Now don't get me wrong, I have no problem tracking bad guys using GPS without a warrant. I just can't believe that the 9th Circuit actually agreed!

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2013150,00.html

it will be interesting to see what the Supreme Ct does when one of these cases hits their bench

_________________

I would bet that this gets overturned on appeal. I find fault with their assertion that a private driveway on private property has no expectation of privacy. I also can't believe that they would approve of warrantless tracking like that.

Really surprised that they made this ruling.

Law enforcement has tracked criminals forever. Its called following them....this is just using modern technology to do it much much cheaper. I would say that if your front yard/driveway is not fenced and you do not have any "no trespassing" signs then its fair game.

_________________

AMERICA! FUCK NO!

_________________
"Counting all the assholes in the room, I'm definitely not alone!" ~ Michael Poulsen, Volbeat, Still Standing.

By that logic, the cops could simply walk right into your home and shove a GPS in your ass because you didn't have a sign up telling them they couldn't.

Private property is private property. Period. Sign or no sign.

yeah, thats exactly what I'm saying Anyway, I can walk onto your driveway or front yard at anytime, if it's not fence, until you tell me differently. Trespassing laws will usually state that it's not trespassing until you're told that it is, private property or not..... I'm not agreeing that it's right, I'm just saying what is legal.

So I'm assuming you just disagree with the part where they went onto the driveway to attach the GPS or do you disagree with the tracking also????

_________________

Google street view would like to have a word with you

_________________
Hold my beer and watch this...

It's the same thing as when you get pulled over. If you have a kilo of coke on the floor in the back, they can arrest you for it. It's in plain sight.

Unless the issue is with them touching your property; in which case they should just have to get a warrant, and then be allowed to place the device. I have no problem with that, either.

_________________

For example here is Virginia's law on trespassing:

_________________

_________________

In New York, once you are aware, or are made to be aware, that you are on private property, you must remove yourself immediately or you are considered to be trespassing. It boggles my mind that in Virginia one can stroll around on private property by default unless you are told that you can't.

The street view argument doesn't apply here. You cannot prevent someone from taking a picture of private property from public areas, and you don't have an expectation of privacy in that regard. However, it certainly can't be kosher that someone can willingly come on private property and fuck with privately owned items on private property, and that's supposed to be ok.

By that standard, someone could walk onto my property and rummage through my car whenever they want. As long as they don't take anything, that would be ok. Not a chance in hell.

I wasn't implying that trespassing was OK, just that an expectation of privacy and trespassing are wildly different standards.

I don't expect privacy in my driveway so I don't play naked chess there.

_________________
Hold my beer and watch this...

Fair point, expectation of privacy wasn't the right choice of words.

And the takeaway from all this? XC plays naked chess SOMEWHERE, just not in the driveway.

I aint tellin'

_________________
Hold my beer and watch this...

I see your point with the whole trespassing thing....that will obviously be a state by state thing depending on their laws. I'm curious how people feel about the use of GPS to track back guys without a warrant. Ignore the whole trespass arguement....Say a police officer finds his bad guys car parked at Walmart and he attaches the tracking unit there.....

_________________

I don't have a problem with GPS tracking as long as a warrant has been issued. I'm not a fan of any warrantless surveillance.

GPS tracking does not need a warrant right now, it's considered a modern way of following someone. Law enforcement doesn't need a warrant to follow anyone around

_________________

I can wholly understand that logic.

_________________

I'm logging back in just so I can comment on this topic.

Squanto, somewhere along the line you are getting foggy about the level of expectation of privacy that private property allows. In any state in the country, including NY, a homeowner has no expectation of privacy against any random person from walking up their driveway or to their door unless told face-to-face or a sign has been posted forbidding anyone to enter the premesis. This is a long time and well established interpretation of the 4th Amendment, and the basis for how police have used GPS units. Under your reasoning, any door-to-door salesman, Jehova's witness, or pizza delivery guy wouldn't be allowed to pull into or walk up your driveway or to your front door.

If any of those people can walk past your car, police can too. You also take a extra mis-step in your logic when you suggest that police can "fuck with" or "rummage through" your car. If they can walk past it like the mail man or UPS guy, they can place a tracking device somewhere on the exterior of the vehicle. They can't open a door, the hood, trunk, or tap into the car battery, or in any way mess with the car in order to use a GPS unit. To do any of those things they need a warrant or court order (preferably a court order because a warrant is public info, and we wouldn't want the suspect to be able to run down to the court and read about the GPS unit on his vehicle while it was still in place).

The comparison made to Google is accurate - anything that can be seen from a normal vantage point with human eyes, or the assist of binoculars, is fair game and outside the expectation of privacy afforded by the 4th Amendment, even if it's an overhead view from an airplane. Once higher tech equipment is needed, like infrared or night vision, a warrant is necessary. But as far as a GPS unit goes, it simply replaces a set of human eyes that would otherwise be watching a vehicle move along on a public street that is outside the expectation of privacy under the 4th. Even if the vehicle is on private property in a driveway, it's still fair game as long as it can be seen from the street or any neighboring business property.

In summary, even though it's the 9th circuit, I'd be STUNNED if they had over ruled the lower court. I already studied and circulated the Pineda-Moreno case where I work back in January for my professional benefit. It's no surprise that the linked article is a wild, fearful rant portraying that "1984" is upon us, but it's pure rhetoric. Supreme Court cases like Kyllo vs. US and others have already put limits on technologically enhanced surveillance techniques. There is no "dangerous", "bizarre", or "scary" decision here leading to a slippery slope. There are seperate, individual cases that come along under different circumstances. Some go against law enforcement, some go for it. We all live, learn, and adapt accordingly. Fortunately law enforcement is still better at that than criminals, and otherwise innocent people don't have a damn thing to worry about in the meantime.

I already said that expectation of privacy was not the correct verbage to use. So let's just move past that point.

What happens when you place your GPS unit on my car, and I then drive my car into a privately owned ranch, or maybe to Canada? Somewhere may you may not have permission to be to watch my movements? What then? What happens when I let someone else borrow my car? You're surveilling someone else thinking it's me. What if their movements alter the officer's opinion of me, and I have to endure additional surveillance or questioning because of the officer's mistake?

You may not be 'rummaging' though my vehicle by placing a unit on it, but you're clearly altering it's condition. You can look at it all you want from the street, or walking by, but you touch it, that changes things. If I'm a defense attorney, you've now shown you are willing to plant a device on my car without my knowledge. What's to say you didn't plant something else?

And frankly, the 'innocent people have nothing to worry about' is nothing more than an euphemism for 'people should just bend over and take it'. That's a complete abuse of authority. I'm a law abiding person, and I have nothing to worry about. I still don't want a GPS secretly put on my vehicle tracking my movements on the whim of an officer alone. Get a judge to sign off on it.