Ninth Circus Court of Appeals says its okay to track you without warrant.

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Shivetya, Aug 27, 2010.

  1. Shivetya macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2008
    #1
    Hope you don't live out West, http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/08599201315000 as the Ninth has decided that police and such can place GPS tracking devices on your vehicle without warrant.

    This of course originated through a drug case. I wonder if you get charged with tampering if you remove it? Let alone give it to someone else without their knowledge, like perhaps a Greyhound bus or long distance trucker.

    Really, this decision stinks. I can think of other words but not fit to print. I do not have a problem with a warrant based application of a tracking device but this just is wrong on so many counts.

    We can only hope it gets to the Supremes and gets shot down, and shot down hard.
     
  2. 184550 Guest

    Joined:
    May 8, 2008
    #2
    You forgot to mention that the court ruled this can only be done when the automobile is a public place.

    For example, they cannot place a tracer on your automobile when it's parked in your garage at home.

    EDIT:

    Link to the Engadget article which also took this story from Time.
     
  3. OutThere macrumors 603

    OutThere

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2002
    Location:
    NYC
    #3
    Yikes.

    So they sit at the end of the street and wait until I go to the supermarket...
     
  4. Heilage macrumors 68030

    Heilage

    Joined:
    May 1, 2009
    #4
    Wait, whatnow? Tracking people without a warrant?
     
  5. chrmjenkins macrumors 603

    chrmjenkins

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2007
    Location:
    CA
    #5
    If there's no legal process of authorization, there's nothing stopping you from removing it from your vehicle and placing it on the nearest police car, or planting your own, for that matter.
     
  6. Peace macrumors Core

    Peace

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2005
    Location:
    Space--The ONLY Frontier
    #6
    From what I read on this the simple way to stop this is to put a no trespassing sign in your yard.
     
  7. ucfgrad93 macrumors P6

    ucfgrad93

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2007
    Location:
    Colorado
    #7
    This is a crap decision by the 9th. I hope this gets overturned by the Supreme Court.
     
  8. Gelfin macrumors 68020

    Gelfin

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2001
    Location:
    Denver, CO
    #8
    Garage, no, but driveway, yes. Given the reasoning (delivery people, neighborhood kids, etc) it makes me wonder whether gates and garages are actually required. It seems like one should be able to satisfy the challenge simply by posting a sign: "PRIVATE PROPERTY. NO TRESPASSING, NO PARKING, NO EXCEPTIONS. VIOLATORS WILL BE PROSECUTED. DELIVERIES, PLEASE CALL CONTACT NUMBER FOR ASSISTANCE." Done. You've just declared your driveway explicitly not a public space. If the police plant something on your car, then this all goes back to court all over again, but it's a case anyway.

    As far as tracking a car using such a device, as much as I don't care for it, I don't really see it as unconstitutional. If you're out driving around you have no guarantee someone is not watching your movements. Classically that would be undercover police in a series of unmarked cars, or even aircraft, and that's entirely permissible on public roads. The GPS tracker simply reduces the manpower and equipment required to accomplish the same thing, while increasing the reliability. The constitutionality of an act is decided by the act itself, not the cost or difficulty of implementing it.

    I am a little irritated about the case itself insofar as they knew where the guy lived and presumably had probable cause to suspect him. This seems like exactly the sort of thing it should be easy to get a warrant for to begin with. Unless there were exigent circumstances, like reason to believe the suspect was about to flee the location permanently, I can see no great harm that would have resulted from coming back the next night with a warrant.

    I have seen a legal paper, to which I am fairly sympathetic, arguing that thinking about the fourth amendment in terms of expectation of privacy is entirely wrongheaded, not least because it is entirely self-sabotaging. If the government is conducting warrantless wiretaps, and leaks information to that effect, then a reasonable person ceases to have a reasonable expectation that the government is not tapping his phone line, and thus the violation becomes its own rationalization. The correct way to interpret it, goes the argument, is to focus more literally on "the right of the people to be secure." Even the most innocent person must self-censor under an expectation of pervasive surveillance, and a people so repressed are not secure.
     
  9. 184550 Guest

    Joined:
    May 8, 2008
    #9
    Hence why I explicitly used the term 'Garage' as opposed to 'Driveway'.
     
  10. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    OBJECTIVE reality
    #10
    Wow. This is scary stuff. I was even trying to give the court the benefit of the doubt, because the piece Shivetya linked to sounded a lot like an opinion piece. But an article on CNN says much the same thing, factually speaking.

