# Are the troothspeaking lawyers pulling a fast one?
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-troothspeaking-lawyers-pulling-a-fast-one/590087
**Category:** Great Debates
**Created:** [July 23, 2011, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-troothspeaking-lawyers-pulling-a-fast-one/590087 "2011-07-23T16:40:51Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 1
### Author:  [@David42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David42)
#### Post date: [July 23, 2011, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-troothspeaking-lawyers-pulling-a-fast-one/590087/1 "2011-07-23T16:40:51Z")
I made the following post in another thread. Seems like it may be a good question for separate treatment on a question of the logic of it alone.
Here we do not ask for court opinions, but analyze the proposition by reasoning alone.
> [@](#):
>
> 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](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stare_decisis)
>
> (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.
Well, Dopers, does it make any sense?
---
### Author:  [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jimmy_Chitwood)
#### Post date: [July 23, 2011, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-troothspeaking-lawyers-pulling-a-fast-one/590087/2 "2011-07-23T20:47:40Z")
I’m not sure your thread title qualifies for that “reasoning alone” treatment, but here goes:
Do you have any reasonable expectation of privacy in, say, a train station lobby, or is that “exposed” to the public? And if you taped an envelope to the underside of a bench in a train station, would that envelope be “hidden”?
In other words, can’t something be “hidden” in a place that is nevertheless not private by virtue of affording any reasonable expectation of privacy, because it’s in a place people usually _won’t_ look, even though they’re entitled to?
---
### Author:  [@Freudian\_Slit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freudian_Slit)
#### Post date: [July 23, 2011, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-troothspeaking-lawyers-pulling-a-fast-one/590087/3 "2011-07-23T20:53:47Z")
Who are the troothspeaking lawyers? What car/owner are you referring to? What are you quoting from? I can’t make any sense of this OP.
---
### Author:  [@David42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David42)
#### Post date: [July 23, 2011, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-troothspeaking-lawyers-pulling-a-fast-one/590087/4 "2011-07-23T23:16:13Z")
> [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](#):
>
> I’m not sure your thread title qualifies for that “reasoning alone” treatment, but here goes:
>
> Do you have any reasonable expectation of privacy in, say, a train station lobby, or is that “exposed” to the public? And if you taped an envelope to the underside of a bench in a train station, would that envelope be “hidden”?
>
> In other words, can’t something be “hidden” in a place that is nevertheless not private by virtue of affording any reasonable expectation of privacy, because it’s in a place people usually _won’t_ look, even though they’re entitled to?
If whoever placed the envelope told me he was careful and no-one saw him stick the envelope under the bench, assuming I wanted what was in the envelope, I would have a high enough degree of confidence that it would be that I’d go look, especially if it were only a few minutes.
A bit different set of facts though…in the end, I’d reasonably say anything left in public unattended is fair game to go to a lost and found department…
and of course the envelope has to be in public view before the guy sticks it under the bench, so it has been exposed.
---
### Author:  [@David42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David42)
#### Post date: [July 23, 2011, 11:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-troothspeaking-lawyers-pulling-a-fast-one/590087/5 "2011-07-23T23:18:28Z")
> [@Freudian\_Slit](#):
>
> Who are the troothspeaking lawyers? What car/owner are you referring to? What are you quoting from? I can’t make any sense of this OP.
Any lawyers devising such arguments, be they judges or not.
The car owner could be anybody.
The quote is from the Supreme Court of the U.S., the case is cited.
It’s about the reasoning behind fourth amendment analysis.
---
### Author:  [@Implicit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Implicit)
#### Post date: [July 24, 2011, 1:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-troothspeaking-lawyers-pulling-a-fast-one/590087/6 "2011-07-24T01:02:15Z")
> [@](#):
>
> 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.
Privacy is an illusion. Look at the “anonymity” of the internet; it’s no longer the wild west, Google has your number. Whatever expectation of privacy you are espousing has already been sacrificed for convenience. Welcome to the 21st century.
