# I was Wrong About the GPS, but ...
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-was-wrong-about-the-gps-but/610402
**Category:** Great Debates
**Created:** [January 23, 2012, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-was-wrong-about-the-gps-but/610402 "2012-01-23T15:59:33Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 5
### Author:  [@lawbuff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lawbuff)
#### Post date: [January 24, 2012, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-was-wrong-about-the-gps-but/610402/81 "2012-01-24T16:40:00Z")
> [@David42](#):
>
> > [@lawbuff](#):
> >
> > PC is not needed to order a driver out of a car, see Pennsylvania v. Mimms. The same for a passenger, see Maryland v. Wilson. State constitution’s may or may not afford more protection
>
> .
>
> Horseshit. to be blunt, but you must forgive me; you should read this thread’s parent thread wherein I’ve already been 'round this.
You seem to be saying probable cause is needed to oreder a person out of a car? Am I right on that? If you are saying that, you are incorrect.
> [@](#):
>
> Or perhaps I should better explain the precise point I have belabored in the past: _De minimis_ is not a doctrine of 4th amendment law such that an otherwise unreasonable search is not made reasonable by the lack of any substantial damage actually done to the suspect. I’ve also argued this goes for seizures as well, and can also be 5th amendment argument too.
The de minimus part comes where a jury awards a plaintiff only $1.00 in damages because no subtstantial injury/harm took place. A non egregious 4th violation may be egregious to the plaintiff, but de minimus in damages.
> [@](#):
>
> One first has to have a lawful reason, under Mimms, to stop a vehicle.
A so called Mimms order is not just applicable to a stopped vehicle. An officer can approach a vehicle parked and request the driver out.
> [@](#):
>
> “Black” is not a lawful reason for the stop. If one then finds marijuana in the driver’s pocket, one cannot transform this unconstitutional activity into a constitutional one on the grounds that the driver hasn’t really been damaged.
As long as a legal reason exists to seize a motor vehicle (stop it), it is permitted. If the officer only stopped the person because he was black and would not if he was white, as long as a legal reason to stop him existed, the 4th AM is not violated.
---
### Author:  [@David42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David42)
#### Post date: [January 24, 2012, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-was-wrong-about-the-gps-but/610402/82 "2012-01-24T18:33:53Z")
> [@lawbuff](#):
>
> You seem to be saying probable cause is needed to oreder a person out of a car? Am I right on that? If you are saying that, you are incorrect.
>
> The de minimus part comes where a jury awards a plaintiff only $1.00 in damages because no subtstantial injury/harm took place. A non egregious 4th violation may be egregious to the plaintiff, but de minimus in damages.
>
> A so called Mimms order is not just applicable to a stopped vehicle. An officer can approach a vehicle parked and request the driver out.
>
> As long as a legal reason exists to seize a motor vehicle (stop it), it is permitted. If the officer only stopped the person because he was black and would not if he was white, as long as a legal reason to stop him existed, the 4th AM is not violated.
You seem to very purposefully try to get it wrong.
1. De Minimis is not a search and seizure doctrine. As I have explained ad nauseum, IT IS a doctrine of civil law, for instance, that a court will not entertain a lawsuit where there is minimal or no damages. It also has OTHER applications mostly in civil law.
2. A police officer CANNOT say, hey there’s a black guy, and for no other reason, stop his vehicle and search him, and if he does, claiming no actual harm done does not cure the constitutional defect. Yes it is true not all lawful reasons for stopping a vehicle constitute probable cause to believe a crime has been committed. Bricker has argued in the past that without probable cause, without a lawful reason, without a warrant, the fact that no actual damage occurs cures any such defects. This is NOT TRUE.
And a police officer can’t just walk up to a parked car WITHOUT A LAWFUL REASON and order people to get out and search them and then claim because he didn’t actually harm them, the search is legal.
---
### Author:  [@lawbuff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lawbuff)
#### Post date: [January 24, 2012, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-was-wrong-about-the-gps-but/610402/83 "2012-01-24T18:45:45Z")
> [@David42](#):
>
> You seem to very purposefully try to get it wrong.
No, it’s the other way around.
> [@](#):
>
> 1. De Minimis is not a search and seizure doctrine. As I have explained ad nauseum, IT IS a doctrine of civil law, for instance, that a court will not entertain a lawsuit where there is minimal or no damages. It also has OTHER applications mostly in civil law.
From Pennsylvania v. Mimms, which on page 1, I noted that some seizures are de minimis;
> [@Mimms decision](#):
>
> Against this important interest we are asked to weigh the intrusion into the driver’s personal liberty occasioned not by the initial stop of the vehicle, which was admittedly justified, but by the order to get out of the car. We think this additional intrusion can only be described as **de minimis**
> [@](#):
>
> 1. A police officer CANNOT say, hey there’s a black guy, and for no other reason, stop his vehicle and search him, and if he does, claiming no actual harm done does not cure the constitutional defect.