    I don't know what the law says, but the hell with your driveway or your garage...your car is your private belonging, and I think you'd enjoy the right to privacy there, no matter where the car is. It's intrusive enough that they can monitor it from space; it's even worse to actually plant something on the vehicle.

    And what is this bull about no warrant? Don't the authorities, even in this Patriot Act era, have to get a warrant at the very least after the fact??

    Man, I hope the Supreme Court kicks the hell out of this thing. :mad:
     
  11. StruckANerve macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2008
    Location:
    Rio Rancho, NM
    #11
    The Police can already trace your cell phone without a warrant.
     
  12. KingYaba macrumors 68040

    KingYaba

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2005
    Location:
    Up the irons
    #12
    One example of bad behavior to justify another form of bad behavior. Where does it end?
     
  13. Peace macrumors Core

    Peace

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2005
    Location:
    Space--The ONLY Frontier
    #13
    Thomas you my friend are becoming delusional when it comes to the supreme court. If this makes it there the supreme court will probably EXPAND it.
     
  14. iJohnHenry macrumors P6

    iJohnHenry

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2008
    Location:
    On tenterhooks
    #14
    Only if it's on. ;) (I turned GPS tracking off as soon as I got mine.)

    [​IMG]
     
  15. quagmire macrumors 603

    quagmire

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2004
    #15
    I agree. The supreme court has made some messed up decisions of their own this year. :(
     
  16. 184550 Guest

    Joined:
    May 8, 2008
    #16
    Unless you've also taken the battery out, you can't be 100% percent certain that someone wouldn't able to remotely turn the function back on if they wanted.
     
  17. iJohnHenry macrumors P6

    iJohnHenry

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2008
    Location:
    On tenterhooks
    #17
    Are you suggesting that the current models are "always listening", no matter what settings the user has programmed??

    Still no problem for me, and my 5-year-old Audiovox cell phone. :p

    [​IMG]
     
  18. colourfastt macrumors 6502a

    colourfastt

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2009
    #18
    All cell phones manufactured after 2003 have an "always on" GPS chip in them. The only way to disable it is to remove the battery; this was in response to an incident in FL where a woman was involved in an auto accident in a remote area of the Everglades. She was able to contact 911 dispatch but without GPS coördinates emergency services couldn't locate her and she later died. So, the Fed declared that all new cell phones as of 2004 would have non-disableable (pardon the created word) GPS.
     
  19. Rodimus Prime macrumors G4

    Rodimus Prime

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2006
    #19
    Little off on that.

    The E911 law requires that the cell provider be able to locate a person with in 300 ft of where they placed the class. They are allowed to use any method they want.
    At the time Verizon and Sprint required all new phones on their network to be GPS enable and that the GPS will turn on in 911 call.

    The GSM player (T-Mobile, and cingular) went with triangulation between cell towers. The GSM providers could locate you regardless if you has GPS on your phone or not.

    You can turn off GPS on your phone for anything but 911 which it will turn at give your exact location.
     
  20. 184550 Guest

    Joined:
    May 8, 2008
    #20
    Point still being, if someone wanted to locate you, they probably could. Regardless of if you disabled the GPS function on your phone.
     
  21. Macky-Mac macrumors 68030

    Macky-Mac

    Joined:
    May 18, 2004
    #21
    the police can already track you without a warrant when you're out in public.....they can follow you on foot, in a car, watch your movements from a helicopter, take pictures of you, all sorts of stuff. When you're out driving around in your car, you're out in public and you haven't any presumption of privacy. Putting a GPS tracking device on your car isn't at all like bugging your phone. :cool:
     
  22. glocke12 macrumors 6502a

    glocke12

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2008
    #22
    this is BS. Im surprised this came from the 9th circuit, isnt that a fairly liberal court?
     
  23. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    OBJECTIVE reality
    #23
    One reason I wince when presidents appoint conservatives, moderates, or weak liberals to SCOTUS. If what you say is true, then we need at least one or two dyed-in-the-wool liberals on that bench to put a stop to stuff like this.

    Not that I expect that's gonna happen anytime soon. :rolleyes:
     
  24. sysiphus macrumors 6502a

    sysiphus

    Joined:
    May 7, 2006
    #24
    Ironic that you'd say that, given that the 9th Circuit has a reputation for being one of the most liberal in the country.
     
  25. Peace macrumors Core

    Peace

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2005
    Location:
    Space--The ONLY Frontier
    #25

Share This Page