Sieg Heil 9th Circuit Court!

[xj0hnx]

The moral of this story, is, keep your car locked in your garage.

That was the point of the dissenting opinion in regards to class, the poorer people that don't have gated driveways, or garages are more easily targeted because their vehicles are more easily accessed without a warrant.

 

[Rainsford]

I wonder if this means I can install tracking devices on police cars? I can see making a fair amount of money tracking them all and setting up an online service that tells you where all the cops are. Police cars might not be easily accessible back at the station, but if they park 'em in public...fair game.

Or even better, track all the local government officials, since it would probably be easier to bug their car than a police car. The possibilities seem interesting

 

[NoStateofMind]

I wonder if this means I can install tracking devices on police cars? I can see making a fair amount of money tracking them all and setting up an online service that tells you where all the cops are. Police cars might not be easily accessible back at the station, but if they park 'em in public...fair game.

Or even better, track all the local government officials, since it would probably be easier to bug their car than a police car. The possibilities seem interesting

Great minds think alike as this was my thought as well and came looking for this thread to post it. Obviously beaten to the punch by your majesty (bows). Create an app and sync up with your favorite smart phone. I'd pay for it. I bet there would be some changes regarding "warrantless" GPS tracking if it took hold. Cowards.

 

[coreyb]

I highly doubt the government is interested in tracking any of the posters in this thread.

 

[marincounty]

Most places have laws against putting anything on a police vehicle, like a fake ticket or a sticker. Don't think that is a good idea. But putting a gps tracker on local govt officials cars-that's genius. I think Geeks was selling one for about $100.

 

[Craig234]

I highly doubt the government is interested in tracking any of the posters in this thread.

The rights of anyone are a concern for all of us. Or would you like the rights of any minority not to be of concern to the majority?

And the old 'don't complain about what the government does in the name of law enforcement, if you're honest it won't affect you' is asking for tyranny.

 

[dmcowen674]

I highly doubt the government is interested in tracking any of the posters in this thread.

That's what you think

 

[dmcowen674]

Haha. Government wasting resources is nothing new. Using GPS devices to track people going back and forth to work every day? Ridiculous.

It's that one day you don't go to work that gets you.

 

[Darwin333]

That would depend a lot on where you are. Two guys messing with your car, on your property at night here you would have a good case.

bullsheeet

I don't give a damn where you live, you shoot a cop and it ain't gonna work out well for you. That is if, really friggen huge "if", you even survive the situation. You really don't think its just going to be one podunk cop all by his lonesome sneaking onto someones private property to install surveillance equipment do you?

 

[Darwin333]

I disagree with them, generally people expect that where they drive isn't being tracked.

They can't drive somewhere thinking that no one knows they're driving there?

That's the point of the clandestine tracking, trying to find them driving somewhere incriminating thinking no one knows, 'expecting privacy' about where they go.

It's pretty hard to infer the founding fathers who said you can walk down the street with a box of incriminating evidence and be protected from search, would say that secretly tracking everywhere you drive would not violate the right you have to go somewhere without secret tracking.

On another note, though, law enforcement does seem to have the right to blatantly follow you in a more expensive manner, using agents who can follow you everywhere you go in public. This technique was used by Robert Kennedy to intimidate a top mob boss, as I recall.

It's not a black and white issue, though. When you do drive somewhere, it is a public activity that you are vulnerable to being seen doing, not 'private'.

So you have this choice between saying it's 'protected' and 'inventing' a constitutional right for going somewhere in public being 'private' as a permanent constitutional right prohibiting who knows what for law enforcement surveillance, and not saying it's a right and allowing for intrusive secret monitoring without probably cause apparently. Neither is too attractive, but I can have some reluctant sympathy for the court saying that this does not fall under constitutionally protected rights.

It's great to see the Reagan appointee concerned for the poor, but the rich do get some advantages. If a rich person can afford to have a random rental car when he goes out, he might evade the gps. That comes with being able to do that, and doesn't change the constitutionality of the tracking for those who can't afford it.

This is a ruling that has some shock and offense as a reaction, but when you consider the law, has less basis for objection.

I've wondered when the government will have standard gps put into cars (like seat belts) that they could do this with for anyone all the time.

Just following this line of thought a bit further, a lot of peoples phones already have GPS's in them. When your outside or in public you have no reasonable expectation of privacy so in theory, you would agree that when the phone company sees that you are using your phone outside or in a public place then no warrant would be required to record at least one side of that conversation? He IS talking in public afterall, they are just using better technology to record what you are saying. Should be pretty easy to design a computer program that knows the moment you step outside or into public and start recording regardless if you are under suspicion for any crime or not. You COULD be breaking a law of some sort and since it doesn't violate your expectation of privacy and hard drive space is rather cheap why the hell not, eh?

