Nevada high court OK's police monitoring devices on cars

Las Vega Sun ^ | 4/25/02 | staff

[CFW]

CARSON CITY, Nev. (AP) - In a 5-2 decision, the Nevada Supreme Court ruled Thursday that police can hide electronic monitoring devices on peoples' cars - without a warrant and for as long as they want.

The majority opinion, written by Justice Deborah Agosti, said that attaching the device to the bumper of a Las Vegas man's car to track his movements "did not constitute an unreasonable search or seizure under the Nevada Constitution."

Frederick Osburn was sentenced in 2000 to up to 10 years in prison after pleading guilty to open or gross lewdness, possession of burglary tools and four counts of possession of child pornography.

He appealed, arguing evidence against him should be barred because it was based, in part, on information police were able to gather from the electronic monitoring.

Osburn said federal law may permit warrantless monitoring, but asked for a finding that the Nevada Constitution provides greater protection.

The majority cited a 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that there's "no reasonable expectation of privacy" when it involves the exterior of a car - especially in Osburn's case since the car was parked on a public street.

Justices Bob Rose and Cliff Young dissented, with Rose writing that the majority ruling gives too much authority to police.

"The police will be able to place a vehicle monitor on any vehicle, for any reason, and leave it there for as long as they want," Rose said. "There will be no requirement that the monitor be used only when probable cause - or even a reasonable suspicion - is shown, and there will be no time limit on how long the monitor will remain."

He added that in some cases such devices "will be used to continually monitor individuals only because law enforcement considers them 'dirty.'"

"In the future, innocent citizens, and perhaps elected officials or even a police officer's girlfriend or boyfriend, will have their whereabouts continually monitored simply because someone in law enforcement decided to take such action," Rose said.

In Osburn's case, he had been placed under surveillance after police questioned him about a prowler call several weeks before his arrest. The surveillance increased the week before the arrest after Osburn was reported masturbating outside a home. After his arrest in September 1997, police searched his home and found child pornography.

[freedomcrusader]

I see a possible business opportunity here - sweep people's cars for electronics for a fee.

[Sunshine Sister]

Here is the slippery slope that we have known all along was coming. This stinks! There is apparantly no need for probable cause any more.

[FreeTally]

So, it should not be long until these are mandatory. Not like the ONSTAR crap can't be used the same way, though. Well, this experiment called "America" was fun while it lasted.

[FreeTally]

I see a possible business opportunity here - sweep people's cars for electronics for a fee.

Obstruction of justice or interfering with a police investigation, most likely.

[freedomcrusader]

Probably, but I never said it was a strictly above-board venture...

[FreeTally]

Probably, but I never said it was a strictly above-board venture...

Thats what I was hoping. He, he, he...... ;)

[freedomcrusader]

Also, is it against the law to remove it yourself? How big are these devices? How hard would they be to detect?

[Rustynailww]

if we remove the tracker is that theft?

[OzarkRepub]

I'd argue they are akin to the flyers I get on the windshield at Wal-Mart from time to time, useless trash. However, some prosecutor would probably charge you with destruction of police property. This needs to go to the SCOTUS.

[alexandria]

Or maybe finders keepers? If I found one on my car I would find a way to have it put on the personal car of that particular cities Cheif Of Police or maybe the Mayor.

[AdA$tra]

This how they pull this stuff off: Find a criminal (like the one above) that is so smarmy that no one can argue that the end does not justify the means. Same with so called "anti terrorist" laws. Before you know it, the frog is cooked.

[tdscpa]

I didn't know what it was, but I attached it to a truck in a service station.

[G.Mason]

*** < "I'd argue they are akin to the flyers I get on the windshield at Wal-Mart from time to time, useless trash. However, some prosecutor would probably charge you with destruction of police property. This needs to go to the SCOTUS." > ***

Until the laws are changed, to be charged with removal of the device there would have to be evidence you removed it.

Just think of who you would like to transfer this device to.

The possibilities are endless.

[bsaunders]

"Is it just me or is this water getting rather warm," the frog.

[Black Agnes]

I was just thinking the same thing. Go to Wal-Mart, remove device, place on nearby vehicle. UPS trucks would be great too!

[Lazamataz]

Unbelievable.

No, I take it back. It is perfectly believable. In todays modern police state, I think it will be perfectly legal to implant tracking devices into people without their consent.

[TLBSHOW]

AMERICA THE NEW KBG

[Lazamataz]

Here is the slippery slope that we have known all along was coming. This stinks! There is apparantly no need for probable cause any more.

Nope. No warrant, no probable cause, just monitor people with cameras and tracking bugs as whim strikes you.

[CFW]

It's definitely getting warm, froggy.