Cops Putting GPS On Cars Without A Warrant?

[not_alice]

@Bricker

People make speeches. But not all legislators make speeches or take positions on all bills, so no: you cannot determine what every single person who voted ‘yes’ was thinking, and why the bill gained his support.

And how is it a useful piece of information?

Once again, no one made any such claim. Are you feeling ok today> You don’t seem to be tracking this as well as earlier in the thread… or maybe someone has hacked your account? This recent bit is not up to your usual standard IMHO. No sense playing opinion ping-pong with you if you are not really into it.

[Bricker]

@not_alice

@Bricker

People make speeches. But not all legislators make speeches or take positions on all bills, so no: you cannot determine what every single person who voted ‘yes’ was thinking, and why the bill gained his support.

And how is it a useful piece of information?

Once again, no one made any such claim. Are you feeling ok today> You don’t seem to be tracking this as well as earlier in the thread… or maybe someone has hacked your account? This recent bit is not up to your usual standard IMHO. No sense playing opinion ping-pong with you if you are not really into it.

You said:

So nothing can ever be learned about anything that happens in any legislature? No one ever shares any information on reasons or positions, they just leave a trail of seemingly disconnected votes for the public to live by?

My answer was directly responsive.

I suppose I could have done the same thing you did: answer So nothing can ever be learned about anything that happens in any legislature? by saying, “No one made any such claim.”

But instead, I expanded the information I was providing, pointing out that SOME things can be learned from floor speeches and other sources, but there is no guarantee that any definitive, single voice would emerge about the philosophy behind the legislative decision.

[not_alice]

[quote=“Bricker, post:262, topic:551657”]

@not_alice

But instead, I expanded the information I was providing, pointing out that SOME things can be learned from floor speeches and other sources, but there is no guarantee that any definitive, single voice would emerge about the philosophy behind the legislative decision.

Without providing any actual information that addresses your earlier claim.

Look, you are being evasive now, you know it, I know it, and everyone still reading (if there are any) knows it. It’s OK. Let it go.

[Bricker]

[quote=“not_alice, post:263, topic:551657”]

@Bricker

Without providing any actual information that addresses your earlier claim.

Look, you are being evasive now, you know it, I know it, and everyone still reading (if there are any) knows it. It’s OK. Let it go.

I’m not being evasive in the slightest. You, however, have done an excellent job in debate judo by encouraging me to state flesh out, explicitly, the inferences to be drawn in your arguments and then denying, wide-eyed, that you ever intended such inferences and castigating me for even assuming such nasty things.

Here’s where this latest goat-rope got started:

@not_alice

What principle distinguishes the two in the eyes of the law?

(“The two” being GPS system owned by police and GPS systems owned by the target of the investigation.)

So why don’t we roll right back there, eh?

Answer: I don’t believe it is possible to answer that specific question with anything but speculation. I have no idea if there is any particular principle distinguishing the two, or, if there is, what it is.

[not_alice]

@Bricker

Answer: I don’t believe it is possible to answer that specific question with anything but speculation. I have no idea if there is any particular principle distinguishing the two, or, if there is, what it is.

OK, that is fair, but possibly silly position to take.

Are you suggesting it is not possible to know what the legislature as thinking about because they were secretive? Because this law happened at random when no one was looking? Because it happened in a vacuum?

Or maybe you mean it not possible to learn anything about what a legislature is thinking when it legislates ever?

I don’t always agree with your positions here, but I do usually find your approach to explaining things to be exemplary on this board. That is partly why I am holding you to a standard maybe you don’t want to be held to in this thread.

I just don’t think you are doing your best work here, or even close to it. As an attorney, I find your reticence to suggest that there is no record of what a legislature was thinking when they passed a law in an area where there is extensive public concern and advocacy, well, let’s say I find it surprising and notable.

[Bricker]

@not_alice

@Bricker

Answer: I don’t believe it is possible to answer that specific question with anything but speculation. I have no idea if there is any particular principle distinguishing the two, or, if there is, what it is.

OK, that is fair, but possibly silly position to take.

Are you suggesting it is not possible to know what the legislature as thinking about because they were secretive? Because this law happened at random when no one was looking? Because it happened in a vacuum?

“No one made any such claim. Are you feeling ok today?”

