Well police have never needed a search warrant to watch someone while in view from a public place. The GPS is just a safer and more efficient way to do it.

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.

"On your property the fence line, keep out signs, locked gates, closed doors, guard dogs are all part of a person's CURTILEDGE or ONE'S EXPECTATION TO PRIVACY. If the fence line has a hole in it or is open or you have an open gate, low line fence, see through fence, or anything that allows someone to be able to wander onto your property is a sign of "NO CURTILEDGE"

Curtiledge is ones expectation of privacy. By putting boundries and locked gates and signs that state "Keep Out!", "No Trespassing" and such you are establishing your "CURTILEDGE". In law the Judges look to see what your "expectation of privacy" is, they examine if officers denied you of your curtiledge by crossing the invisible or visible line that they need a warrant to get past."

Things in the immediate surroundings of your home are also considered curtiledge. They can't search your trash cans when they are in your curtiledge, but they are fair game when taken to the curb(and yes, still on your PRIVATE property). Soooo, park your vehicle inside your curtiledge, and you're all good.

As for the kilo of coke in plain sight, that doesn't matter. You have no expectation of privacy in your vehicle. An officer has the right to search your vehicle during a routine stop if he so chooses. They claim it's for his safety, but that's bs (imo).

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.

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.

Not true at all and as a matter of fact the US supreme court has recently made it even more stricter for law enforcement to search a car, especially incident to arrest. Officers still need consent or search warrant to search a vehicle. Even if you make a furtive movement they can only search the immediate area where you were positioned UNLESS they see something in plain view....then its game on!

Somehow, I have a hard time accepting a GPS unit as a replacement for human eyes.

Human eyes can only track what they see. A GPS gives locational information at will.

A lot of officers are pretty grumpy over Gant, but it's a common sense application of previously held rulings to a basic scenario that hadn't been scrutinized for some time. It's inconvenient IMO, but it's a proper decision that requires me to be a better officer. I should be able to handle it if I want to be effective.