Obama backs warrantless GPS tracking of citizens

[bfdd]

"Tampering with property" isn't a 4th Amendment issue. If they damage your property, you are entitled to compensation as a civil matter. But that isn't a Constitutional issue. The 4th amendment protects the privacy of individuals when they are in the zone where privacy can reasonably be expected. It has nothing to do with attaching a thingy to your car, unless the thingy is recording your private conservations.

tampering definitely can fall within the definition of damage, they're altering the vehicle beyond it's designed function. Hell, putting on a government GPS device is definitely going to drop the value of said vehicle isn't it? Would you pay KBB for a car with a government GPS tracking device on it? lol no. So the argument for "damage" can easily be argued. Clinton argued the definition of it and that's exponentially a more difficult argument to make.

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.

To be "[snip]..secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures...[snip]" So they had to search my vehicle for a good place to hide the GPS tracking device, right? So they "unlawfully searched my vehicle" to find a place they could hide said GPS tracking device without my knowledge. I also fail to read anything there that says it's ok for them to do said things with my property just because it's in public. Sure it doesn't say they don't have those rights, but isn't that the same thing? Since we're going to argue semantics over this, every single word can be used. Hell I'm sure you could make an argument for them "seizing" your property illegally to put said device on it, I mean how else would they have the right to tamper/damage with something if it didn't belong to them?

 

[xj0hnx]

"Tampering with property" isn't a 4th Amendment issue.

Tampering with it is exactly a 4th Amendment issue. It's YOUR private property, the government tampering with it so they can track you is exactly the kid of shit the 4th is for.

 

[woolfe9999]

tampering definitely can fall within the definition of damage, they're altering the vehicle beyond it's designed function. Hell, putting on a government GPS device is definitely going to drop the value of said vehicle isn't it? Would you pay KBB for a car with a government GPS tracking device on it? lol no. So the argument for "damage" can easily be argued. Clinton argued the definition of it and that's exponentially a more difficult argument to make.

?

I doubt that it constitutes damage, if it can be removed without any harm to the vehicle. However, even if it does, then as I quite clearly stated, you are entitled to compensation. But that has zero to do with the Constitution.

To be "[snip]..secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures...[snip]" So they had to search my vehicle for a good place to hide the GPS tracking device, right? So they "unlawfully searched my vehicle" to find a place they could hide said GPS tracking device without my knowledge. I also fail to read anything there that says it's ok for them to do said things with my property just because it's in public. Sure it doesn't say they don't have those rights, but isn't that the same thing? Since we're going to argue semantics over this, every single word can be used. Hell I'm sure you could make an argument for them "seizing" your property illegally to put said device on it, I mean how else would they have the right to tamper/damage with something if it didn't belong to them.

No, they can't seize the car, but that also has nothing to do with the Fourth Amendment, though this time it is a Constitutional issue. You can't be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.

They had to "search" your vehicle to find a spot to place the GPS? LOL your reasoning is quite a stretch. You should apply to law school though. You think very much like a lawyer.

- wolf

 

[bfdd]

dam·age/ˈdamij/
Verb: Inflict physical harm on (something) so as to impair its value, usefulness, or normal

putting a government GPS tracking device on my car definitely impairs its value, lowers it's usefulness and alters it's normal function. Do you deny these things?

I am also saying they are "depriving" you of your property when they "seize" it to install the GPS device. I can't just go around tampering with peoples property all willy nilly like and neither can the gubment(unless we let them). But if it's my property, I can do whatever the fuck I want to it.

Also, if thinking like a complete retard is like a lawyer, then why didn't OJ hire me for his defense team?(me being 10 is of no consequence).

 

[woolfe9999]

Tampering with it is exactly a 4th Amendment issue. It's YOUR private property, the government tampering with it so they can track you is exactly the kid of shit the 4th is for.

You are reasoning in vague generalities. The law just doesn't work that way because it can't work that way.

