Because there has been no landmark Supreme Court cases recognizing a right to privacy.
And no one could possibly have any objections to severe unwarranted government intrusion into their lives, and further no one could ever believe in an inherent unenumerated right to privacy, or that this counts as an unwarranted search in violation of the Bill of Rights.:rolleyes:
No Bricker must nit pick one word and ignore the message of that post.
The police don’t need to attach a device to your body to do that. You have already done that. It’s called a cell phone. Not only can they track your position, but also the number of every call you make or receive without a warrant.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20008941-281.html
Also keep in mind that the phone company stores your text messages. If the police suspect you of a crime, they can subpoena the text messages from the phone company even if you deleted them from your phone.
[quote=“Bricker, post:37, topic:551657”]
Disclaimer: not a lawyer.
I thought it had been decided that some forms of sensory augmentation are disallowed. For example, using thermal imaging to detect a growing operation inside a house. Wasn’t there a case like this some time ago and it was decided that the police couldn’t use such techniques to provide them with superhuman capabilities to observe a suspect? The use of an electronic tracking device seems to be a case of this, to me.
Heck why can’t I attach a GPS device to a car and post the data publicly online? People can’t expect privacy out in public can they? Further why I can’t I do this to cops?
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?
Doesn’t matter. The point of the sign is not to make the cop’s foray on to your property criminal. It’s to establish your expectation of privacy.
As the opinion said:
Of course, he could have had a gate, a fence, or some other structure. But I linked to the “No Trespassing” sign to rebut the claim quedefuk offered about only the rich, with gated communities, can afford privacy. A $4 sign would have established his desire that no one, uninvited, may enter his property.
No. Because you cannot prevent people from watching you as you travel on the public streets. You have no right to do that.
But you can, if you wish, prevent people from trespassing on your property.
So if I have a “no trespassing” sign clearly visible on my property, and the police (without a warrant) come onto my property and put a GPS device on my vehicle without my consent or knowledge, even if I am a criminal operating a criminal enterprise, have the police broken the law? Will any evidence gathered under such a hypothetical be admissable?
Because we’ve always done it that way.
As Justice Black said in Martin v. City of Struthers, 319 US 141 (1943):
So if you don’t want people to come onto your property, you have to let them know.
I hardly think I need to explain why this differs from police brutality, but if you need that spelled out, let me know.
They’ve broken the law, in my view, because a reasonable police officer would know he has no legal right to flout your “No Tresspassing,” sign.
And even if he didn’t break the law, your sign clearly establishes your desire to keep your property private, and so any tracking device affixed in violation of that would be a breach of the Fourth Amendment, and (in my view) render any information derived from it inadmissible.
Could I paint “Do not stick GPS’s on this car” on the side of the car and then park it in the street, and have the same effect? Or is it just real estate that’s protected?
And which law is being broken, again? I thought you just argued that cops were immune to most of them, including tresspassing (presuming they’re not searching while there).
And (not my area of law) but you could also have a civil suit for trespass (real and to chattels), trover, detinue or assumpsit.
No. Because on the street, you don’t have a reasonable expectation of privacy, and you can’t create one merely by posting a sign.
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.
In other words, the cops don’t ever has FEWER privileges than a random member of the public.
So if the cop has no warrant, and still goes into your driveway, right past your “No Trespassing” sign, then he’s broken the law.
Now, exceptions: if he was told by his superiors that he could do this, then he may not have broken the law, because he was acting in good faith. Regardless, the entry is violative of the Fourth Amendment and the info can’t be used against you.
Information gathered while there, right? The business with what the GPS reports back being a separate issue (addressed in the recent rulings under discussion).
And all kinds of television and movies have told me that cops can get permission from their superiors after the fact, and have it work just as well, given that the mere state of their cophood includes a certain presumpion of official support. Are you telling me that hollywood has lied to me??
Did you get that lesson in school about how people are not supposed to use the word being defined in explaining the definition of the word? Like, if I don’t know what the word zlglop means, it doesn’t help to say, “Zlglop means the thing you do when you’re in the grocery store and you zlglop the dairy section.”
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.
Bricker wasn’t citing US v. Pineda-Moreno, though. He was quoting where it cited Maisano v. Welcher, 940 F.2d 499, 503 (9th Cir.1991).
Because that post had a clear meaning. Do you disagree 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.
You’re probably thinking of Kyllo:
Emphasis mine. I think there’s enough wiggle room for the government to say that knowing the car’s location is not an unreasonable intrusion on the car driver’s privacy, and that therefore installing a GPS ‘bug’ would not be precluded by the Kyllo decision. IANAL, however.
Regardless, the 9th’s decision still feels wrong to me. Warrantless electronic tracking of people just seems to be a step too close to a slippery slope. At least with visual tracking the government is limited by the number of people they employ. What’s to stop the government from requiring all new cars sold in the US to carry such a tracker?
I think Bricker was just kidding, but FTR to me something being “Orwellian” in this instance refers to the use of monitoring/tracking/viewing/listening technology being used by state-sponsored agents in an oppressive fashion whereby people’s privacy is practically non-existant.
And that’s the million dollar question. What if such a system like OnStar already exists and become standard equipment on all vehicles instead of being an option on GM cars…and then perhaps there’s some collusion between the corporation that runs the OnStar system and law enforcement without, you know, telling anybody.
Hollywood is not the paragon of truth you thought it was.
But remember: even if the cop has no criminal liability, the placed GPS can’t be used against you.