Posted on 09/10/2010 7:44:32 AM PDT by Libloather
Va. court upholds GPS tracking of suspect's vehicle
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: September 09, 2010
Richmond, Va. - The same GPS technology that motorists use to get directions can be used by police without a warrant to track the movements of criminal suspects on public streets, the Virginia Court of Appeals said yesterday.
In a case that prompted warnings of Orwellian snooping by the government, the court unanimously ruled that Fairfax County police did nothing wrong when they planted a GPS device on the bumper of a registered sex offender's work van without obtaining a warrant.
Police were investigating sexual assaults in Northern Virginia in 2008 when they focused on David L. Foltz Jr., a registered sex offender on probation. They attached a Global Positioning System device to the van he drove for a food services company and tracked him as he drove around.
After another sexual assault occurred, police checked the GPS log and determined that the van had been a block or two from the scene at the time of the attack. That prompted officers to follow Foltz in person the next day. They saw Foltz knock a woman to the ground and try to unbutton her pants, according to the appeals court.
Foltz was arrested. A jury convicted him of abduction with intent to defile and sentenced him to life in prison.
Defense attorney Christopher Leibig tried to have the evidence against Foltz suppressed, arguing that the use of the GPS device amounted to unconstitutional search and seizure and violated the defendant's privacy rights. Arlington County Circuit Judge Joanne F. Alper rejected the argument, and the appeals court upheld her ruling.
(Excerpt) Read more at 2.timesdispatch.com ...
Do you believe there is a “right” to an abortion as well?
You know, for some reason, I knew you were going to try to make that argument. And a STUPID argument it is.
Sorry, but asserting a legitimate right of privacy under the 4th and 9th amendments does not follow to a nebulous "right" to abortion. In fact, the 5th amendment guarantees every person, among other things, that they shall not be deprived of their life or liberty without due process of law, meaning that these can only happen when you are convicted of a crime in a court of law. Otherwise, you may not have these taken from you (if the Constitution were actually followed). Meaning - abortion is not allowed under that clause.
Simply because left-wing judges have tried to find a "right" to abortion under the 9th amendment does not negate the fact that the 9th amendment (and the 4th) DOES protect our unenumerated rights - which includes privacy.
So, do I think the government has an unrestricted right to invade my privacy, simply because the 9th amendment has been abused to justify abortion? Of course not.
Do YOU think the government has an unrestricted right to invade YOUR privacy?
The 9th Amendment does not confer any substantive rights. Instead, the 9th Amendment was codified to prevent a draconian implementation of Expressio unius est exclusio alterius, with regards to the rights outlined in the Constitution. If the 9th Amendment actually conferred substantive rights, all you would need is for a Federal Judge somewhere to “find” a new “right” to something hidden away in the Ninth Amendment. That of course would mean that we live in an oligarchy, not a Republic.
EVERY right is substantive. Rights are not something granted by a government that gets to specifically list which ones we hold. We hold, naturally, ALL rights - whether specifically enumerated in a document or not. My right to privacy is substantive - whether you or the police like it or not.
So you have the right to do whatever you want? Whatever is “right in your own eyes”? Or is their an outside controlling influence somewhere?
Uh, yeah, actually, unless I'm hurting someone else in the process. That's sort of what "liberty" is - the freedom to do right, and to be free of arbitrary and intrusive restraints from the government.
Besides, I find your whole line of reasoning on this point to be....idiotic. Because I've argued that I have the right to be free from excessive government intrusion and surveillance in my life, that means I think I can do whatever I want (the unspoken implication being that it's illegal, immoral, or harmful to someone else - which actually takes the matter out of the realm of the 9th amendment, for the most part), and this is a "bad" thing? I'm glad when people like you aren't judges, and it's a detriment to this country when they are.
Since you apparently don't believe in that stinky ol' 9th amendment, I take it you don't believe that people ought to be free to spend their own money how they like, live where they choose to live, travel where they choose to travel, raise their kids how they see fit, or develop their own property in the manner they choose?
Is that the Standard that the Founder's established? Are you sure you are not equating "liberty" with "license"? After all, the Framers codified laws against sodomy, adultery, pornography and other perversions that many today consider as "not harming anyone else."
Besides, I find your whole line of reasoning on this point to be....idiotic. Because I've argued that I have the right to be free from excessive government intrusion and surveillance in my life, that means I think I can do whatever I want (the unspoken implication being that it's illegal, immoral, or harmful to someone else - which actually takes the matter out of the realm of the 9th amendment, for the most part), and this is a "bad" thing? I'm glad when people like you aren't judges, and it's a detriment to this country when they are.
The 9th Amendment interpretation that you suggest is extremely dangerous. Further, the interpretation is expressly out of line with what Madison and the Framers envisioned when they wrote it. Your interpretation is exactly how liberal judges "find" "rights" to things like abortion and homosexual "marriage" in the Constitution. I'm merely pointing out how dangerous that is. The 4th Amendment already makes clear that UNREASONABLE searches and seizures are impermissible. Why don't you try actually reading the decision of the Virginia Court of Appeals, (which coincidentally is not a liberal Court) rather than MEDIA accounts of what the Court ruled.
Since you apparently don't believe in that stinky ol' 9th amendment, I take it you don't believe that people ought to be free to spend their own money how they like, live where they choose to live, travel where they choose to travel, raise their kids how they see fit, or develop their own property in the manner they choose?
Really? You make a pretty broad assumption? Because I disagree with your misinterpretation of the 9th Amendment, I must not believe in it at all? Then you make a pretty incredible leap into the realm of absurdity. I think you do this for a reason. Should I hazard a guess as to why?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.