 

[woolfe9999]

putting a government GPS tracking device on my car definitely impairs its value, lowers it's usefulness and alters it's normal function. Do you deny these things?

Where is the damage once it has been removed? By definition, if you are selling it and the buyer knows about it, then you know about it and it can be removed. Now, IF they are saying you can't remove it by law, then you have a good point.

 

[bfdd]

Where is the damage once it has been removed? By definition, if you are selling it and the buyer knows about it, then you know about it and it can be removed. Now, IF they are saying you can't remove it by law, then you have a good point.

I fix the damage by removing it... duh? Though that would probably land me in even more shit for tampering with government property. OH THE HILARITY!

 

[woolfe9999]

I fix the damage by removing it... duh? Though that would probably land me in even more shit for tampering with government property. OH THE HILARITY!

Like I said, if they made it illegal to remove it, then your argument would be correct. They'd have to compensate you for the loss in value of the car. However, it isn't going to be illegal to remove it. The idea behind these things is actually that you aren't supposed to know about it. However, if you find out then the jig is up and it's pretty certain you're going to remove it so that is that.

 

[bfdd]

Like I said, if they made it illegal to remove it, then your argument would be correct. They'd have to compensate you for the loss in value of the car. However, it isn't going to be illegal to remove it. The idea behind these things is actually that you aren't supposed to know about it. However, if you find out then the jig is up and it's pretty certain you're going to remove it so that is that.

I don't think you get it. You can't remove these things, they're part of an ongoing investigation. If you tamper with them, you're fucking with their investigation which is against the law. Also, like I said them doing this does fit into the definition of damage. My car now has a different use besides its normal use. That fits the definition of damaged. My car, regardless of my knowledge or not, has less value because like I said who wants to buy a car with a GPS tracking device. Me not knowing it's on there is even WORSE because now I'm not disclosing it as part of the car sale and probably just violated a couple other laws. It also lowers the usefulness of the vehicle to me. I find usefulness in NOT being tracked in my vehicle, that usefulness is now gone, the car is damaged.

Look we can keep arguing this, but I'm telling you you're on the wrong side of this debate. There is absolutely no way you could win this in court against the government. They'll make the same outrageous bullshit claims I am about you fucking with their investigation or tampering with their property and you'll get fucked. Nothing you can do. Or do you think the government is above acting so low?

 

[woolfe9999]

I don't think you get it. You can't remove these things, they're part of an ongoing investigation. If you tamper with them, you're fucking with their investigation which is against the law. Also, like I said them doing this does fit into the definition of damage. My car now has a different use besides its normal use. That fits the definition of damaged. My car, regardless of my knowledge or not, has less value because like I said who wants to buy a car with a GPS tracking device. Me not knowing it's on there is even WORSE because now I'm not disclosing it as part of the car sale and probably just violated a couple other laws. It also lowers the usefulness of the vehicle to me. I find usefulness in NOT being tracked in my vehicle, that usefulness is now gone, the car is damaged.

Look we can keep arguing this, but I'm telling you you're on the wrong side of this debate. There is absolutely no way you could win this in court against the government. They'll make the same outrageous bullshit claims I am about you fucking with their investigation or tampering with their property and you'll get fucked. Nothing you can do. Or do you think the government is above acting so low?

I agree that it lowers the value of the car, in theory, while it remains on it. I don't buy your premise that you can't get rid of it. You haven't established that. Your buyer could remove it once s/he found it as well. The rest of your post is speculation. But let's say it's true: they won't let you remove it. Fine. Then you're entitled to civil damages for the diminution in value of the car. What does that have to do with the 4th Amendment? It doesn't protect you from property damage. That's what civil law is for.

- wolf

 

[bfdd]

Yes woolfe, but I did not disclose that said vehicle was part of a "police" investigation. Not to mention the fact that I didn't disclose it could lead me to other legal liabilities I shouldn't have to deal with.

