Posted on 08/17/2008 8:54:24 AM PDT by Eric Blair 2084
The question is one about the unreasonableness of using electronic tracking of someone moving in public - on public roads and publicly visible areas.
This is really no more intrusive than having a 24 hour surveillance team watching him. If the GPS attached to the outside of the car is illegal because of the 4th Amendment, then you could make a reasonable argument that visual tracking is also illegal.
So if a family has a mortgage on their house, they have no right to privacy? Their bank can authorize a wiretap without a warrant?
At some point, past behavior in and of itself becomes probable cause.
As you say, bad people have bad habits.
Never saw that system abused as all the LEO’s dis was tail or surveil the suspect. The gps sat tag is more than what we had when I was doing it yet no less that following the vehicle and using multiple deputies to tail the suspect. Consider it a manpower multiplier per se ....... Now one LEO can follow one high profile suspect.
I don’t really see a fourth amendment issue. Law enforcement could accomplish the same thing by simply following you everywhere. If the device had sound or picture, then you’d have a search and seizure case. There’s a ‘trespass to chattels’ issue in placing something on your property without your permission, though. But somehow I don’t see the average street thug bringing a civil case on that ground.
I am sure you will extend this vacuous logic to those who rent an apartment or house, and anyone who does not own their house outright.
Sleep tight, your dream world is others nightmare.
Looks to me like the key word is “unreasonable” rather than “effects”. It’s not unreasonable to track a convicted rapist’s van.
In this case, I have a bit of a problem. But I can see making it a condition of parole from a sentence involving a violent crime to allow the police to surreptitiously tag cars, or anything else. Then, you’re not involving innocent people in fishing expeditions.
I do not have an opinion one way or another on this particular subject (GPS to track a vehicle) only because I haven't had a chance to sit and think about it.
HOWEVER:
Your statement makes me wonder. By your reasoning, the leo’s can come in my house anytime they want if all they do is ask the mortgage company. I am not sure I like that idea.
I can see this sort of thing being used on a massive scale. All in the name of "safety" dontcha know.
So, of course, the Washington Post discusses it to help the criminals and hinder the police.
I think the same there needs to be some rules.
I liked seeing OJ Simpson (Norberg) get caught underneath the van in Naked Gun while trying to plant such a device.
By this rationale, any property with a mortgage could be searched with the consent of the mortgage holder.
In fact, even a rented home cannot be searched without the consent of the tenant, even if the landlord agrees. And the owner of a car or property with a note against it is at least a partial owner, not just a renter.
Also, as long as the GPS device is attached to the outside of the vehicle while it is on public property and no entry of the vehicle is made by the police, the suspects reasonable expectation of privacy in this area has not been violated.
However, I wouldn't bet on the 9th District Court agreeing with me.
You need to focus here. Think about the essence of what the technology is doing. It is merely replacing something which is allowable under the 4th Amendment - which is simply tailing someone. Making visual observations in public places is not something with 4th Amendment implications. The point here is that the police do not have an infinite budget for manpower and equipment to be able to cover every suspect with a round the clock tail. GPS solves that pretty inexpensively.
When you are in a private place, particularly your home, you have an expectation of privacy, and a long line of cases decided by the United States Supreme Court has shaped the contours of the areas protected by the 4th Amendment which require a warrant or a particular exception before they can be searched or surveilled. Surveillance inside the home has been curtailed - one recent case involved thermal imaging to detect where people were within a house - detected from outside the house at night. Without a court authorized warrant that was considered an impermissible search. As I say, if the GPS system could be programmed to trace only those points which were on public roads, or in public view, I don’t think there is going to be a problem. As to installing in/attaching to the car, that will require a warrant.
An example of where you could expect privacy and where GPS should not be allowed would be - hypothetically if you were the owner of the Biltmore Estate or perhaps the Hearst Ranch in CA - enormous properties of several hundred thousand acres. It would be very possible to be on those properties and to not be visible from any vantage point outside the property (a public highway nearby, etc.) There, someone would have a reasonably expectation of privacy, particularly at night, and any kind of surveillance would require a warrant (overflight with thermal imaging, etc.) I would suggest that is the kind of situation where the GPS signal should not be admissible, either, absent a warrant.
So what you would end up with would be a race of movements which would end (and then begin again) at the suspect’s driveway. Good enough for crime fighting purposes, and no 4th amendment problem.
Removing the rapist tool of choice should work too.
That like the media braying about "cop killer bullets" at a time when cops wearing body armor was not widely known. Soon after, cops were getting killed from head shots.
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.