I was Wrong About the GPS, but ...

Sorry, I took you to mean this case had nothing to do with the application of the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine.

The majority opinion acknowledges, in fact, that such tracking might be perfectly legal. It goes along with the “reasonable expectation of privacy” doctrine they’ve applied in the past. The point of the case- at least to SCOTUS- is that the principle is applied in cases where a trespass occurs.

[QUOTE=Tony Scalia]
This Court has to date not deviated from the understanding that mere visual observation does not constitute a search. See Kyllo, 533 U. S., at 31–32. We accordingly held in Knotts that “[a] person traveling in an automobile on public thoroughfares has no reasonable expectation of privacy in his movements from one place to another.” 460 U. S., at 281. Thus, even assuming that the concurrence is correct to say that “[t]raditional surveillance” of Jones for a 4-week period “would have required a large team of agents, multiple vehicles, and perhaps aerial assistance,” post, at 12, our cases suggest that such visual observation is constitutionally permissible. It may be that achieving the same result through electronic means, without an accompanying trespass, is an unconstitutional invasion of privacy, but the present case does not require us to answer that question.
[/QUOTE]

The fact that a distinction is technical does not mean it is meaningless. Police officers can generally get a warrant when they need one, and yet the court has always held that the technical distinction between whether they got one or not is important.

Oh, and by the way, Bricker, since we have FIVE justices here buying the Mosaic theory, we know that absent trespass rationale, we’re as good as having settled law…

And since we had a majority trashing your de minimis theory, I’ll be busy writing a poem tonight, just so you can eat your heart out.

MWUHAHAHA

I contend that there ARE actual damages to the car. Diminution of market value due to the fact that the government is tracking the damn thing.

Let’s assume that a 2012 Cadillac Escalade is $60,000 (made up, probably way off) brand new and the feds never know where you go unless they see you.

How much is a 2012 Cadillac Escalade equipped with a GPS tracker with the feds watching you? Substantially less, no?

You may argue that once the tracker is removed it returns to its original value, but why should there be an assumption that such a thing will be done unless and until it happens? Plus, even were it removed, there is very much a diminution of value during the time period the car was being tracked.

My point is that there are actual damages that qualify this to be a trespass to chattel. I don’t understand why Alito was so dismissive.

I see now that I am home that, indeed, this was the case I was thinking of.

Now there’s another angle. Interesting…

I’m curious. How much ACTUAL damage, in dollar amounts, would you ask for in this case? For 30some days, the imaginary value of the car was lowered, but there is no evidence whatsoever the actual value was lowered.

To me, imaginary losses in value should be paid in imaginary dollars. Kinda like “my house was lowered in value for the hour the police were searching my house without a warrant” has not, to my knowledge, ever flown in a court of law.

Alito wasn’t dismissive of the idea of putting a number value on the trespass to chattel, it didn’t really come up.

The point of the GPS is that its hidden. Its hard to see how something that neither buyer nor seller know about can effect the value of something. And if they do know its there, they can just pull it off.

Why would the Feds want to track the person you sell your car to? Unless that person also happens to be a drug suspect, its hard to see why they would.

Maybe diminution in value is not the correct way to look at it. Perhaps loss of use? You may say that it still drove from point A to point B, but I would contend that implicit in ownership of a car, part of the utility is the freedom that it provides to quickly travel between places without knowledge of the government, spouse, boss, etc.

So, one of the major benefits of using a car has been thwarted by the government. Damages? Say the difference in 28 days of rental value of a non-tracked car minus 28 days of rental value of a tracked car?

I mean, there has to be damages here that aren’t de minimus. You think you are using something that you are in fact not. There has to be a diminution of value or loss of use or something there that is recoverable.

That’s still a trespass to land which doesn’t require actual damage like a trespass to chattel. And unlike tracking a car for a month, loss of use of your house for one hour would likely be de minimus. If you had to leave for a week due to an illegal search and had to stay at a hotel, I would think the hotel bill would certainly be valid damages.

[QUOTE=David42]
Not without probable cause. Otherwise you just legalized “driving while black.”
[/QUOTE]

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.

I was speaking of 1983 suits, such are not filed for $1.00, but big money damages. Whether such is awarded or a lesser amount or $1.00, big damages are prayed for in the complaint.

Why did this ever need to go beyond plain sight doctrine. AFAICT they only tracked obvious public movements none of this stuff happened behind closed doors or away from the prying eyes of everybody that was on those streets.

DEA did it to this guy recently.

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.

One first has to have a lawful reason, under Mimms, to stop a vehicle. “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.

Well I certainly wouldn’t file one for a dollar. I’m not sure of the point of this, doesn’t everyone agree generally no one dollar suits are filed? Without some other cause of action being pursued as well, of course?

In my personal opinion, not necessarily that of the courts, I think once the government has converted the use of my property from my use to theirs, without my permission, to gather evidence to use against me, and especially if there’s no probable cause that a judge would buy, they can damn well pay for all of the car and its associated expenses.

Hell I’d make 'em pay for the whole house and the 150 acres it sits on for hanging a bug on a nail.

I think the parent thread has a cite for a case where a guy pulled a GPS off and then got charged with destruction of govt property, and if stuff like that goes on, then its not as simple as you think.

So maybe they don’t have any interest in you per se…

UNTIL a computer alerts for a stop at a known drug house. You might be going next door to aunt Mathilda’s to check on her well being and always have to park a little aways, you know.

After a pattern of three weeks of daily stops, based on their training and experience, there’s a high probability you’re a dope dealer supplying the house (God forbid your cousin Joey goes to the drug house and you called him a couple times) the police obtain a warrant to search your house during the course of which they shoot your wife dead when she jumps up in terror at the Jackbooted ski masks invading her life at 3 a.m.

14 months later they let you out of jail when the legalities are all straightened out and don’t even say, Hey, I’m sorry about your wife.

Which is? Far as I know, nobody pays a higher rate to rent a car that doesn’t have tracking, let alone tracking for 30 days.

My point was that there are no recognizable ACTUAL damages by placing a GPS on a car for 30 days. Maybe 5 cents for decrease in fuel economy, but nothing a court of law would recognize.

No, there doesn’t. You’re taking the conclusion you want (the existence of monetary damages) and trying to manipulate the facts to fit it that conclusion. That’s not how it works.

And if you couldn’t use your car for 30 days, you’d likely have suffered actual damages. But that’s not what happened here. The guy had full use of the car and it wasn’t worse less after the events than before.

There was a trespass, sure. But actual damages? I think that would be a tough sell.

Seriously? I know there is a huge desire for some kind of punitive damages against the police for their egregious violation of the 4th amendment that they didn’t know about until the case was decided, but actual damages? The whole car is now worthless?

I think it’s is pretty clear that’s a personal opinion and not that of the courts.

And that’s a really good reason you should never be a judge.

Actually it’s the guy who won’t confess his extreme views that you don’t want being a judge. I know that view is extreme and would follow stare decisis instead.

And worse than that, if they can’t demonstrate probable cause to begin with, I want frikkin chauffeur’s wages for driving their converted property around.

And if I were a judge, I’d guarantee you no cop would tell me about this month long investigation they didn’t have a chance to get a warrant in, and the 4th amendment would be taken seriously rather than seen as some impediment to proper police work.