Have you ever heard of an investigation where the criminal was allowed to tamper with police equipment and nothing happen? What about tampering with potential evidence? I mean if you can show these to me I'll believe you, but I know for a fact they would crack down on your shit. Also, like I said how can they justify doing it? They do not own my vehicle, just because it is out on public property does not mean they can tamper/damage my vehicle, that's against the law. So in which way are they doing this for it to be legal if they don't have a warrant? I don't see it and I think a good lawyer would smash the shit out of them, well they would if it wasn't the government they were trying to fight against.

 

[woolfe9999]

Yes woolfe, but I did not disclose that said vehicle was part of a "police" investigation. Not to mention the fact that I didn't disclose it could lead me to other legal liabilities I shouldn't have to deal with.

Have you ever heard of an investigation where the criminal was allowed to tamper with police equipment and nothing happen? What about tampering with potential evidence? I mean if you can show these to me I'll believe you, but I know for a fact they would crack down on your shit. Also, like I said how can they justify doing it? They do not own my vehicle, just because it is out on public property does not mean they can tamper/damage my vehicle, that's against the law. So in which way are they doing this for it to be legal if they don't have a warrant? I don't see it and I think a good lawyer would smash the shit out of them, well they would if it wasn't the government they were trying to fight against.

They can do it if a law is passed that says they can. Unless it violates a provision of the Constitution. But you haven't made that case. I started out my part of this discussion saying that this does not violate the 4th Amendment, and I have been presented with no reason to change my position on this. You may not like it one bit, but that doesn't make it unconstititional.

Furthermore, the government and police lose in court as often as they win. I think you're arguing based on impressions from, I don't know where. Cop shows? Anecodtal news reports? In the real world, 10's of thousands of criminals are let go every single year because of Constitutional violations. I know you think you live in a police state, but in the actual country you live in, for the most part courts take the Constitution very seriously.

 

[bfdd]

woolfe, I already explained to you how it is "damage", in which you ignore because you don't believe it fits the definition. I then laid out the definition for you and explained how it can fit that definition. The government does not have the right to fuck with your property, period. They don't. Attaching a GPS tracking device to a car is no different than putting sugar in someones gas tank, you're tampering with someone elses property in such a way which could be defined as "damaged" to the owner.

Lets not forget the whole IT'S YOUR FUCKING PROPERTY WHO THE FUCK GAVE THEM THE RIGHT TO TOUCH IT? This is what WARRANTS ARE FUCKING FOR. Jesus christ, you want to let them ignore all of that because a car isn't a house? I shouldn't feel SAFE with my effects?(my car) That's goddamn part of the amendment dude. I'm sorry, but I think you're assfaced wrong here woolfe.

 

[Bill Brasky]

I don't understand why it must be warrantless tracking. Is it really so hard to acquire a warrant for an investigation?

This just seems like opening the door for abuse.

 

[woolfe9999]

I don't understand why it must be warrantless tracking. Is it really so hard to acquire a warrant for an investigation?

This just seems like opening the door for abuse.

Warrants aren't required to monitor what someone does in a public place.

And in answer to your "is it so hard" question, the answer is, maybe yes. You see, the police have to already have *some* evidence against you to get a warrant, yet the purpose of putting a tale on someone, be it electronic or by following in a vehicle, is to gather said evidence in the first place. Warrants require probable cause. If we start saying that any attempt to gather evidence requires a warrant, the police will never *get* probable cause. Quite a catch-22.

 

[Darwin333]

Read the last sentence of the post you responded to. Listening to a private conservation is an entirely different matter. For that they do need a warrant.

Using your own argument, the 4th makes no mention of conversations.

There isn't anything illegal about it. Go do it yourself.

- wolf

I ain't that dumb and I guarantee you it becomes real illegal when you do it to LEO or a judge. Tell ya what, I'll pay you to do it and since its not illegal in your mind you should be happy to take my money.

Wouldn't be a bad business idea, since its perfectly legit and all. Put a covert GPS tracker on all of your towns police cruisers and sell the info to your local gang/drug dealers/mob. Definitely a market for that kind of legally obtained info.

