Posted on 08/17/2008 8:54:24 AM PDT by Eric Blair 2084
“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”
There is no “4th amendment issue” here - assuming we are discussing “search” and “seizure” per se. Why is that?
THERE IS NO “SEARCH”.
The police don’t search the contents of the vehicle. They don’t even have to look _inside_ it. All they do is attach a small appurtenance to the _outside_. No search occurs.
THERE IS NO “SEIZURE”.
The police don’t at any time “take possession” of the vehicle. It _might_ be argued on very vague terms that to attach the tracking device they “touch” it, and that that “touching” constitutes “seizure”; but I doubt this would hold water in any court, particularly the United States Supreme Court (where this method of tracking will eventually be adjudicated). But since the police will only endeavor to attach the tracking device when the vehicle is parked on “public property” (i.e., a city street and not a private driveway), the police by touching the vehicle are doing nothing more than any passerby might do. No seizure occurs.
What MIGHT be challenged here is a suspect’s FIFTH amendment rights protecting him from self-incrimination.
That is to say, the Constitution prohibits a person from being required to give incriminating testimony against himself.
By attaching a tracking device to the vehicle WITHOUT THE SUSPECT’S CONSENT, the police are putting him into the unknowing condition of being forced to give “testimony against himself” by his location.
If the police were to stop a suspect on the street, without warrant, and query him as to “where are you going?” or “where have you been?” it would be within a person’s right to say “none of your business” or simply refuse to answer.
But with the tracking device installed, the suspect cannot “withhold” this information, thus protecting his privacy and, ergo, his rights under the Fifth that say he may decline to give evidence against himself.
Eventually, I think THIS will be the deciding issue that the Supreme Court will be asked to resolve.
Having written all that, I don’t have a problem that these devices were used to capture the people that they did. I’m glad those scum are off the streets.
However....
All this will be academic within 10-20 years, or perhaps even sooner.
By that time, ALL vehicles sold will have GPS locating devices installed as a matter of course, AND, such devices will have the capability to be monitored externally (which probably will include police monitoring under controlled conditions).
If you disagree, I say this: 15 years ago, who would have believed that all new cars would be equipped with “event recorders” that recorded exactly what the vehicle was doing for the last 5-10 seconds? And that after an accident, police could download such event recorders and use the captured data as evidence against the driver if a crime had been committed?
- John
If the want to tail they can follow but I have issues with a warrentlys placement of any electronics.
This is no different than a “planting an audio bug”.
The USSC ruled police can’t use infrared without a warrent to look in a persons home.
The could have obtained a warrent, seriously. Judges will give a warrent just because a cop wants one. (see signing judges) The police were just lazy and think they don’t have to abide by procedure “to protect the public from the public.”
fine lets jsut lojack everyone ala the movie “demolition man”
Be well and have a joy joy happy day.
no the car is collateral for the loan not an ownership interest. Otherwise when there were PI cases you could sue the bank as well as the driver.
try again.
The higher courts will find this no different than using an infrared camera to “probe” without a warrent. Technology does not diminish the need or circumvent the need for a warrent.
I suspect what they did was more along the lines of tracking the GPS in his phone which is mandatory for 911 purposes.
Phone taps require warrents, this was mere suspiction, not even probable cause.
No. They did not have a search warrant.
The argument is that the device is the same as a flesh and blood officer following a suspect around.
That was my thought. Get a warrant.
If you can indict a ham sandwich you can get a judge to issue a warrant. No big loss.
OK. And I'll be sure to take along my GPS. :)
That's a BS argument as it involves installation of a tracking device on a suspect. If a private citizen does that in Texas, it's a FELONY. Get a danged warrant.
Nice last word on our parts...
Go to a judge and get a warrant. Not telling anyone you can’t do it.
Nice last word on our parts...
Go to a judge and get a warrant. Not telling anyone you can’t do it.
Let's turn this around and examine this. If I, a private citizen, were to plant a tracking device on the vehicle of somebody who interests me, would I get in trouble?
If the answer is yes, then the police should be in trouble as well if they do this without a warrant
You are making the assumption that this will always only be done for legitimate police purposes. That's the purpose of getting a warrant. The police have to justify their act to a third party (the judge) as having a legitimate police purpose, supported by probable cause
Once you dispense with that, that allows the police to intrude on your privacy for any reason the individual officer feels like.
You don't feel threatened by that right now, because you can't think of a reason why a cop would ever be interested in you.
What if you took part in a Freep, and a cop was a Democrat activist on the side and decided to find out who you were, to pass the info along to somebody who would harass you? What if the cop was the cousin of somebody who has some feud with you? What if the cop's boss decides you should be surveiled for reasons having nothing to do with your being a crime suspect? Does this start to make you nervous yet?
There is a purpose to requiring warrants before people's privacy can be violated
What would the police reaction be to a private citizen putting a tracking device, using your procedure, on their police vehicle while it is parked on public property?
The police have to justify their act to a third party
If they make physical contact with either me or my property, whether to plant a tracking device or whatever, they better have an articulable legal justification
If a private citizen does it, I think it would be considered "stalking."
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.