Or maybe you mean it not possible to learn anything about what a legislature is thinking when it legislates ever?

“No one made any such claim. Are you feeling ok today?”

I don’t always agree with your positions here, but I do usually find your approach to explaining things to be exemplary on this board. That is partly why I am holding you to a standard maybe you don’t want to be held to in this thread.

I just don’t think you are doing your best work here, or even close to it. As an attorney, I find your reticence to suggest that there is no record of what a legislature was thinking when they passed a law in an area where there is extensive public concern and advocacy, well, let’s say I find it surprising and notable.

What I said was:

Answer: I don’t believe it is possible to answer that specific question with anything but speculation. I have no idea if there is any particular principle distinguishing the two, or, if there is, what it is.

I would gladly change my mind if someone were to show me floor speeches, committee testimony, or other indicia of the legislature’s process in passing the language that became 18 USC § 2703. I haven’t found this material, and don’t know what it might reveal.

[not_alice]

@Bricker

I would gladly change my mind if someone were to show me floor speeches, committee testimony, or other indicia of the legislature’s process in passing the language that became 18 USC § 2703. I haven’t found this material, and don’t know what it might reveal.

It is the narrowness of your answer that is surprising, not the substance of it.

I haven’t read everything you have written here on this board, but it is my impression that this narrowness regarding how policies came to be is not your usual approach.

Maybe I am wrong, I am willing to stand corrected if this is your typical approach in threads.

Do you anticipate that in the future, your insights will take such narrow positions regarding your explanations of laws, especially controversial ones?

I hope not, because they will be much less useful and interesting then they have seemed to me in the past if you do.

[Bricker]

Shockingly, placing a GPS system does not “lower the value” of a vehicle:

@Foltz v. Commonwealth

Appellant argues that the police violated his privacy interests when they placed the GPS device inside the bumper of his work van while it was parked on the street in front of his house. He also argues that the police committed a seizure when they installed the GPS device because it “changed the nature” of the van by decreasing its value. We find neither argument persuasive.
.
.
.
Appellant also claims that he had an expectation of privacy against seizures of the van. He argues that the police seized the van when they placed the device in the van’s bumper because it “changed the nature” of the property, decreasing its value.

The United States Supreme Court in Karo explained that seizure of property occurs “when ‘there is some meaningful interference with an individual’s possessory interests in that property.’” 468 U.S. at 712 (quoting United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109, 113 (1984)). The Court then noted, “The existence of a physical trespass is only marginally relevant to the question of whether the Fourth Amendment has been violated, however, for an actual trespass is neither necessary nor sufficient to establish a constitutional violation.” (citation omitted)

Here, appellant does not establish the placement of the GPS in the van’s bumper was a “meaningful interference” with his interest in the van. Although appellant contends that people commonly do not want to purchase vehicles that can be tracked by the police, it seems just as common for people to purchase cars that have devices installed that allow tracking of the vehicle.
.
.
.
Instead, we find McIver instructive. In that case, discussed supra, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found that officers did not “seize” the vehicle because the defendant did not prove that the placement of the tracking devices “deprived him of dominion and control of his Toyota 4Runner, nor did he demonstrate” that the devices damaged his vehicle in some way. 186 F.3d at 1127. The court concluded that McIver had not established that the placement meaningfully interfere[d]" with his “possessory interest” in the 4Runner. Id.

We also find United States v. Garcia, 474 F.3d 994 (7th Cir. 2007), persuasive. In Garcia, the police attached a self-powered GPS to Garcia’s car while it was parked on a public street. Garcia argued that the installation of the GPS was a seizure of his car. The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit disagreed, explaining that Garcia’s argument was “untenable.” The court explained:
The device did not affect the car’s driving qualities, did not draw power from the car’s engine or battery, did not take up room that might otherwise have been occupied by passengers or packages, did not even alter the car’s appearance, and in short did not “seize” the car in any intelligible sense of the word.

(bolded emphasis mine)

[Nars_Glinley]

@Bricker

Shockingly, placing a GPS system does not “lower the value” of a vehicle:

@Foltz v. Commonwealth

Big snip.