---
### Author:  [@Lakai](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lakai)
#### Post date: [July 24, 2011, 1:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-troothspeaking-lawyers-pulling-a-fast-one/590087/7 "2011-07-24T01:13:42Z")
> [@David42](#):
>
> The quote is from the Supreme Court of the U.S., the case is cited.
>
> It’s about the reasoning behind fourth amendment analysis.
The quote about stare decisis is cited, but what about everything else that’s in the quote box?
---
### Author:  [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)
#### Post date: [July 24, 2011, 1:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-troothspeaking-lawyers-pulling-a-fast-one/590087/8 "2011-07-24T01:26:02Z")
“Exposed to the public” does not mean “obviously visible”. IMO it means that an item can be seen if a member of the public happens to be in the right place to see it, and that they have a legal right to be in such a place. A member of the public has the legal right to crawl under a car in the street, and the tracking device becomes visible at that time, but in a narrow sense it has always been “exposed”.
It’s the difference between “impossible” and “highly unlikely” to be seen.
---
### Author:  [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)
#### Post date: [July 24, 2011, 1:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-troothspeaking-lawyers-pulling-a-fast-one/590087/9 "2011-07-24T01:47:41Z")
> [@Freudian\_Slit](#):
>
> Who are the troothspeaking lawyers? What car/owner are you referring to? What are you quoting from? I can’t make any sense of this OP.
I believe the OP is referring to a case where police attached a GPS tracker to a suspect’s car and tracked his movements for a month, using it to gather evidence of wrongdoing. Legalistic arguments followed about whether attaching such a device to someone’s car constitutes unreasonable seizure of (or interference with use of) assets, as well as the privacy invasion of letting an electronic device do what otherwise would require teams of officers surreptitiously tracking the suspect’s car’s movements though public streets, etc.
The lawyers on both side, natch, are pulling out all the various and numerous hair-splitting stops.
---
### Author:  [@David42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David42)
#### Post date: [July 24, 2011, 3:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-troothspeaking-lawyers-pulling-a-fast-one/590087/10 "2011-07-24T03:40:22Z")
> [@Lakai](#):
>
> The quote about stare decisis is cited, but what about everything else that’s in the quote box?
Another post I made.
---
### Author:  [@David42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David42)
#### Post date: [July 24, 2011, 3:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-troothspeaking-lawyers-pulling-a-fast-one/590087/11 "2011-07-24T03:41:33Z")
> [@Implicit](#):
>
> Privacy is an illusion. Look at the “anonymity” of the internet; it’s no longer the wild west, Google has your number. Whatever expectation of privacy you are espousing has already been sacrificed for convenience. Welcome to the 21st century.
Not all are internet users. Is their privacy an illusion?
---
### Author:  [@David42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David42)
#### Post date: [July 24, 2011, 3:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-troothspeaking-lawyers-pulling-a-fast-one/590087/12 "2011-07-24T03:42:58Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#):
>
> I believe the OP is referring to a case where police attached a GPS tracker to a suspect’s car and tracked his movements for a month, using it to gather evidence of wrongdoing. Legalistic arguments followed about whether attaching such a device to someone’s car constitutes unreasonable seizure of (or interference with use of) assets, as well as the privacy invasion of letting an electronic device do what otherwise would require teams of officers surreptitiously tracking the suspect’s car’s movements though public streets, etc.
> The lawyers on both side, natch, are pulling out all the various and numerous hair-splitting stops.
It involves more than one case, but yes, that is essentially correct.
---
### Author:  [@David42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David42)
#### Post date: [July 24, 2011, 3:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-troothspeaking-lawyers-pulling-a-fast-one/590087/13 "2011-07-24T03:57:20Z")
Two lovers cannot meet often and exchange notes in a hole in a wall which is not readily seen. One day another man realizes what they are doing after seeing them each a few times.
He is a reasonable man. Does he go read their notes, or not?
---
### Author:  [@David42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David42)
#### Post date: [July 24, 2011, 4:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-troothspeaking-lawyers-pulling-a-fast-one/590087/14 "2011-07-24T04:03:09Z")
A stranger has crawled under your car looking for a hide-a-key. You spot him and think:
A) ‘Ah, that’s just as things ought to be, I exposed the undercarriage of my car to the public, he can look all he likes.’
