# Cops Putting GPS On Cars Without A Warrant? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 27, 2010, 12:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cops-putting-gps-on-cars-without-a-warrant/551657 "2010-08-27T12:19:16Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2010, 11:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cops-putting-gps-on-cars-without-a-warrant/551657/81 "2010-08-27T23:03:03Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Well, since I am disagreeing with the opinion, using the opinion to refute my disagreement isn’t terribly sporting. > > Comment offered in all good fun. Er… I took your disagreement to be with whether the cop formed the requisite mens rea for a crime, and was pointing out that the use of the sign was not intended to create criminal trespass but to announce your expectation of privacy. If your disagreement is with whether a sign was necessary to create an expectation of privacy, then yes, the opinion is not the best way to convince you. But… the 2010 opinion we’re discussing now relied on an opinion from 1991, which I was quoting. So your gripe is with 20-ish years worth of good case law… ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2010, 11:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cops-putting-gps-on-cars-without-a-warrant/551657/82 "2010-08-27T23:06:16Z")
> [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](#): > > > [@Bricker](#): > > > > The entirety of this thread, and all my posts in it (save concedely that one) have addressed the substance of his post, with relevant citation to case law. > > > > How can you say I am ignoring the message of the post? Did you read only the post you quoted? > > Because that post had a clear meaning. Do you disagree [Orwellian](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orwellian) has a clear meaning? > > Further as I stated in my sarcasm, there is legal precedent for a right to privacy, if not explicitly enumerated as such, and someone can certainly feel something “Orwellian” violates their unenumerated natural rights. > You seem to think rights are static things that come one paper, and don’t exist otherwise. However the history of the Constitution, the document you nit pick the words of, but ignore the spirit of, started because people believed in, and fought for rights they believed to be inherent and inalienable. Many, including the Supreme Court in past cases, have held privacy to be one of the unenumerated rights the 9th Amendment refers to. Others have not. I don’t want to hijack this thread into another discussion of philosopher kings, so I’ll just say I disagree, but see your point. ---
**Author:** ![dzero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5f9b8f/32.png) [@dzero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dzero)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2010, 11:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cops-putting-gps-on-cars-without-a-warrant/551657/83 "2010-08-27T23:24:00Z")
Privacy rights are “penumbral” to the constitution. In other words, they are not explicitly stated but are a necessary corollary to the rights that ARE stated. This logic has always been attacked by strict constructionists but regardless, it has the not insignificant virtue of being binding precedent. At the very least, attaching anything to a vehicle would probably be considered trespass to chattels since it constitutes an interference with the rights of the vehicle’s owner. And as I recall, neither the police nor their agents can be allowed to benefit from an illegal act. Also the argument about the police “merely” enhancing their senses is bullshit. In cases where the doctrine of “plain view” has been at issue, courts have repeatedly held that such “augmentation”, almost by definition, puts any observations so obtained outside the doctrine. For example, if I have 10 kilos of coke sitting on my coffee table, but you can’t see it unless you either come on to my property illegally and peek in the window or set up a telescope across the street to peek in, then the coke is NOT ‘in plain view’. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2010, 11:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cops-putting-gps-on-cars-without-a-warrant/551657/84 "2010-08-27T23:51:54Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > A cop can enter your property to place a GPS on your car, legally, because ANYONE can enter your property legally. But if the cop has to open a gate, or sees a no trespassing sign, or has to go around to a back yard, or anything that an ordinary uninvited visitor could not do, then he can’t do it either. An ordinary uninvited visitor can’t legally affix a GPS device to my car. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2010, 11:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cops-putting-gps-on-cars-without-a-warrant/551657/85 "2010-08-27T23:52:50Z")