Knowing your every movement is just as compromising of your privacy as listening to your conversations.

 

[woolfe9999]

Using your own argument, the 4th makes no mention of conversations.

.

How is that "using my argument." I;m not arguing ludricously strict construction. I am saying that 4th Amendment doesn't protect you from being monitored in public because that is our SCOTUS precedent and that precedent is that way becaue...well duh. Do I need to explain why? It's so damn obvious that nothing is private that anyone out in public can see with their own eyes.

I ain't that dumb and I guarantee you it becomes real illegal when you do it to LEO or a judge. Tell ya what, I'll pay you to do it and since its not illegal in your mind you should be happy to take my money.

Wouldn't be a bad business idea, since its perfectly legit and all. Put a covert GPS tracker on all of your towns police cruisers and sell the info to your local gang/drug dealers/mob. Definitely a market for that kind of legally obtained info.

Knowing your every movement is just as compromising of your privacy as listening to your conversations

Who cares? What are you even saying here? It doesn't matter if you're right or wrong about this. I could concede the point entirely for the sake of argument. Fine. You'll get in trouble if you do to the state what the state is allowed to do to you. Is that the litmus test of whether a law is valid, it must not give the state any power that the individual does not possess? What is the point of a state to begin with?

- wolf

 

[nyker96]

This is something I never really understand. Republicans like Bush backs wiretaping, expanded surveillance etc. but Republican should stand for less Government interference and more personal freedom. However, why is obama doing this such a surprise? he's democrate, he backs government intervention so, this is part of government intervention. no surprise there.

 

[woolfe9999]

This is something I never really understand. Republicans like Bush backs wiretaping, expanded surveillance etc. but Republican should stand for less Government interference and more personal freedom. However, why is obama doing this such a surprise? he's democrate, he backs government intervention so, this is part of government intervention. no surprise there.

That's a bit inverted, actually. Historically, probably up through the 1990's is was usually the dems who supported broader interpretations of the 4th, 5th, 6th and 8th amendments, aka those affecting criminal defendants and suspects. Conservatives usually maligned liberals for being "on the side of the criminals" and characterized Warren court rulings as liberal judicial activism. However, it's gotten to where now both parties have seen the value of the "tough on crime" stance so they are becoming indistinguishable on the issue. Libertarians and a few liberals and conservatives are now the only ones supporting the broader interpretations.

In any event, I happen to think the administration is correct on this.

 

[her209]

Seems to me that GPS tracking, warranted or warrantless, is useless without visual confirmation that the person being investigated was driving the vehicle at the time, i.e., you're still going to need surveillance on the car.

 

[Darwin333]

How is that "using my argument." I;m not arguing ludricously strict construction. I am saying that 4th Amendment doesn't protect you from being monitored in public because that is our SCOTUS precedent and that precedent is that way becaue...well duh. Do I need to explain why? It's so damn obvious that nothing is private that anyone out in public can see with their own eyes.

Because my vehicle is private property and it is very often used on private property including my own where an expectation of privacy does in fact exist. You can not in one breath say that you have no expectation of privacy sitting in your vehicle but in another say that the words coming out of your mouth do in fact have an expectation of privacy while sitting in your vehicle.

Who cares? What are you even saying here? It doesn't matter if you're right or wrong about this. I could concede the point entirely for the sake of argument. Fine. You'll get in trouble if you do to the state what the state is allowed to do to you. Is that the litmus test of whether a law is valid, it must not give the state any power that the individual does not possess? What is the point of a state to begin with?

- wolf

You are arguing that this is not a power being granted but one that has always existed because there is no expectation of privacy in public or in your vehicle the state requires no warrant to track you or your vehicle. If that is in fact true then yes it absolutely would apply to the state as well unless strictly forbidden by law.

And who cares? Like I said, put one on your local judges car and you will see who cares and what HIS expectation of privacy is.