Their opinion doesn’t forclose the use of a GPS to track a single trip. According to the law in the DC circuit, police may legally affix a hidden GPS to your car, and then track your next trip.
Hey, it was YOU that argued the position that even if the court found there was a taking…
Hence, I continue by probing the nature of this taking. But just because you don’t like it, don’t mock me. You opened the door counselor 
Yes. I gave you the definition above. Not my fault you don’t like it.
Well, good luck.
If anyone wants to discuss the actual legal issues in play in this pair of cases, let me know. The elusive definition of ‘damage’ is not in play in either the 9th Circuit or the DC case.
Perhaps the Supremes will raise it sua sponte.
Ha! Ha! I slay myself, with the funny.
Change “house” to “car” and (if I recall correctly) the police can seize the car if they have probable cause that it is forfeitable contraband (cite). Then they can perform an inventory on said car. Any evidence of a crime that turns up in the inventory? Perfectly legal to use, regardless of how it might be related to the original basis for seizing the car.
Since you didn’t address anything specific, I’ll ask it this way:
Office Steve is patrolling a neighborhood at 3 AM when he notices a person working underneath a car in a private driveway. From Officer Steve’s experience he knows that 3 AM is not the usual hour for automotive repairs, and investigates the situation. He orders the suspect out from underneath the car and asks him what he is doing. The suspect explains that he is merely placing a GPS on the car with zip ties. He goes on to explain that his plan is to return the next night to retrieve the GPS unit, and then post its data on the Internet. Officer Steve receives consent to search the suspect and finds nothing more than a couple zipties and a GPS unit. After an unsuccessful attempt to wake a resident, Officer Steve determines that no crime is being committed and leaves in his patrol car.
In your opinion are Office Steve’s actions in this scenario (A) reflective of reality and (B) legally correct?
It’s not a matter of me liking it or not liking it. It’s a matter of right and wrong. Your belief that the definition of “damage” compels a physical effect is incontrovertibly wrong.
What constitutes a “trip”? And what assures anyone that they will in fact be physically able to remove it after that trip, but before the next one? especially in light of your earlier explanation that information regarding others would be admissible because there is no privacy expectation? Does DC Circuit create such a privacy expectation beyond the first trip?
And what about if the trip, for some portion takes the vehicle out of the sensory range (for lack of a better term) of an officer? Does the trip end at that point? Or can it continue at some later point? E.g. the car moves onto private property, out of sight, and there is no visible surveillance. Is the trip over?
Something else not addressed so far: What if the GPS is discovered and then removed?
Someone upthread linked to gps-blockers, it seems like it would not be difficult to make a gps-finder. So, is the device a gift if found?
This difference between this and the case in the OP was that there was clearly no probable cause, it was a fishing expedition.
(A) No
(B) They’re not incorrect
(C) …but they’re also not the only possible actions he could take.
I could explain, but I’m pretty certain it wouldn’t jibe with your opinion of the world and thus be summarily dismissed, wasting a bunch of my typing time in the process.
OK. It’s wrong. And every court in the country is still following it. Sucks to be the only guy to know the truth, eh?
See, this is where your side of the argument breaks down. What matters is how the courts will apply the law. And if every court to consider the matter rules that physical damage is necessary to sustain convictions, then I’m not sure what value you see to being “right.”
A) No. B) Depends. If a crime was committed (it depends on the jurisdiction. California Code 637.7, for example, makes it illegal) it wasn’t criminal damage.
Doesn’t matter. The DC Circuit rejects “prolonged surveillance,” so to err on the safe side, I posit a single journey – start, drive, stop.
No, they leave open the question of at what point the surveillance becomes “prolonged,” but they’re fairly clear that no matter where the line is drawn, a single trip is not implicated.
What’s the relevance of when they remove it?
OK, forget trip. Let’s say a day. The opinion discusses weeks and months of surveillance. So let’s say that a day falls well within the DC circuit’s guidelines. The guidelines are longer than a day, but undefined, so we’ll use a day as a safe harbor.
Addressed upthread. Search for ‘bailee.’
I think most people would agree as well because they have a reasonable expectation that their car will not be tampered with. I’m not sure why that wouldn’t mean that the police attaching a GPS device would constitute an unreasonable search, but maybe that’s why I’m not a lawyer.
Let’s exclude laws like CC 637.7 and just make it a generic device that doesn’t interfere with the operation of the vehicle. No crime in that scenario?
It D-E-P-E-N-D-S. I’ve offered my conclusion that it would not be criminal damage to property. After researching, I found no cases where a court has held that it would amount to criminal damage. But I’m not about to spend the time to research whether or not it could be illegal under some other code section in some unnamed jurisdiction. I would suggest you do the research into that tangential point to satisfy your curiousity.
You were talking about the “ordinary dictionary meaning” of the word damage. In that context you came up with a definition that is incontrovertibly wrong. If you want to talk about how a court or jury should consider damage, fine, but you need to make that clear.
By that standard, most of us will be done before we leave the driveway itself, having to stop for traffic to clear and all. It’s gotta be more than that
If I understood you correctly upthread, you suggested that the evidence collected could be used in more than one case. The sooner it is removed, the sooner there is less risk of “issues” in other cases getting in the mix.
Also, the sooner it is removed, the less one has to argue about if some data collected is not admissible or not after the fact.
That “weeks and months” doesn’t sound like much of a practical limit. What’s the value of this ruling again?
My search on this term only shows this post of yours. Can you help me out with a post # please?
Shesh why are you even bothering to debate if it’s to difficult to answer basic questions?
By the way, I think it’s pretty clear that I think it would be a crime.
The question you asked is of absolutely no relevance to the thread.
Fantastic! Outside of criminal damage, what charge? What code section? What punishment? To make it easier, lets use Illinois law. Personally, I don’t see how it’s relevant at all, but you seem interested.
Start the car. Drive. Stop driving. Turn off the ignition. Although I’ve now abandond that illustration in favor of the ‘one day.’
Courts generally try to avoid deciding anything except the actual case in front of them. Even if they said that “More than a day is excessive” it would be dicta.
Ah! so in order to procure immunity and impunity, we should perform the charade of stopping the car before leaving the driveway, or pulling out of the parking spot, and we are good in the DC Circuit area?
If you do this while stopped, how will the GPS know that you have shut the car off?
Makes me long for that old Jeep I used to drive that stalled every couple hundred feet or so.