We also find United States v. Garcia, 474 F.3d 994 (7th Cir. 2007), persuasive. In Garcia, the police attached a self-powered GPS to Garcia’s car while it was parked on a public street. Garcia argued that the installation of the GPS was a seizure of his car. The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit disagreed, explaining that Garcia’s argument was “untenable.” The court explained:
The device did not affect the car’s driving qualities, did not draw power from the car’s engine or battery, did not take up room that might otherwise have been occupied by passengers or packages, did not even alter the car’s appearance, and in short did not “seize” the car in any intelligible sense of the word.

(bolded emphasis mine)

Is this fundamentally different than placing a listening device on someone’s home to ascertain if there’s illegal activity going on inside or would the police not need a warrant for that either? Also, I would dispute that the car’s appearance was unaltered unless it was an invisible device.

[Bricker]

@Nars_Glinley

Is this fundamentally different than placing a listening device on someone’s home to ascertain if there’s illegal activity going on inside or would the police not need a warrant for that either?

It is fundamentally different, since conversation inside your house are a private matter, an expectation that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable.

This question was specifically addressed in this very thread here. It was also tangentially addressed:

[ul]
[li]Here[/li][li]Here[/li][li]Here[/li][li]And here[/li][/ul]

Also, I would dispute that the car’s appearance was unaltered unless it was an invisible device.

The issue of de minimis changes being irrelevant to the law has been discussed many times in the foregoing thread. Do you need specific cites?

[Hamlet]

@Bricker

Shockingly, placing a GPS system does not “lower the value” of a vehicle:

@Foltz v. Commonwealth

Appellant argues that the police violated his privacy interests when they placed the GPS device inside the bumper of his work van while it was parked on the street in front of his house. He also argues that the police committed a seizure when they installed the GPS device because it “changed the nature” of the van by decreasing its value. We find neither argument persuasive.
.
.
.
Appellant also claims that he had an expectation of privacy against seizures of the van. He argues that the police seized the van when they placed the device in the van’s bumper because it “changed the nature” of the property, decreasing its value.

The United States Supreme Court in Karo explained that seizure of property occurs “when ‘there is some meaningful interference with an individual’s possessory interests in that property.’” 468 U.S. at 712 (quoting United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109, 113 (1984)). The Court then noted, “The existence of a physical trespass is only marginally relevant to the question of whether the Fourth Amendment has been violated, however, for an actual trespass is neither necessary nor sufficient to establish a constitutional violation.” (citation omitted)

Here, appellant does not establish the placement of the GPS in the van’s bumper was a “meaningful interference” with his interest in the van. Although appellant contends that people commonly do not want to purchase vehicles that can be tracked by the police, it seems just as common for people to purchase cars that have devices installed that allow tracking of the vehicle.
.
.
.
Instead, we find McIver instructive. In that case, discussed supra, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found that officers did not “seize” the vehicle because the defendant did not prove that the placement of the tracking devices “deprived him of dominion and control of his Toyota 4Runner, nor did he demonstrate” that the devices damaged his vehicle in some way. 186 F.3d at 1127. The court concluded that McIver had not established that the placement meaningfully interfere[d]" with his “possessory interest” in the 4Runner. Id.

We also find United States v. Garcia, 474 F.3d 994 (7th Cir. 2007), persuasive. In Garcia, the police attached a self-powered GPS to Garcia’s car while it was parked on a public street. Garcia argued that the installation of the GPS was a seizure of his car. The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit disagreed, explaining that Garcia’s argument was “untenable.” The court explained:
The device did not affect the car’s driving qualities, did not draw power from the car’s engine or battery, did not take up room that might otherwise have been occupied by passengers or packages, did not even alter the car’s appearance, and in short did not “seize” the car in any intelligible sense of the word.

(bolded emphasis mine)

Well, obviously the trial court and the appellate court don’t “understand” not_alice’s argument.

[Nars_Glinley]

@Bricker

@Nars_Glinley

Is this fundamentally different than placing a listening device on someone’s home to ascertain if there’s illegal activity going on inside or would the police not need a warrant for that either?

It is fundamentally different, since conversation inside your house are a private matter, an expectation that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable.

This question was specifically addressed in this very thread here. It was also tangentially addressed:

[ul]
[li]Here[/li][li]Here[/li][li]Here[/li][li]And here[/li][/ul]

Also, I would dispute that the car’s appearance was unaltered unless it was an invisible device.