B) ‘WTF is that guy doing under my car? he surely can’t have any business under there. Damn, he’s running his hands behind the bumpers, is he f’n TRYIN’ TO STEAL MY CAR?’
What is the response of the reasonable person?
---
### Author:  [@Implicit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Implicit)
#### Post date: [July 24, 2011, 4:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-troothspeaking-lawyers-pulling-a-fast-one/590087/15 "2011-07-24T04:03:41Z")
> [@David42](#):
>
> Not all are internet users. Is their privacy an illusion?
It was one example. We, as a society, have embraced technology. You can demand that laws be written or interpreted to deal with technology, but ultimately that’s a losing battle. The next generation isn’t fighting for their privacy or they wouldn’t be posting their whole lives on facebook, they are willing to trade privacy for the conveniences supplied by technology.
---
### Author:  [@David42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David42)
#### Post date: [July 24, 2011, 4:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-troothspeaking-lawyers-pulling-a-fast-one/590087/16 "2011-07-24T04:19:54Z")
> [@Implicit](#):
>
> It was one example. We, as a society, have embraced technology. You can demand that laws be written or interpreted to deal with technology, but ultimately that’s a losing battle. The next generation isn’t fighting for their privacy or they wouldn’t be posting their whole lives on facebook, they are willing to trade privacy for the conveniences supplied by technology.
Some people voluntarily exposing private information to the public doesn’t make sense as a reason to take privacy from someone who hasn’t shared his private things with the public.
From your perspective as a person who has embraced technology, society appears to have embraced it. Is that the same perspective as a poor person who cannot afford it, or a simple person who doesn’t want to use it, or a dumb person who can’t use it?
Just how many are online? “Embraced” probably calls for a supermajority. Are there that many?
---
### Author:  [@Implicit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Implicit)
#### Post date: [July 24, 2011, 4:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-troothspeaking-lawyers-pulling-a-fast-one/590087/17 "2011-07-24T04:47:50Z")
> [@David42](#):
>
> Two lovers cannot meet often and exchange notes in a hole in a wall which is not readily seen. One day another man realizes what they are doing after seeing them each a few times.
>
> He is a reasonable man. Does he go read their notes, or not?
You want a law against reading a piece of paper someone finds in a hole?
> [@David42](#):
>
> A stranger has crawled under your car looking for a hide-a-key. You spot him and think:
>
> A) ‘Ah, that’s just as things ought to be, I exposed the undercarriage of my car to the public, he can look all he likes.’
>
> B) ‘WTF is that guy doing under my car? he surely can’t have any business under there. Damn, he’s running his hands behind the bumpers, is he f’n TRYIN’ TO STEAL MY CAR?’
>
> What is the response of the reasonable person?
C) He’s retrieving a ball or his cat.
A reasonable person doesn’t hide a key on their car since both the police and insurance companies advise against that.
If this topic came from a specific case, then why are you making up ridiculous scenarios instead of presenting the details of that case?
> [@David42](#):
>
> From your perspective as a person who has embraced technology, society appears to have embraced it. Is that the same perspective as a poor person who cannot afford it, or a simple person who doesn’t want to use it, or a dumb person who can’t use it?
Are you suggesting that the police should be restricted to using early 20th century techniques for surveillance forevermore because not every person has access to technology?
---
### Author:  [@David42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David42)
#### Post date: [July 24, 2011, 1:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-troothspeaking-lawyers-pulling-a-fast-one/590087/18 "2011-07-24T13:50:04Z")
> [@Implicit](#):
>
> You want a law against reading a piece of paper someone finds in a hole?
I didn’t say that. I asked whether a reasonable person would respect something obviously private even though, since it’s in public, he could pry.
> [@Implicit](#):
>
> C) He’s retrieving a ball or his cat.
>
> A reasonable person doesn’t hide a key on their car since both the police and insurance companies advise against that.
>
> If this topic came from a specific case, then why are you making up ridiculous scenarios instead of presenting the details of that case?