I did not say that, read my post again. I said as long as there is a legal reason to stop a car, the fact the officer stops it because he is black where he may not if the driver were white is NOT a 4th AM violation, the remedy is under the EP Clause.
> [@](#):
>
> And a police officer can’t just walk up to a parked car WITHOUT A LAWFUL REASON and order people to get out and search them and then claim because he didn’t actually harm them, the search is legal.
That still does not specifically answer my question of it you believed an officer needs probable cause to order a person out of a car?
---
### Author:  [@David42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David42)
#### Post date: [January 24, 2012, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-was-wrong-about-the-gps-but/610402/84 "2012-01-24T20:16:05Z")
> [@lawbuff](#):
>
> No, it’s the other way around.
hardly. This is a fourth amendment thread, specifically about _Jones_
> [@lawbuff](#):
>
> From Pennsylvania v. Mimms, which on page 1, I noted that some seizures are de minimis;
You seem to try to build the strawman that I am arguing that “ALL SEARCHES CAUSE ACTUAL DAMAGE.” I am not. The Supreme Court did NOT SAY “because the otherwise unconstitutional search caused no actual damage, this defect is cured,” which would be necessary for Mimms to stand against what I AM saying. In Mimms, a valid reason for the stop existed, and I am talking about a situation where there IS NO VALID reason for the stop.
> [@lawbuff](#):
>
> I did not say that, read my post again. I said as long as there is a legal reason to stop a car, the fact the officer stops it because he is black where he may not if the driver were white is NOT a 4th AM violation, the remedy is under the EP Clause.?
But we’re talking about the admissibility of evidence in a criminal case, not what appropriate redress a victim might have in some other suit against the police. The question is, is the evidence admissible or not?
> [@lawbuff](#):
>
> That still does not specifically answer my question of it you believed an officer needs probable cause to order a person out of a car?
The current state of the law allows for an officer to order someone out of a car on the grounds of officer safety, or the safety of the car’s occupants, if he has made a valid stop, if he hasn’t, in most factual circumstances since he had no business stopping the car he probably has no right to order anyone out of the vehicle. We have to remember, when asking if any such search turns up evidence and there is a question of admissibility, that 4th amendment issues turn on the facts of each case. Under the facts of Mimms, any evidence obtained was admissible. Change Mimms to the driver being stopped for an unlawful reason, and they may have ruled differently.
That would be without probable cause. But you should open up a separate thread if you wanna discuss that; here we are talking about 4th amendment search and seizure and whether or not probable cause, or warrrants are necessary for police to place a GPS on a vehicle.
In such cases, there is no cure for a constitutional defect in claiming the search did little or no actual damage.
---
### Author:  [@PBear42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PBear42)
#### Post date: [January 25, 2012, 8:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-was-wrong-about-the-gps-but/610402/85 "2012-01-25T08:28:06Z")
Returning to the OP, can anyone remember another Supreme Court case in which two majorties, separately achieved, adopted alternate rationales for reaching a judgment? That, to me, is the remarkable thing about this case. And, as others have argued, **Bricker’s** counting one and ignoring the other is a bit like cheating. If stare decisis means anything, in a future case where mosaic privacy is implicated but not trespass, the alternate majority holding should prevail.
---
### Author:  [@flight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/flight)
#### Post date: [January 25, 2012, 3:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-was-wrong-about-the-gps-but/610402/86 "2012-01-25T15:40:50Z")
Since we have a great deal of our legal luminaries here in this thread, I have a related question. If one finds a GPS tracker or bug in one’s car (or house for that matter), what can one do with it? Who’s property is it? Could you legally sell it on Ebay? I read an article about someone being charged for tampering with government property for removing one but could not find how the case turned out. In the linked article about the guy finding one in a vehicle he bought from a family member the feds seem aware that he has removed the device but did not do anything about it. Of course that doesn’t mean that they couldn’t if they so chose. Does it vary whether the bug was place there by the feds, state cops, or a private investigator?
I am interested in how these laws vary around the country, but if you need a particular jurisdiction, lets say Virginia.
---
### Author:  [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)
#### Post date: [January 25, 2012, 4:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-was-wrong-about-the-gps-but/610402/87 "2012-01-25T16:17:06Z")
> [@PBear42](#):
>
> Returning to the OP, can anyone remember another Supreme Court case in which two majorties, separately achieved, adopted alternate rationales for reaching a judgment?
