Court allows agents to secretly put GPS trackers on cars

So you draw the line between #3 and #4 - fair enough. What is the legal difference between a cop following you and a robot controlled by a cop following you? Legally, what makes the first reasonable and the second option unreasonable?

I'm not saying putting a GPS on someone's car is right. I'm saying coming up with a reason (outside of private property issues) that it's not legal under current established law is far more complicated and much more of a gray area. That's also why different federal circuit courts have ruled differently on it.

 

I read about this yesterday. Super-wack.

 

QFT....

Also surprised that it was the 9th circuit that ruled this way...

 

The problem is that it is neither a search nor a seizure. A search is "an intrusion into a person's reasonable expectation of privacy." You cannot search for something that is in "plain view" (i.e. your vehicle on the open road). And to be a seizure, there must be some meaningful interference with the individual's possessory right in the property. There is a TON of case law which states that tracking devices do not interfere with the possessory right in property in a meaningful way.

But even if it was a search, it wouldn't be considered "unreasonable." The touchstone of the 4th Amendment is "reasonableness," in other words, to violate the 4th Amendment, there must be an unreasonable search or seizure in property for which you have a reasonable expectation of privacy. There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in where you are going since your vehicle is in "plain view" and pretty much anyone can follow you. Now, if they implanted a wire inside your vehicle to hear what's being said inside, you would need a warrant since you do have a REP inside your vehicle.

CometsWin - Putting a camera in someone's front yard is perfectly fine since what goes on in the front yard is open to the public and there's no REP there, it doesn't not matter whether it's private property.

 

We make laws as to what's illegal - not what is legal. You don't have laws that spell out all the things you can do. We don't have laws that say "You can go to the park. You can say Hello to people. You can eat tacos."

Why would this be any different? Nowhere in society do we just make a list of things that can be done and assume nothing else is allowed.

 

Enlighten me how some of you fine law-bidding gentlemen would be negatively affected by this?

 

I suppose I don't understand how using my private property to surveil me without my permission and without a warrant is legal. So a neighbor can similarly put a camera on my property without my knowledge to surveil me because my front door is open to public view? That sounds absurd really. People can certainly follow me but they can't do it while physically being on my property, that's trespassing.

 

Your car already doesnt technically belong to you when you're making payments on it, it belongs to the dealer. Now even after you pay for it, it belongs to the state? You have "rights" to own it, sure. But the state tells you how to USE it.

They're probably thinking your car can get tracked down and repossessed anytime, so why can't they do something similar. The state already put limits on speed you can drive, the emissions of the vehicle, enact seat belt laws, head and break light rules, etc.

They're already using traffic tickets as a ways to collect taxes for THEMSELVES, so they already feel its about serving their own purposes. Remember driving is a "privilege" and not a RIGHT! Thats how they think about it, we choose to drive and you can always walk or ride a bike.

 

Thats Nanny State morality. Like the wife accusing you of cheating cuz you go to the bar with friends, even though you don't cheat. In order for someone to secure, they need to take "precautions" to keep you in line. And its people with no lives who have nothing better to do than to monitor people who are active.

Everyone has to drown out their liberties to catch the bad guys. You have to "watch your mouth" and "not offend" too much already in society or you're incriminating yourself. Now you do that and you face the tracking bug.

Exactly. I'm not totally against electronic monitoring really. I'm very against how its one-sided transparency. The ones administrating the monitoring are the exception cuz they're somehow more pure and moral and have "earned" the right to be outside the parameters. That makes no sense, its BS really. If you feel everyone should feel safe with increased monitoring, start with yourself. I'm kinda with an all or nothing approach, no selective application.

But people want leverage and look for ways to exploit and gain an upper hand.

Reasonable suspicion is ENTIRELY up to individual interpretation. Levels of suspicion can change depending on mood and level of paranoia. Police are people, too. They use human thoughts like the rest of us. You can't allow them to bug the entire town in secret. Basically the application of these devices is less about the particular situation, and more about feeling of personal security and control.

Liberty is about the freedom to choose, even if the CHOICE is to do nothing.

 

What kind of GPS?

 

True the Constitution doesn't say anything specific about ease but that is a consideration in regard to Constitutional power. For instance the Constitution says nothing about bugs and one could argue that is the same as listening in on someone having a conversation like if you got close enough to them to ease drop this is just a more efficient. Clearly though the courts have taken that into consideration and decided a warrant is needed. I would place this under that same rational. That while there are other ways to carry out such surveillance the ease and power of this technology needs to be considered in regard to the Constitution protection in regard to surveillance.

Actually that wasn't the point I was bringing up. The point that I was bringing up was that if we decide that the use of GPS to track people doesn't violate any expectation of privacy, including even going on private property to place it. What is to stop a stalker from placing a device on their target to make it easier for them to stalk them?

In regard though to the car question what if we take it further and what if they planted a GPS device on the person's clothes and track him that way? Under your argument that would be fine as that is just doing something that could be done before, following the person, but more efficiently. I think we need to be very careful about how these type of technologies erode expectations we might have to privacy and being free of surveillance.

 

Actually I think your neighbor cannot put the camera on your property but they can put it on their property but aim it at yours. I think the argument here is the expectation is that the car isn't going to remain on the private property.

Unfortunately privacy and private property rights have been taking a beating recently as there was a case in the past year that a guy walking naked in his own house was charged with indecent exposure even though he wasn't in front of a window immediately visible to the public street.

 

You need to differentiate between regulation and surveillance. I don't think the issue is so much about the car as it is about surveilling the movements of this person.

 

I don't drive my car into the bathroom or when I shower. Do you?

Actually you know what.

Do you really think the big scary government can't find out where you are at any given time as it is right now anyway? You have your work/school schedule, you go through cameras when you enter big buildings or go through toll booth. You pay with your credit card, show identification, and write checks when you you make purchases or go on vacations.

Now I'm not saying I wanna get a GPS stuck in my mouth, but empty FREEEEEEEDOM speeches isn't the best defense without actually pinpointing what the problem is.

Before you start on the "It leads to abuse!" road, I would like to think that there are bigger threats in this world to your personal safety than your local police, even if they do know where your fruity hybrid car that seats two is.

 

What do you have against fruit?

 

What? You know, for a moment there, I thought you edited my post in your quote, but I think I was mistaken.