> [@dzero](#): > > Privacy rights are “penumbral” to the constitution. In other words, they are not explicitly stated but are a necessary corollary to the rights that ARE stated. > > This logic has always been attacked by strict constructionists but regardless, it has the not insignificant virtue of being binding precedent. > > At the very least, attaching anything to a vehicle would probably be considered trespass to chattels since it constitutes an interference with the rights of the vehicle’s owner. And as I recall, neither the police nor their agents can be allowed to benefit from an illegal act. No, that’s not true. The police can possess cocaine (a criminal act) and still arrest you if you buy it. And trespass to chattels is a tort, not a crime. Your redress in tort with actions for conversion, detinue, or trespass to chattel are certainly available, but they don’t trigger the Fourth Amendment’s suppression requirement. I’d be interested to learn of any contary law. > [@](#): > > Also the argument about the police “merely” enhancing their senses is bullshit. In cases where the doctrine of “plain view” has been at issue, courts have repeatedly held that such “augmentation”, almost by definition, puts any observations so obtained outside the doctrine. Yes, although I’d say that distinction is in doubt post-Kyllo, because of Kyllo’s “generally available to the public” language. But no question: you’re right. > [@](#): > > For example, if I have 10 kilos of coke sitting on my coffee table, but you can’t see it unless you either come on to my property illegally and peek in the window or set up a telescope across the street to peek in, then the coke is NOT ‘in plain view’. Right. But if I walk up to your door to ring the bell, and from my vantage point standing on your porch I can see your coffee table, you’re in trouble. Unless you had a “No Trespassing” sign. ---
**Author:** ![simster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/simster/32/1047_2.png) [@simster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/simster)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2010, 11:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cops-putting-gps-on-cars-without-a-warrant/551657/86 "2010-08-27T23:53:41Z")
Seems to me that if the police had sufficient probable cause to go to the trouble of attaching a GPS device and then actively monitor/review the activity of the vehicle in question, that they then had enough probable cause to get a warrant. The reasoning would be simple enough “we have evidence of x, but we don’t know where he is obtaining x, our efforts at normal observation having been thwarted, the use of a hidden GPS will allow us to y”. So, my question is why didnt they get the warrant to begin with? Any action by the police that requires planting of any device ( to gather data ) on the property of an individual should require a warrant. IMHO, it has nothing (or less, anyway) with the right to privacy and more to do with keeping the police in check. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2010, 11:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cops-putting-gps-on-cars-without-a-warrant/551657/87 "2010-08-27T23:53:59Z")
> [@treis](#): > > > [@Bricker](#): > > > > A cop can enter your property to place a GPS on your car, legally, because ANYONE can enter your property legally. But if the cop has to open a gate, or sees a no trespassing sign, or has to go around to a back yard, or anything that an ordinary uninvited visitor could not do, then he can’t do it either. > > An ordinary uninvited visitor can’t legally affix a GPS device to my car. By “can’t legally,” do you mean if he did, he’d be committing a crime? Or that you would be able to sue him? ---
**Author:** ![tim314](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tim314/32/3468_2.png) [@tim314](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tim314)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2010, 12:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cops-putting-gps-on-cars-without-a-warrant/551657/88 "2010-08-28T00:14:05Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > **Originally Posted by US v. Pineda-Moreno** > > “In order to establish a reasonable expectation of privacy in [his] driveway, [Pineda-Moreno] must support that expectation by detailing the special features of the driveway itself (i.e. enclosures, barriers, lack of visibility from the street) or the nature of activities performed upon it.” Maisano v. Welcher, 940 F.2d 499, 503 (9th Cir.1991). Pineda-Moreno offers no such evidence. To the contrary, the driveway had no gate, no “No Trespassing” signs, and no features to prevent someone standing in the street from seeing the entire driveway. I don’t see anything in this quote that says a “No Trespassing” sign alone would be sufficient to establish an expectation of privacy. As far as I can say they’re just saying such a sign would be one piece of evidence that could be used to establish a reasonable expectation of privacy. But perhaps I’m misreading. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2010, 12:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cops-putting-gps-on-cars-without-a-warrant/551657/89 "2010-08-28T00:20:37Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > > [@treis](#): > > > > An ordinary uninvited visitor can’t legally affix a GPS device to my car. > > By “can’t legally,” do you mean if he did, he’d be committing a crime? > > Or that you would be able to sue him? Illegal under general criminal mischief or vandalism statutes. ---
**Author:** ![boytyperanma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/4491bb/32.png) [@boytyperanma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/boytyperanma)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2010, 12:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cops-putting-gps-on-cars-without-a-warrant/551657/90 "2010-08-28T00:27:44Z")
> [@simster](#): > > So, my question is why didnt they get the warrant to begin with? Because a warrant isn’t required? Granted this is closer to a gray area then other methods the police use but the law seems to have affirmed they didn’t need one. Would you ask why the police didn’t get a warrant to ask a neighbor questions? > [@](#): > > Any action by the police that requires planting of any device ( to gather data ) on the property of an individual should require a warrant. I agree with you, but that isn’t the law as it is written now. Write to your representatives to encourage them to make such a law. Sitting around expecting the courts to make law is simply the wrong way to go. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2010, 12:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cops-putting-gps-on-cars-without-a-warrant/551657/91 "2010-08-28T00:31:16Z")
