27 Aug 10
2 edits
"According to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, police officers can place a GPS device on a car parked in a driveway on private property, without a warrant ." “[Juan] Pineda-Moreno cannot show that the [DEA] agents invaded an area in which he possessed a reasonable expectation of privacy when they walked up his driveway Because the agents did not and attached the tracking device to his vehicle. invade such an area, they conducted no search, and Pineda-Moreno can assert no Fourth Amendment violation.”
"The Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit said the exact opposite" . “In striking down the drug conviction of Antoine Jones…the D.C. court said the FBI and District police overstepped their authority by tracking his movements round-the-clock for four weeks, placing a GPS monitoring device on his Jeep after an initial warrant had expired.”
Any of our resident lawyers and other arm chair experts care to comment on this?
Personally,I find it a little scary that the 9th circuit went this way.
http://www.nypost.com/p/blogs/capitol/knowing_court_says_cops_another_rINI1eHblAw09qbjS5kDYM
27 Aug 10
Originally posted by utherpendragonIt is scary, as the 9th Circus is usually the most liberal appeals court.
[b]"According to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, police officers can place a GPS device on a car parked in a driveway on private property, without a warrant ." “[Juan] Pineda-Moreno cannot show that the [DEA] agents invaded an area in which he possessed a reasonable expectation of privacy when they walked up his driveway Because the agents did ...[text shortened]... omment on this?
Personally,I find it a little scary that the 9th circuit went this way.[/b][/b]
The 4th and 5th protect against government intrution on ones private property, whether it is fenced in and secured or not.
Roe v. Wade was based on a right to privacy unspecified, yet in those areas where privacy is specifically mentioned, somehow it becomes second fiddle to catching drug dealers.
27 Aug 10
2 edits
Originally posted by utherpendragonI think reasonable expectation of privacy cases lend themselves to inconsistent verdicts. One of the reason is that you have new technologies and new characteristics.
[b]"According to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, police officers can place a GPS device on a car parked in a driveway on private property, without a warrant ." “[Juan] Pineda-Moreno cannot show that the [DEA] agents invaded an area in which he possessed a reasonable expectation of privacy when they walked up his driveway Because the agents did omment on this?
Personally,I find it a little scary that the 9th circuit went this way.[/b][/b]
Although many disagree, I am not unhappy the 9th Circuit's decision. The police already have the right to tail the person and follow them. That could be expensive and potentially dangerous. They did not tape record or video tape, the suspect so they are not overhearing/ seeing potential private or irrelevant conversation. To me a GPS seems like a cheap (and in this instance effective) relatively non-intrusive (will not gain other information other than location) and safe way to fight crime.
The intellectual unsettling part is that I cannot see how you would know whether your expectation of privacy was reasonable until the court decides the case. When I look at expectation of privacy from infra red light or cel phones being tapped (as opposed to land lines) I just don't see a guiding line on what is and is not intrusive.
27 Aug 10
2 edits
Originally posted by utherpendragonPutting a GPS device on a someone's car seems to be pretty much the same thing as tapping someone's phone line. There should be a warrant.
[b]"According to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, police officers can place a GPS device on a car parked in a driveway on private property, without a warrant ." “[Juan] Pineda-Moreno cannot show that the [DEA] agents invaded an area in which he possessed a reasonable expectation of privacy when they walked up his driveway Because the agents did http://www.nypost.com/p/blogs/capitol/knowing_court_says_cops_another_rINI1eHblAw09qbjS5kDYM[/b]
But this ruling by the 9th circuit would seem to be one that some conservatives would cheer - at least those who like to give the police maximum powers to go after criminals.
27 Aug 10
Originally posted by MelanerpesI think tapping into a phone line is much more intrusive because you can hear person private and legal information while a GPS merely gives location.
Putting a GPS device on a someone's car seems to be pretty much the same thing as tapping someone's phone line. There should be a warrant.
But this ruling by the 9th circuit would seem to be one that some conservatives would cheer - at least those who like to give the police maximum powers to go after criminals.
27 Aug 10
Originally posted by utherpendragonVery close case, IMO.
[b]"According to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, police officers can place a GPS device on a car parked in a driveway on private property, without a warrant ." “[Juan] Pineda-Moreno cannot show that the [DEA] agents invaded an area in which he possessed a reasonable expectation of privacy when they walked up his driveway Because the agents did ...[text shortened]... http://www.nypost.com/p/blogs/capitol/knowing_court_says_cops_another_rINI1eHblAw09qbjS5kDYM[/b]
It's established law that one does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy related to the outside of one's car or regarding something in plain view in one's driveway. For example, if police suspect you were in a hit and run and your car is parked out in the driveway in plain view, they can come and scrape off a tiny bit of paint to compare to that left behind at the scene.