The issue of de minimis changes being irrelevant to the law has been discussed many times in the foregoing thread. Do you need specific cites?

Each of your links takes me to the same post. And you’ve been a lawyer for far too long if you could read that post and infer from it that it would be illegal for police to place a listening device on one’s home without a warrant.

No need for cites on de minimis since we no doubt will disagree on what is trifling.

[Bricker]

@Nars_Glinley

@Bricker

It is fundamentally different, since conversation inside your house are a private matter, an expectation that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable.

This question was specifically addressed in this very thread here. It was also tangentially addressed:

[ul]
[li]Here[/li][li]Here[/li][li]Here[/li][li]And here[/li][/ul]

The issue of de minimis changes being irrelevant to the law has been discussed many times in the foregoing thread. Do you need specific cites?

Each of your links takes me to the same post. And you’ve been a lawyer for far too long if you could read that post and infer from it that it would be illegal for police to place a listening device on one’s home without a warrant.

No need for cites on de minimis since we no doubt will disagree on what is trifling.

Clearly my brilliant shortcut didn’t work.

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12851348&postcount=99

That’s the directly on point post. The others may be found by looking at the post number at the end of the link, and then finding that post in the thread.

[not_alice]

@Bricker

Shockingly, placing a GPS system does not “lower the value” of a vehicle:

@Foltz v. Commonwealth

Appellant argues that the police violated his privacy interests when they placed the GPS device inside the bumper of his work van while it was parked on the street in front of his house. He also argues that the police committed a seizure when they installed the GPS device because it “changed the nature” of the van by decreasing its value. We find neither argument persuasive.
.
.
.
Appellant also claims that he had an expectation of privacy against seizures of the van. He argues that the police seized the van when they placed the device in the van’s bumper because it “changed the nature” of the property, decreasing its value.

The United States Supreme Court in Karo explained that seizure of property occurs “when ‘there is some meaningful interference with an individual’s possessory interests in that property.’” 468 U.S. at 712 (quoting United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109, 113 (1984)). The Court then noted, “The existence of a physical trespass is only marginally relevant to the question of whether the Fourth Amendment has been violated, however, for an actual trespass is neither necessary nor sufficient to establish a constitutional violation.” (citation omitted)

Here, appellant does not establish the placement of the GPS in the van’s bumper was a “meaningful interference” with his interest in the van. Although appellant contends that people commonly do not want to purchase vehicles that can be tracked by the police, it seems just as common for people to purchase cars that have devices installed that allow tracking of the vehicle.
.
.
.
Instead, we find McIver instructive. In that case, discussed supra, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found that officers did not “seize” the vehicle because the defendant did not prove that the placement of the tracking devices “deprived him of dominion and control of his Toyota 4Runner, nor did he demonstrate” that the devices damaged his vehicle in some way. 186 F.3d at 1127. The court concluded that McIver had not established that the placement meaningfully interfere[d]" with his “possessory interest” in the 4Runner. Id.

We also find United States v. Garcia, 474 F.3d 994 (7th Cir. 2007), persuasive. In Garcia, the police attached a self-powered GPS to Garcia’s car while it was parked on a public street. Garcia argued that the installation of the GPS was a seizure of his car. The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit disagreed, explaining that Garcia’s argument was “untenable.” The court explained:
The device did not affect the car’s driving qualities, did not draw power from the car’s engine or battery, did not take up room that might otherwise have been occupied by passengers or packages, did not even alter the car’s appearance, and in short did not “seize” the car in any intelligible sense of the word.

(bolded emphasis mine)

Sorry, you are not up to your usual level of word games. Your cherry picked quote says the gps does not change the nature, not that it doesn’t change the value. Maybe the appellant made a weak argument. I don’t recall arguing in this thread that the nature of the vehicle was changed.

Also, the Court’s suggestion that people want to buy cars that the police are tracking is absurd in light of the history of US Law and jurisprudence. Even were it so, that some people want to buy such cars in general does not counter any loss of value specifically for this car. I am not aware of a marketplace where a seller can easily find a car with a gps that police are tracking, even if you want one, and vice versa. Hence this statement from the Court is irrelevant to any market economics analysis.