He’s not retrieving a ball or cat, he’s running his hands behind the bumper looking for a hide-a-key. He;s also not a neighborhood resident, but a stranger.
The example did not involve a person who uses a hide a key, it involves someone looking for one. It doesn’t have to be there. Although, these days, I’d be more likely to say, "WTF, is this guy planting a GPS?
If police and insurance companies advise against it, it must be because of people who will look for it in order to drive your car. If they think its reasonable for this to happen, why is it a ridiculous scenario? This topic comes from many cases, and is not specifically about any of them. There is nothing wrong with thought experiments in figuring things out.
> [@Implicit](#):
>
> Are you suggesting that the police should be restricted to using early 20th century techniques for surveillance forevermore because not every person has access to technology?
No, when did I say that? We are just looking at the logic of the idea that something the police purposely hide so it won’t be seen is considered “exposed to the public.”
I’m for the police getting warrants to do this stuff, though it’s outside the O.P. to discuss it.
I did suggest that you look outside the perspective of a person who has embraced technology when claiming that society has embraced technology. I asked for some proof that society has embraced technology, as in numbers.
---
### Author:  [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)
#### Post date: [July 24, 2011, 2:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-troothspeaking-lawyers-pulling-a-fast-one/590087/19 "2011-07-24T14:10:56Z")
Sure a stranger may have the right to crawl under your car (for whatever strange reason), but does he have the right to attach something to it?
I would say that it is a fifth amendment “taking” as well because the value of a car that is untracked by the police is greater than one that is tracked. By attaching the GPS, they have devalued your car. It is a trespass to a chattel, is it not?
---
### Author:  [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)
#### Post date: [July 24, 2011, 2:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-troothspeaking-lawyers-pulling-a-fast-one/590087/20 "2011-07-24T14:30:58Z")
> [@David42](#):
>
> I didn’t say that. I asked whether a reasonable person would respect something obviously private even though, since it’s in public, he could pry.
>
> He’s not retrieving a ball or cat, he’s running his hands behind the bumper looking for a hide-a-key. He;s also not a neighborhood resident, but a stranger.
>
> The example did not involve a person who uses a hide a key, it involves someone looking for one. It doesn’t have to be there. Although, these days, I’d be more likely to say, "WTF, is this guy planting a GPS?
>
> If police and insurance companies advise against it, it must be because of people who will look for it in order to drive your car. If they think its reasonable for this to happen, why is it a ridiculous scenario? This topic comes from many cases, and is not specifically about any of them. There is nothing wrong with thought experiments in figuring things out.
>
> No, when did I say that? We are just looking at the logic of the idea that something the police purposely hide so it won’t be seen is considered “exposed to the public.”
>
> I’m for the police getting warrants to do this stuff, though it’s outside the O.P. to discuss it.
>
> I did suggest that you look outside the perspective of a person who has embraced technology when claiming that society has embraced technology. I asked for some proof that society has embraced technology, as in numbers.
If someone’s under your car, you can’t see where there hands are, nor can you tell if it’s someone from the neighborhood or a stranger, unless you are under there with them.
I don’t the the “hiding” part is an issue at all. Do you object if police put a hidden surveillance camera in a park at a place where there’ve been a lot of muggings? Do you object to the FBI setting up hidden cameras across the street from foreign embassies?
The REAL question, IMO, is where does your property end and and “public space” begins. Presumably this GPS unit was attached to the car with a magnet, or perhaps strapped on to a strut or something under the car. At a wild guess, I would imagine the courts might rule differently if the cops drill a hole in something and bolt the tracker in place. But would a court find differently if cops managed to attach a hidden camera to a fence which ran along the property line of your home? And whether attaching a camera or a listening device in a _barely_ public space would be different from a GPS tracker?
As to your last point – are you joking? You want evidence that society has embraced technology? Look around. There is a consumer indistry now for surveillance equipment – nanny cams, Lowjack devices for kids, etc. People LOVE spying on other people. They’re just not so happy about when they’re spied upon.
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-troothspeaking-lawyers-pulling-a-fast-one/590087.md?page=2)