You also do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in public.
This question, on the other hand, is whether you have a reasonable expectation of privacy regarding the places you go. It's a tough question. On the one hand, watching where you go at all times is pretty invasive. On the other hand, the monitoring a tracker does is not very invasive. If, for example, it recorded voice or images, I'd say it would definitely be a problem.
When there's a split in the circuits, the All Stars (a/k/a Supreme Court) will usually take one of the cases to settle the conflict, so this case may be decided by the Supreme Court.
What would I do? To me, this seems to be the sort of surveillance that should require a warrant, so I might come down on the side of the DC Circuit; but I think it's a very close case.
27 Aug 10
Originally posted by MelanerpesWhat quackquack said.
Putting a GPS device on a someone's car seems to be pretty much the same thing as tapping someone's phone line. There should be a warrant.
But this ruling by the 9th circuit would seem to be one that some conservatives would cheer - at least those who like to give the police maximum powers to go after criminals.
27 Aug 10
Originally posted by MelanerpesI wouldn't be okay with it. But that doesn't necessarily mean it's outside the investigative power of the state without a warrant.
So quackquack, you'd be okay if the police just put a GPS device on your car - perhaps someone you used to date is now on the police force and wants to know everywhere you're going and everyone you're seeing?
27 Aug 10
Originally posted by MelanerpesI would be OK with everyone (including myself) sacrificing the privacy of keeping their location a secret if the police believe it would prevent crime (drugs terrorrism etc) I also personally would rather be followed by GPS then by wire tap, video team or a swat team with guns trying to set uo a road block. It seems less intrusive than the alternatives.
So quackquack, you'd be okay if the police just put a GPS device on your car - perhaps someone you used to date is now on the police force and wants to know everywhere you're going and everyone you're seeing?
27 Aug 10
1 edit
Originally posted by quackquackif the police have reasonable suspicions that someone might be committing a crime, they should be able to get a warrant.
I would be OK with everyone (including myself) sacrificing the privacy of keeping their location a secret if the police believe it would prevent crime (drugs terrorrism etc) I also personally would rather be followed by GPS then by wire tap, video team or a swat team with guns trying to set uo a road block. It seems less intrusive than the alternatives.
suppose you had successfully gotten a speeding ticket overturned - would you feel comfortable if the ticketing officer, angry at being humiliated in court, then put a GPS device on your car?
27 Aug 10
1 edit
Originally posted by MelanerpesA warrant requires probable cause, not just reasonable suspicion. But, aside from that, there are sometimes timing issues that makes getting a warrant impractical, especially when it comes to an automobile. Cars has been much less of a privacy interest than homes in multiple contexts for this reason.
if the police have reasonable suspicions that someone might be committing a crime, they should be able to get a warrant.
suppose you had successfully gotten a speeding ticket overturned - would you feel comfortable if the ticketing officer, angry at being humiliated in court, then put a GPS device on your car?
27 Aug 10
1 edit
Originally posted by sh76I just don't like the idea that the police could put a GPS on any car they want for any reason -- this goes well beyond merely searching a person's car or monitoring an intersection -- I can readily imagine way too many ways that this sort of thing could be abused leading to terrible intrusions on privacy.
A warrant requires probable cause, not just reasonable suspicion. But, aside from that, there are sometimes timing issues that makes getting a warrant impractical, especially when it comes to an automobile. Cars has been much less of a privacy interest than homes in multiple contexts for this reason.
Perhaps the police could be allowed to conduct warrantless GPS monitoring - IF certain conditions have already been laid out by the law to prevent such abuses.
27 Aug 10
1 edit
Originally posted by MelanerpesFair enough. Though it should be pointed out that where you go is already monitored. Toll booths have cameras that snap pics of every car going by. Red light cameras are all over the place in some cities, etc. If the police wanted to know where and when you drove, they could piece it together fairly well. A GPS only does it a bit more efficiently.
I just don't like the idea that the police could put a GPS on any car they want for any reason -- I can readily imagine way too many ways that this sort of thing could be abused leading to terrible intrusions on privacy.
Perhaps the police could be allowed to conduct warrantless GPS monitoring - IF certain conditions have already been laid out by the law to prevent such abuses.
27 Aug 10
Originally posted by sh76but this would require a great deal of detective work to get even a very general idea of your travel patterns -- and the cameras at toll booths and intersections wouldn't tell you where your final destination was (such as the driveway of Zsa-Zsa Hotpants)
Fair enough. Though it should be pointed out that where you go is already monitored. Toll booths have cameras that snap pics of every car going by. Red light cameras are all over the place in some cities, etc. If the police wanted to know where and when you drove, they could piece it together fairly well. A GPS only does it a bit more efficiently.