> [@treis](#): > > Illegal under general criminal mischief or vandalism statutes. Do you have a specific example of a statute? Virginia doesn’t have a mischief statute, so I’m flying a bit blind, but don’t they usually involve damage or conversion? ---
**Author:** ![simster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/simster/32/1047_2.png) [@simster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/simster)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2010, 1:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cops-putting-gps-on-cars-without-a-warrant/551657/92 "2010-08-28T01:05:29Z")
> [@boytyperanma](#): > > > [@simster](#): > > > > So, my question is why didnt they get the warrant to begin with? > > Because a warrant isn’t required? Granted this is closer to a gray area then other methods the police use but the law seems to have affirmed they didn’t need one. I get that the court has said that it wasn’t required - my question is more why the cops didn’t get one to begin with - was it because it wasn’t required or because they were denied (not haveing sufficient probable cause to begin with). The more the police are allowed to find ways around obtaining warrants the less they will be used. > [@boytyperanma](#): > > Would you ask why the police didn’t get a warrant to ask a neighbor questions? no - as asking questions is an overt action - meaning they had to knock on a door, ask the person questions - and it was done in ‘reasonably’ plain sight - and the person being asked the question had the ability to say “no”. Similarly, the cops following the suspect vehicle around is “out in the open” (even if using unmarked vehicles). Talking to the nieghbors, stakeing out a house/area - are overt actions even if reasonably concealed - they require real people doing the observation. The GPS device was a covert action - like a wire tap or other high tech surveilance - especially when aimed at specific individual(s) and as such should require a greater degree of probable cause and oversite. > [@boytyperanma](#): > > > [@simster](#): > > > > Any action by the police that requires planting of any device ( to gather data ) on the property of an individual should require a warrant. > > I agree with you, but that isn’t the law as it is written now. Write to your representatives to encourage them to make such a law. > > Sitting around expecting the courts to make law is simply the wrong way to go. Agreed - ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2010, 1:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cops-putting-gps-on-cars-without-a-warrant/551657/93 "2010-08-28T01:49:39Z")
> [@Gray\_Ghost](#): > > Actually, **Bricker** , the driveway in this case was conceded by the Government to be part of the curtilage, and therefore was private. If you haven’t already, go and read [Kozinski’s dissent](http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2010/08/12/08-30385.pdf) [Warning: PDF] from the Court’s denial to rehear _en banc_. He cites _Kyllo_, _Ciraolo_, and _Knotts_ to explain his reasoning why this instance was so egregious. (Besides, Kozinski’s prose is usually some of the funniest and clearest you’ll ever find in a judicial opinion.) > > It’s been awhile since Criminal Procedure class, but I thought curtilage carried the same protections against search and seizure as the interior of a home. From this decision, I don’t see anything stopping the police from entering Pineda-Moreno’s house through an open window and sewing GPS locators in his lapels or cuffs. (Frankly, I can’t see why the police couldn’t just go get a warrant. Would it really have been that hard for them to get P.C. for a suspected pot trafficker?) > > Kozinski’s points on the second ground—that GPS tracking is qualitatively different than a mere beeper and should require a warrant anyway—are a policy argument, and as such, I feel are on shakier ground. I agree with him, FWIW, but don’t find the Government’s use of such data as bothersome as the Court’s handwaving away the Government’s violation of the curtilage to place the device. > > Surprising that the 9th rolled over like this. Seems to me the court has approved placing a video camera in a window without a warrant. ---
**Author:** ![brossa](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/brossa/32/3040_2.png) [@brossa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brossa)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2010, 3:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cops-putting-gps-on-cars-without-a-warrant/551657/94 "2010-08-28T03:25:44Z")
Why not argue that the placement of the GPS device devalues the car, even if temporarily? After all, I wouldn’t want to buy a car with a police GPS attached to it. If a suspect sells his car, would the cops just write off the GPS, or would they try to retreive it from the new owner? For some reason, I don’t mind the idea of a couple of cops being parked down the street in an unmarked car, drinking sour coffee all night and day so as to be able to tail me when I go drive around in my car. That sort of thing takes up man-hours and places some burden on the police in order to pull it off 24/7. With the GPS, however, it seems like they could tag every car in a ‘bad’ neighborhood, wait a month or a year, and then pull up the data retroactively whenever they make an arrest for some other matter. They get the surveillance without putting in the effort. