further defined in the oral arguments to the court, wait you stated oral arguments do not define the law or the privacy test and yet in this case they did define the privacy test and the law. How can that be, the very “rule” you created violates your “rule” that you require everyone else to follow.

Oral arguments don't define the test. The decision does that. In this case, the concurring opinion did.

Oral arguments may well be what that opinion was base don, but it is that concurring opinion which defines and outlines the parameters for said test.

Your argument here is devoid of any consideration of that test. You make the erroneous claim that closing the phone booth door had no effect on the 4th ammendment being applicable in this case, but according to the opinion and that test, that was a major factor because that was the action taken that gave a reasonable expectation of privacy.

As I've said repeatedly, if no action is taken by a person to assure reasonable expectation of privacy in public, the fourth ammendment doesn't apply.

You also ignore the fact that such warrantless surveilance as what I've described in my arguments DOES exist. There are cameras on street corners all across the country right now which gather information.

These cameras exist because of the Katz decision:

What a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection, but what he seeks to preserve as private, even in an area accessible to the public, may be constitutionally protected. Generally, a person walking along a public sidewalk or standing in a public park cannot reasonably expect that his activity will be immune from the public eye or from observation by the police.

"But what he seeks to preserve as private" is the important bit that lead to the 4th ammednment rights being applicable in Katz. By closing th ephone booth door, Katz sought to preserve his conversation as private. Had he spoken on a park bench, where any casual observer would have been able to overhear his portion of the conversation, his portion of the conversation would not have been protected by the 4th.

 

[LaughAtTheWorld]

My viewpoint is that the US is tired of screwing foreigners, so it now screws the US citizens

 

[Tucker Case]

My viewpoint is that the US is tired of screwing foreigners, so it now screws the US citizens

The US has screwed its citizens for quite some time.

 

[American]

Do I really need case law to prove what is undeniably technically true?

Let's just work with an analogy. If I put a piece of paper under someone's car, let's say under their tire, did I "invade" their property? Of course not. If a cop puts a parking ticket under a cars windshiled wiper, are they invading that person's property? Of course not.

Is it okay with you if the FBI tracks your every move?

 

[Tucker Case]

Is it okay with you if the FBI tracks your every move?

The one's in public or the ones I seek to keep private?

 

[American]

Im still waiting for what privacy someone is losing from this............................

While I still say that a warrant is a good idea, in this particular case... the arguments some of you are using are so out of this world when it comes to what rights you think exist.

Im starting to wonder if you folks think the Police should need a warrant to look up registry information for a DMV License plate........

When they track you, and you find out about it, then you'll understand the loss of privacy.

 

[Ikari]

Huh? Hyperbole... yawn

No, your arguments are of this line. This whole "what are you losing" blah blah blah. We don't have to "lose" anything. We're in charge and set the rules, not the government. The government obeys. You continually make authoritative arguments based on the assumed powers of government and along lines of the people being restricted by those assumed powers.

Nothing is being altered. This is example of the lame ass attempt to have an argument I was talking about.

You've altered the functionality of my property without my consent. It's not a lame argument, it's reality. Sorry if perhaps you have a hard time understanding that. My car is not to transmit remotely my location to the government. If the government needs to know where I am that badly, they can get a warrant. You cannot come onto my private property and start adding things to my property to change the functionality of that and to collect data to transmit to the government at their discretion. The government is to be limited.

They do exist, nor do they apply here.

They exist and apply here. You keep trying to pretend that the People are limited, and this is another comment along those lines. Not all our rights are enumerated, the 9th and 10th state that and that even if they are not enumerated, they are reserved by the People. I have the right to privacy. The 4th maybe couldn't physically account for all the things government may have at its disposal in the future given leaps in technology. But that's covered by the 9th and 10th. the 4th establishes the right to privacy. The 9th and 10th allow for it to be expanded as technologies expand. The government cannot assume proper usage when it's specifically restricted along several lines; including property and privacy. That's the base. I know, you want the government to be able to do whatever it wants, whenever it wants. If you're not doing anything wrong, you don't have to worry about it. But that's not how the Republic was founded nor how it was meant to operate. The government is restricted, not the People; because of that as technologies expand and intrusion becomes easier and more remote; it needs to be the government who asks permission to use the new technologies; not the People to have to fight from abuse and usurption of power.

 

[Ikari]

The one's in public or the ones I seek to keep private?

Does it matter? If you're in public, why couldn't the government put a GPS tracker on you? Probably technical limitations at this point like power and size and weight; it would be noticed. But say that's all been solved. You're in public, can the FBI sneak this locator on you and then know your position at all times? Is that fine? You have no expectation to privacy in public afterall. And they're not augmenting your person by adding something that can be removed, right? And you have no reasonable expectation that the government isn't watching you; right? So how about it?

 

[Tucker Case]

Does it matter? If you're in public, why couldn't the government put a GPS tracker on you? Probably technical limitations at this point like power and size and weight; it would be noticed. But say that's all been solved. You're in public, can the FBI sneak this locator on you and then know your position at all times? Is that fine? You have no expectation to privacy in public afterall. And they're not augmenting your person by adding something that can be removed, right? And you have no reasonable expectation that the government isn't watching you; right? So how about it?

It does matter. If I always remained in public and never sought to preserve my movements as private, there would be no violation of the fourth amendment (if the GPS were attached to my car, for example). If I didn't remain in public, and sought to preserve my motions as private, such a device would violate the fourth amendment.

Whether or not I would want it to happen in the case of the former being true is a different story, though.

I would not want it to happen, and I would seek to pass legislation preventing that from happening, but I would not try to use the fourth amendment as my basis for such legislation because it would not apply to the former case.