Er… what? There aren’t two majorities. In fact, there cannot be two majorities, unless you’re counting judges who concur on multiple opinions twice.
---
### Author:  [@Simplicio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Simplicio)
#### Post date: [January 25, 2012, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-was-wrong-about-the-gps-but/610402/88 "2012-01-25T16:47:08Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#):
>
> Er… what? There aren’t two majorities. In fact, there cannot be two majorities, unless you’re counting judges who concur on multiple opinions twice.
Probably not the best way to phrase it, but I’m pretty sure what **pBear** means is if there’s a case where the Concurrence has more co-signers then the actual majority opinion.
Of course, in this case, that isn’t exactly what happened, since Sotomayor wrote her own concurrence, even though on the mosaic issue she seems to agree with Alito. So Alito’s and Scalia both had an equal number of people on their opinions, and then there was another concurrence that had one person.
But in anycase, I’d be interested in knowing about historical examples of similar cases as well.
---
### Author:  [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)
#### Post date: [January 25, 2012, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-was-wrong-about-the-gps-but/610402/89 "2012-01-25T16:59:35Z")
Does Furman v. Georgia count? All nine justices wrote their own opinions and none of the majority joined in any of the other majority opinions.
---
### Author:  [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)
#### Post date: [January 25, 2012, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-was-wrong-about-the-gps-but/610402/90 "2012-01-25T18:10:42Z")
Well there’s a lot of interesting related legal-fu associated with this decision, but focusing on this case, SCOTUS made a good decision. Relying on trespass makes sense, it is the simplest way to deal with this specific case, and doesn’t require a decision to me made about mosaic. And reviewing the links I didn’t see anywhere a rejection of mosaic, but rather the more obvious trespass was sufficient to resolve this case. It’s hard to find an argument with this decision. It limits the governments ability to search without a warrant, it isn’t over-reaching, ambiguous, or ‘activist’. The most remarkable aspect of the decision is its clarity and lack of over-reach.
---
### Author:  [@David42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David42)
#### Post date: [January 25, 2012, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-was-wrong-about-the-gps-but/610402/91 "2012-01-25T18:53:02Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#):
>
> Er… what? There aren’t two majorities. In fact, there cannot be two majorities, unless you’re counting judges who concur on multiple opinions twice.
4 judges went for the trespass theory; 4 went for the mosaic; Sotomayer agreed with both, thus two rationales with 5 justices backing each.
I believe the “majority” opinion here was determined “majority” because the five who backed it agreed in both rationale and result. The Mosaic Justices were a plurality.
Pluralities tend to be viewed as less weighty than non-pluralities.
---
### Author:  [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)
#### Post date: [January 25, 2012, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-was-wrong-about-the-gps-but/610402/92 "2012-01-25T19:06:59Z")
> [@David42](#):
>
> 4 judges went for the trespass theory; 4 went for the mosaic; Sotomayer agreed with both, thus two rationales with 5 justices backing each.
>
> I believe the “majority” opinion here was determined “majority” because the five who backed it agreed in both rationale and result. The Mosaic Justices were a plurality.
>
> Pluralities tend to be viewed as less weighty than non-pluralities.
Maybe I’m missing something here, but wasn’t there a tie between mosaic and trespass by your math? I’m still assuming trespass was chosen because it was the simplest way to resolve this specific case. It really wasn’t an argument between mosaic and trespass anyway. It was an argument about the validity of a ‘search’, and it was a unamimous decision that this search was invalid.
---
### Author:  [@David42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David42)
#### Post date: [January 25, 2012, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-was-wrong-about-the-gps-but/610402/93 "2012-01-25T19:28:35Z")
> [@TriPolar](#):
>
> Maybe I’m missing something here, but wasn’t there a tie between mosaic and trespass by your math? I’m still assuming trespass was chosen because it was the simplest way to resolve this specific case. It really wasn’t an argument between mosaic and trespass anyway. It was an argument about the validity of a ‘search’, and it was a unamimous decision that this search was invalid.
I can’t think of any reason that “trespass” was the majority opinion other than non-pluralities make for better caselaw. With pluralities it is sometimes hard to argue WHY the ruling was handed down. So yeah it’s a tie, so to speak, on the rationale, unanimous however in result, with the plurality having to play second fiddle. It would be interesting to see how it would have played out if sotomayer had concurred in both rationales, I wonder how you decide who’s the majority in that instance.