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2010, 4:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cops-putting-gps-on-cars-without-a-warrant/551657/95 "2010-08-28T04:49:13Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Because the Fourth Amendment protects some things and not others. It protects your “persons, houses, papers, and effects,” from unreasonable search and seizure. It doesn’t protect your car from having people watch it and find out where you take it, because no seizure occurs. I guess we are arguing about different things. You are arguing about what is; I am talking about what I think should be. Coming onto private property to plant a GPS strikes me as a search, and a car as one of my “effects”. And they are not just watching it, they are taking steps to track my movements without my knowledge or consent. Like I said, watching isn’t the problem. Could they plant a listening device on the outside of my car, so they could listen in to conversations held in my car? Could they plant a listening device on the outside of my house so they could hear my half of phone conversations held inside my house? I don’t see the principle that allows planting a GPS but disallows the ability to compel people to account for their movements otherwise. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2010, 6:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cops-putting-gps-on-cars-without-a-warrant/551657/96 "2010-08-28T06:43:28Z")
It’s clearly a surveillance device which one can reasonably expect to be parked in private locations. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2010, 11:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cops-putting-gps-on-cars-without-a-warrant/551657/97 "2010-08-28T11:20:08Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > > [@treis](#): > > > > Illegal under general criminal mischief or vandalism statutes. > > Do you have a specific example of a statute? Virginia doesn’t have a mischief statute, so I’m flying a bit blind, but don’t they usually involve damage or conversion? > [@](#): > > § 28.03. CRIMINAL MISCHIEF. (a) A person commits an > offense if, without the effective consent of the owner: > (1) he intentionally or knowingly damages or destroys > the tangible property of the owner; [http://law.onecle.com/texas/penal/28.03.00.html](http://law.onecle.com/texas/penal/28.03.00.html) ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2010, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cops-putting-gps-on-cars-without-a-warrant/551657/98 "2010-08-28T15:35:45Z")
> [@treis](#): > > > [@Bricker](#): > > > > Do you have a specific example of a statute? Virginia doesn’t have a mischief statute, so I’m flying a bit blind, but don’t they usually involve damage or conversion? > > > [@](#): > > > > § 28.03. CRIMINAL MISCHIEF. (a) A person commits an > > offense if, without the effective consent of the owner: > > (1) he intentionally or knowingly damages or destroys > > the tangible property of the owner; > > [http://law.onecle.com/texas/penal/28.03.00.html](http://law.onecle.com/texas/penal/28.03.00.html) Um… yeah. My point excatly. How does placing a GPS device on your car “damage” or “destroy” any property? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2010, 3:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cops-putting-gps-on-cars-without-a-warrant/551657/99 "2010-08-28T15:40:08Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Could they plant a listening device on the outside of my car, so they could listen in to conversations held in my car? No, because you have a reasonable expectation of privacy as to conversations inside your car. > [@](#): > > Could they plant a listening device on the outside of my house so they could hear my half of phone conversations held inside my house? No, because you have a reasonable expectation of privacy as to conversations inside your house, on the phone or otherwise. > [@](#): > > I don’t see the principle that allows planting a GPS but disallows the ability to compel people to account for their movements otherwise. The GPS doesn’t “compel” testimony within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment. If you’re looking for a principle, rememebr that what the Founding Fathers found odious was the practice of forcing a witness to take the stand against himself, to actually give testimony against himself. But they wouldn’t mind using a diary kept by the witness as evidence against him. Nor do we. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2010, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cops-putting-gps-on-cars-without-a-warrant/551657/100 "2010-08-28T15:41:58Z")
> [@brossa](#): > > Why not argue that the placement of the GPS device devalues the car, even if temporarily? After all, I wouldn’t want to buy a car with a police GPS attached to it. If a suspect sells his car, would the cops just write off the GPS, or would they try to retreive it from the new owner? > > For some reason, I don’t mind the idea of a couple of cops being parked down the street in an unmarked car, drinking sour coffee all night and day so as to be able to tail me when I go drive around in my car. That sort of thing takes up man-hours and places some burden on the police in order to pull it off 24/7. With the GPS, however, it seems like they could tag every car in a ‘bad’ neighborhood, wait a month or a year, and then pull up the data retroactively whenever they make an arrest for some other matter. They get the surveillance without putting in the effort. The courts have never found that the Constitution permits only the fruits of arduous police work, and forbids the fruits of efficient or easy work. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cops-putting-gps-on-cars-without-a-warrant/551657.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cops-putting-gps-on-cars-without-a-warrant/551657.md?page=6)