LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
CA court have virtually guaranteed that this will be overturned by teh Supreme Court, setting precident from there forward, but what a bunch of friking idiots!
There Goes The 4th Amendment... First The Patriot Act, NOW this B.S. ...
Court allows agents to secretly put GPS trackers on cars
By Dugald McConnell, CNN
August 27, 2010 3:07 a.m. EDT
This is a GPS device that can be attached to a car with a magnet so its location can be tracked.
(CNN) -- Law enforcement officers may secretly place a GPS device on a person's car without seeking a warrant from a judge, according to a recent federal appeals court ruling in California.
Drug Enforcement Administration agents in Oregon in 2007 surreptitiously attached a GPS to the silver Jeep owned by Juan Pineda-Moreno, whom they suspected of growing marijuana, according to court
papers.
When Pineda-Moreno was arrested and charged, one piece of evidence was the GPS data, including the longitude and latitude of where the Jeep was driven, and how long it stayed. Prosecutors asserted the Jeep had been driven several times to remote rural locations where agents discovered marijuana being grown, court documents show.
Pineda-Moreno eventually pleaded guilty to conspiracy to grow marijuana, and is serving a 51-month sentence, according to his lawyer.
But he appealed on the grounds that sneaking onto a person's driveway and secretly tracking their car violates a person's reasonable expectation of privacy.
"They went onto the property several times in the middle of the night without his knowledge and without his permission," said his lawyer, Harrison Latto.
The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the appeal twice -- in January of this year by a three-judge panel, and then again by the full court earlier this month. The judges who affirmed Pineda-Moreno's conviction did so without comment.
Latto says the Ninth Circuit decision means law enforcement can place trackers on cars, without seeking a court's permission, in the nine western states the California-based circuit covers.
The ruling likely won't be the end of the matter. A federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., arrived at a different conclusion in similar case, saying officers who attached a GPS to the car of a suspected drug dealer should have sought a warrant.
Experts say the issue could eventually reach the U.S. Supreme Court.
One of the dissenting judges in Pineda-Moreno's case, Chief Judge Alex Kozinski, said the defendant's driveway was private and that the decision would allow police to use tactics he called "creepy" and "underhanded."
"The vast majority of the 60 million people living in the Ninth Circuit will see their privacy materially diminished by the panel's ruling," Kozinksi wrote in his dissent.
"I think it is Orwellian," said Marc Rotenberg, executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, which advocates for privacy rights.
"If the courts allow the police to gather up this information without a warrant," he said, "the police could place a tracking device on any individual's car -- without having to ever justify the reason they did that."
But supporters of the decision see the GPS trackers as a law enforcement tool that is no more intrusive than other means of surveillance, such as visually following a person, that do not require a court's approval.
"You left place A, at this time, you went to place B, you took this street -- that information can be gleaned in a variety of ways," said David Rivkin, a former Justice Department attorney. "It can be old surveillance, by tailing you unbeknownst to you; it could be a GPS."
He says that a person cannot automatically expect privacy just because something is on private property.
"You have to take measures -- to build a fence, to put the car in the garage" or post a no-trespassing sign, he said. "If you don't do that, you're not going to get the privacy."
Court allows agents to secretly put GPS trackers on cars - CNN.com
The 4th Amendment...
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.
U.S. Supreme Court Limits Searches Without Warrant
In an April 2009 United States Supreme Court decision (5-4), the US Supreme Court ruled that once a suspect is placed under arrest and handcuffed, police may search the suspect's vehicle without a search warrant only if the suspect is within reach of the vehicle, or if the police reasonably believe that evidence can be found in the vehicle that will prove the offense for which the suspect was placed under arrest.
Time to light up Congress & your State & Local Representatives...
Contact Your Two U.S. Senators:
U.S. Senate: Senators Home
Contact Your Congressman/Congresswoman in the U.S. House Of Representatives:
Representative Offices - United States House of Representatives, 111th Congress, 2nd Session
OR Call the U.S. Capitol Switchboard at (202)224-3121 and ask for your senators' and/or representative's office.
Contact Your State & Local Representatives:
http://www.capwiz.com/nra/dbq/officials/
Contact The Media:
http://www.capwiz.com/nra/dbq/media/
Remember, Remember The Second Of November 2010
NO RINOS, NO LIBERALS, NO MODERATES, NO MARXISTS, NO SOCIALISTS... (DO your due diligence research on every body you vote for including the judges, city councilmen/women etc...)
The First Fundamental Principle of Constitutional Interpretation: Your Rights Don't Come From Government
Oath Keepers: CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC 101: YOUR RIGHTS DON’T COME FROM GOVERNMENT
WTFU SHEEPLE !!!
TAKE BACK THE REPUBLIC !!!
Vote Freedom & American Citizens First; IF you live in Nevada VOTE Sharron Angle; regardless where you live... Expedite the Retirement of Dirty Harry Reid by donating one dollar or more to Sharron Angle:
Sharron Angle for U.S. Senate | Official Site
YouTube- New Republican Ad - Author Unknown!!!
"The people never give up their liberties, but under some delusion." - Edmund Burke
| |  |
CA court have virtually guaranteed that this will be overturned by teh Supreme Court, setting precident from there forward, but what a bunch of friking idiots!
How is a car in a driveway where everyone can see it "private?" How can a person driving on public roads in full view of every security video camera of every homeowner with a street view have an expectation of privacy?
We might, as a matter of policy, decide not to allow law enforcement to use such tactics, but I find it hard to conclude that such tactics violate the 4th.
And I suppose a Big Brother state sounds like a good idea to you guys? 1984 was an entertaining book, but I never want to see it to come to light. I know the Supreme Court would overturn this 5-4 with the current members on board, but this still sickens me.
My driveway is private property. My cars in the driveway are private property. My gas grill in my backyard is private property. Not that hard to understand. I don't need a FENCE to make it private property whether it can be seen form the street or not. I just hate this bartering of my CONSTITUTIONAL rights...
"I got you in a Stranglehold, baby. And then I crushed your face" -Ted Nugent
Another giant step toward the big brother state. Little by little the constitution is shreaded and what is frighting is how anyone can think this is o.k.
By faith Noah,being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear,prepared an ark to the saving of his house;by the which he condemned the world,and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith Heb.11:7
With most gov't plans in the works by 2020 they want us all to have GPS units in our vehicles so you can be taxed for road use monthly. You will get a monthly bill for every mile you drive if they have their way. The DOT's want their money faster, they say so they can do more road work that way. Start paying attention to all the new little poles with electronic equipment mounted on them. We are seeing them along the interstates all around here
Like Tanker said---it is mine. I paid for it and if it is sitting on the street it is still mine---- PRIVATE PROPERTY--- not the gubs to do with as they please--- mine. When they pay for it then they can do with it as they please. They do not need to bug them anyway with sats. all over the sky, cameras at every street light, and cell phones relaying info.
private property and an expectation of privacy are entirely different. Hard to have an intelligent conversation about the issues if you don't understand the basics.Originally Posted by tanker1983
My apologies NOGODS. I didn't realize you were a Constitutional Scholar. Think much of yourself? Jesus!!! Yes, I do understand the difference.
Maybe the subject is just above my head. lol
"I got you in a Stranglehold, baby. And then I crushed your face" -Ted Nugent
Posting Permissions