[Bricker]

@not_alice

Sorry, you are not up to your usual level of word games. Your cherry picked quote says the gps does not change the nature, not that it doesn’t change the value.

@Court

He also argues that the police committed a seizure when they installed the GPS device because it “changed the nature” of the van by decreasing its value.

Except where it does say that.

@not_alice

Also, the Court’s suggestion that people want to buy cars that the police are tracking is absurd in light of the history of US Law and jurisprudence. Even were it so, that some people want to buy such cars in general does not counter any loss of value specifically for this car. I am not aware of a marketplace where a seller can easily find a car with a gps that police are tracking, even if you want one, and vice versa. Hence this statement from the Court is irrelevant to any market economics analysis.

And yet the man’s conviction stands. They just don’t understand you, do they?

How lonely must your life be.

[Punoqllads]

Resolved:

1. Putting a tracking device on a person’s vehicle feels like an invasion of privacy to many people.
2. The existence of right to privacy makes many people feel that placing such a tracking device should therefore require a warrant.
3. As with the exercise of eminent domain to acquire property for a private venture, the feeling of wrongness doesn’t necessarily mean jack.

[not_alice]

@Bricker

@not_alice

Sorry, you are not up to your usual level of word games. Your cherry picked quote says the gps does not change the nature, not that it doesn’t change the value.

Except where it does say that.

@not_alice

Also, the Court’s suggestion that people want to buy cars that the police are tracking is absurd in light of the history of US Law and jurisprudence. Even were it so, that some people want to buy such cars in general does not counter any loss of value specifically for this car. I am not aware of a marketplace where a seller can easily find a car with a gps that police are tracking, even if you want one, and vice versa. Hence this statement from the Court is irrelevant to any market economics analysis.

And yet the man’s conviction stands. They just don’t understand you, do they?

How lonely must your life be.

Sure, his conviction stands, because the court did not buy his argument.

But, as I pointed out, the argument he made is not the one that was made in this thread, although I can see how if you used some sort of legal search engine, why it would come up as relevant.

If my life is ever lonely from people saying one cite says something it doesn’t and then spending what is likely to amount to pages on this forum arguing that it does, that will be a happy day indeed because it will be evidence that ignorance has indeed been fought.

Maybe someday, but I am predicting Bricker, having made the cite in question, is not going to let that day be today

[Bricker]

@Punoqllads

Resolved:

1. Putting a tracking device on a person’s vehicle feels like an invasion of privacy to many people.
2. The existence of right to privacy makes many people feel that placing such a tracking device should therefore require a warrant.
3. As with the exercise of eminent domain to acquire property for a private venture, the feeling of wrongness doesn’t necessarily mean jack.

All true.

And of course, if “many people” is “most people,” then we should shortly see laws passed requiring the police to obtain warrants, which is the way that We The People exercise our sovereign power. I think laws like that are a good idea.

[not_alice]

@Bricker

All true.

And of course, if “many people” is “most people,” then we should shortly see laws passed requiring the police to obtain warrants, which is the way that We The People exercise our sovereign power. I think laws like that are a good idea.

This is essentially the same argument you just made on another thread - that Courts have no role in interpreting existing laws.

As though they are not in the Consitution themselves as a full and equal branch of government, both exercising and being constrained by the checks and balances relative to the other branches.

It is as though you live in some magical mystery fantasy field of dreams where there are no Courts to decide disputes. Which is weird, because you earlier today agreed that that is the purpose of the Courts: to decide disputes.

Bricker, why do you want to have it both ways?

[Bricker]

@not_alice

Sure, his conviction stands, because the court did not buy his argument.

But, as I pointed out, the argument he made is not the one that was made in this thread, although I can see how if you used some sort of legal search engine, why it would come up as relevant.

No. I read that decision because it’s hot off the presses, handed down on September 7th, 2010, and I make it a practice to follow all Virginia appellate cases. So this appellate case didn’t even exist when you first offered your… uh… argument.

So perhaps you could explain why his argument is different than the one you offered, because to my poorly trained, pedestrian eyes, it seems like he’s arguing that the value of the van changed. And it seems like the court doesn’t agree the value of the van changed.

And that same claim about the value of the van changing seemed to be at the heart of your argument.