This ruling is complete bullshit. Our rights should not be eroded simply because of technological advancement. Period. I own part of a farm in Missouri that is a rather large wooded piece of property. It is completely fenced in and I personally believe I have a reasonable expectation of privacy when I drive my vehicle on it. Unless I am entering or leaving you generally can't even see my vehicle from the air. This means they would require a warrant to track my whereabouts on my private property but this ruling states that because technology has gotten better/cheaper they no longer need that warrant.

 

[Darwin333]

I highly doubt the government is interested in tracking any of the posters in this thread.

Why not if its dirt cheap to do it? I can make a GPS tracking device out of a $50 paygo phone, open source software and google maps. It will only get cheaper so when its $20 for a GPS tracking device and the software is already in place, why not track everyone just in case you might need that info at some point in the future?

Recording phone conversations used to be rather tedious and time consuming work too. With todays technology it is extremely cheap and easy, I setup a recorder for one of our office lines to record leads with mostly old ass parts I had laying around. I can even purchase software that with fairly decent accuracy can transfer the voice to text and flag certain words. I am pretty confident that LEO has much better capabilities than I do.

 

[Darwin333]

Great minds think alike as this was my thought as well and came looking for this thread to post it. Obviously beaten to the punch by your majesty (bows). Create an app and sync up with your favorite smart phone. I'd pay for it. I bet there would be some changes regarding "warrantless" GPS tracking if it took hold. Cowards.

And lose their ability to easily and cheaply track people without a warrant? I seriously doubt it. They would just figure out another charge to stick you with and send you to FPMITAP. Obstruction of justice or interfering with police work or some other bullshit charge. Just look at the guy who got prosecuted for video taping his very public encounter with the police after getting pulled over for a traffic violation while the police cars have.........wait for it........I bet you haven't guessed yet.........ready?....... FUCKING DASHBOARD CAMERAS IN THE CARS! They found some vague law about both parties consenting to being recorded and even though the cops do not ask for consent nor is their any exemption to cops in the law, somehow its ok for them to do it..... just not you.

Wanna try a fun experiment? Go down to your local police station and ask for a complaint form. Don't give them any details just ask for a complaint form that you can take home and fill out.

 

[RabidMongoose]

This ruling is complete bullshit. Our rights should not be eroded simply because of technological advancement. Period. I own part of a farm in Missouri that is a rather large wooded piece of property. It is completely fenced in and I personally believe I have a reasonable expectation of privacy when I drive my vehicle on it. Unless I am entering or leaving you generally can't even see my vehicle from the air. This means they would require a warrant to track my whereabouts on my private property but this ruling states that because technology has gotten better/cheaper they no longer need that warrant.

Well, if your property is fenced in, then you're protected from this ruling because they feel that the fence gives you a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Also, it's kind of established that eventual general acceptance of new technologies being known by the public changes whether there is a reasonable expectation of privacy.

 

[coreyb]

Why not if its dirt cheap to do it? I can make a GPS tracking device out of a $50 paygo phone, open source software and google maps. It will only get cheaper so when its $20 for a GPS tracking device and the software is already in place, why not track everyone just in case you might need that info at some point in the future?

Recording phone conversations used to be rather tedious and time consuming work too. With todays technology it is extremely cheap and easy, I setup a recorder for one of our office lines to record leads with mostly old ass parts I had laying around. I can even purchase software that with fairly decent accuracy can transfer the voice to text and flag certain words. I am pretty confident that LEO has much better capabilities than I do.

Why not? because there's no point. what's in it for the government track 300 million+ people? they do things like this to help law enforcement. I see nothing wrong with this. if it stops a terrorist plot or a meth lab, what's the problem?

 

[coreyb]

That's what you think

make sure you wear your tin foil hat there buddy

 

[Cogman]

Why not? because there's no point. what's in it for the government track 300 million+ people? they do things like this to help law enforcement. I see nothing wrong with this. if it stops a terrorist plot or a meth lab, what's the problem?

Ends do NOT justify the means.

How would you like this, Government puts a tracker on your car because they think you are dealing drugs. After that, they visit every friend, family member, ect that you visit and harass them to try and get information about your drug dealing.

After they find nothing, they charge you with speeding (which they will most likely have evidence of) just because they KNOW you dealing drugs, so they HAvE to get you in on something.

This ruling is sickening, and so is your support of it. Do you support warentless entries by police as well? After all, if they could just go inside of whatever house they want whenever they want, they could catch more terrorists and meth makers. Heck, why don't we just mandate that the police can "do whatever they like so long as they can justify it as potentiality leading to the conviction of someone for some crime".