As a matter of pure logic alone, and not trying to suggest the state of the law, I have been meaning to point this out:
If we believe arguendo that the “exterior” of a car, including the undercarriage of a car, is exposed to the public by the owner, who therefore has no reasonable expectation of privacy in it, we have a problem when faced with the question: Since the beeper is also exposed to the public, it must be exposed to the owner, and therefore it makes sense that the owner will question its presence, and remove it and call the police or see a lawyer or change their activities, so why didn’t he?
The only answer is that it is hidden, the owner does not see it and does not know about what is hidden in his undercarriage. How can something hidden be exposed to the public? Have we gotten to the point where police hiding things so that they escape notice is excused by the fact that the owner “exposed” the hiding place?
What is this, “exposed” for the purposes of defendants, but “hidden” for purposes of police? Seems cheesy to me, quite the double standard. The thing is either where the public can readily see it or it isn’t, WTF is all this quibbling?
What happens when the police attempt to install their GPS and they find that the defendant’s (ahem…HIDDEN) keyholder is in the place they planned to put it, a place they are allowed to put it because it is “exposed to the public?” He, he, what happens if the second place the police try to put their GPS is where a previous owner put his keyholder?
Of course being in this position is brought to us by the fine folks whose priorities don’t seem in the interest of doing justice from time to time…
“Stare decisis is usually the wise policy, because in most matters it is more important that the applicable rule of law be settled than that it be settled right.”
—Burnet v. Coronado Oil & Gas Co., 285 U.S. 393, 406–407, 410 (1932)[2] (Brandeis, J., dissenting).
Precedent - Wikipedia
(Ok that’s not quite fair, its more recent courts that have put us in the illogical position we are in.)
For those who believe that saying something is more important than saying something correct, I suppose this makes sense. It doesn’t to me. I usually find it VERY HARD to argue with Justice Brandeis’ reasoning–no wonder he is so admired. If you’re interested in the state of the law, by all means quote the majority. Often, for good reasoning though, you wanna look at the dissents.
I reiterate I am asking out of logic, and not as a matter of law.
Folks, I should tell you, a fast one is being pulled here on We the People. 1984 is here, at least in the minds of those supporting warrantless GPS and other sorts of mass surveillance technology.
Sounds like some kind of truthspeak slogan to me: Hidden is Exposed, sounds like it would have fit in right dandy with the other slogans in 1984.