---
### Author:  [@David42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David42)
#### Post date: [January 25, 2012, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-was-wrong-about-the-gps-but/610402/94 "2012-01-25T19:30:52Z")
> [@flight](#):
>
> Since we have a great deal of our legal luminaries here in this thread, I have a related question. If one finds a GPS tracker or bug in one’s car (or house for that matter), what can one do with it? Who’s property is it? Could you legally sell it on Ebay? I read an article about someone being charged for tampering with government property for removing one but could not find how the case turned out. In the linked article about the guy finding one in a vehicle he bought from a family member the feds seem aware that he has removed the device but did not do anything about it. Of course that doesn’t mean that they couldn’t if they so chose. Does it vary whether the bug was place there by the feds, state cops, or a private investigator?
>
> I am interested in how these laws vary around the country, but if you need a particular jurisdiction, lets say Virginia.
I mentioned earlier that I thought I’d heard that someone got charged for destruction of government property for this, but I’ll be darned if I can find it in an internet search. Anyone got the straight dope?
---
### Author:  [@David42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David42)
#### Post date: [January 25, 2012, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-was-wrong-about-the-gps-but/610402/95 "2012-01-25T22:13:44Z")
Well I can’t find the reference I thought was in the parent thread.
I did find Bricker’s promise to pay $200 to my fave charity if he was wrong–which he was–but before I decide my fave charity I’m curious as to what Bricker’s MOST HATED charity is, ha ha ha.
---
### Author:  [@Punoqllads](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Punoqllads)
#### Post date: [January 25, 2012, 10:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-was-wrong-about-the-gps-but/610402/96 "2012-01-25T22:20:16Z")
Well, ACORN is shutting down, so that’s out. Is there some other organization that registers cartoon characters to vote?
---
### Author:  [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)
#### Post date: [January 25, 2012, 10:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-was-wrong-about-the-gps-but/610402/97 "2012-01-25T22:43:24Z")
PETA?
The ACLU?
Is NAMBLA a charity?
---
### Author:  [@lawbuff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lawbuff)
#### Post date: [January 25, 2012, 11:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-was-wrong-about-the-gps-but/610402/98 "2012-01-25T23:27:06Z")
> [@flight](#):
>
> Since we have a great deal of our legal luminaries here in this thread, I have a related question. If one finds a GPS tracker or bug in one’s car (or house for that matter), what can one do with it? Who’s property is it? Could you legally sell it on Ebay? I read an article about someone being charged for tampering with government property for removing one but could not find how the case turned out. In the linked article about the guy finding one in a vehicle he bought from a family member the feds seem aware that he has removed the device but did not do anything about it. Of course that doesn’t mean that they couldn’t if they so chose. Does it vary whether the bug was place there by the feds, state cops, or a private investigator?
>
> I am interested in how these laws vary around the country, but if you need a particular jurisdiction, lets say Virginia.
If you find such a device, you report it to the police. If it was done as a joke or by NON operation of law, it would be, at least in my state, Ohio;
2909.07 Criminal mischief.
(A) No person shall:
(1) Without privilege to do so, knowingly move, deface, damage, destroy, or otherwise improperly tamper with the property of another;
You report the crime. IF the police put it there “by warrant”, as of the ruling, they will tell you then.
If they did not put it there, then a crime has been reported, have them take it off for EVIDENCE.
Claiming ownership and not reporting it may land you in legal trouble.
---
### Author:  [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)
#### Post date: [January 26, 2012, 1:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-was-wrong-about-the-gps-but/610402/99 "2012-01-26T01:43:00Z")
> [@David42](#):
>
> Well I can’t find the reference I thought was in the parent thread.
>
> I did find Bricker’s promise to pay $200 to my fave charity if he was wrong–which he was–but before I decide my fave charity I’m curious as to what Bricker’s MOST HATED charity is, ha ha ha.
Before you decide?
This was your response, wasn’t it?
> [@Oh, good! A New Constitutional Theory of Privacy!](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oh-good-a-new-constitutional-theory-of-privacy/549942/281):
>
> Let me correct that to _Garcia_ ignores relevant portions of _Katz_. There is no discussion of the idea that some actions in public show there is an expectation of privacy.
>
> I think it would be illegal gambling to take you up on your offer. If we hadn’t waived the fourth amendment by talking about it in public, perhaps I’d have taken you up on it.
>
> So far as I know, predicting the future is not a part of valid legal analysis.
>
> In my opinion, since the supreme court has specifically left open the question for this type of activity, there is a presumption that they do not like it. When it was raised before, they could have said it has no merit instead, closing the door instead of the invitation.
>
> There is A LOT you’re not considering.
Did I forget something?
---
### Author:  [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)
#### Post date: [January 26, 2012, 1:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-was-wrong-about-the-gps-but/610402/100 "2012-01-26T01:55:17Z")
Summary judgment in favor of **Bricker** affirmed.
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-was-wrong-about-the-gps-but/610402.md?page=4)
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-was-wrong-about-the-gps-but/610402.md?page=6)