You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Does Warrantless GPS Tracking of People by the Police Violate the Fourth Amendment??
- Thread starter LanceOregon
- Start date
JuanCarlos
New member
Where does the theory of a "right to privacy" come from? This isn't a search and seizure issue. It could be a clear violation of a citizen's right to privacy, though. (If there is such a right.)
Other than the Supreme Court? Probably the the idea that it's absolutely necessary in a free society for (absent due process) a citizen to feel secure in their privacy. Would you feel comfortable having a GPS thrown on your car, tracking your every move?
If your answer is "I'm fine with it, I'm not doing anything wrong" then I recommend caution. The old "if you're not doing anything wrong you have nothing to worry about" argument has been a staple of totalitarian regimes since just about the dawn of time.
EDIT: Note that I'm not arguing that the "right to privacy" that has been mentioned by the Supreme Court before is legally applicable in this case...obviously that hasn't been established yet.
NickySantoro
Moderator
I'd like to take it off and put it under a taxi cab. Let them connect those dots.
Edward429451
Moderator
What is being searched or seized?
Your movements are being searched, and your privacy is being seized?
In law school, I was always in the VAST MINORITY on this issue. By FAR, the majority of my classmates seemed to believe that the 4th amendment grants people the right to be free from nearly all interaction with the government of any kind, unless a warrant is issued upon probable cause. The majority opinion seems to be that the police need to avoid making eye contact with anyone in public, lest they inadvertently and improperly "search" the external appearance of a citizen, in violation of the 4th amendment.
I wholeheartedly disagree. I believe that the 4th amendment grants a strict right: The right to be secure in your papers, persons, houses, and effects. In other words, I believe that the police do not have the right to come into your house, disrupt your life, disturb your posessions, and otherwise place your life on hold while they conduct a search of you and/or your stuff. However, I believe that this is where this right ends.
I believe that if you are out in public, in a car, for example, that the police should be able to search your car, so long as they do not unreasonably detain you without cause. (Detaining a "person" would amount to a violation of the 4th.) I also believe that if the police can view your activities from a public place, without you knowing about it, then this is not a violation of the 4th amendment. Sureptitious surveillance does not amount to a disruption of your "persons, houses, papers, and effects." Essentially, you carry on about your life, and you never know the police are watching.
I have "lost" this debate on numerous Constitutional law cases we discussed in law school. The one I remember most had to do with whether the police could use heat-seeking equipment to look into a house and spot a hydroponic marijuana garden. I said that the police should be able to do this, because the heat is viewed from a public place. The courts said otherwise.
Another case had to do with cops flying over a warehouse full of drugs, where there was a hole in the roof and the cops could see the drugs from the airplane using telescopic photography. I said, "It's in plain sight!" The courts said otherwise. Because the cops had to use telescope equipment, and because it was "apparent" that the warehouse owner had "tried to conceal his activities" by putting a "roof" on the warehouse, this was a violation of the 4th amendment!
It seems that the scope of the 4th amendment has been stretched and stretched, until now it seems that the cops must avert their eyes to public acts of violence for fear of illegally "searching" the public streets!
I wholeheartedly disagree. I believe that the 4th amendment grants a strict right: The right to be secure in your papers, persons, houses, and effects. In other words, I believe that the police do not have the right to come into your house, disrupt your life, disturb your posessions, and otherwise place your life on hold while they conduct a search of you and/or your stuff. However, I believe that this is where this right ends.
I believe that if you are out in public, in a car, for example, that the police should be able to search your car, so long as they do not unreasonably detain you without cause. (Detaining a "person" would amount to a violation of the 4th.) I also believe that if the police can view your activities from a public place, without you knowing about it, then this is not a violation of the 4th amendment. Sureptitious surveillance does not amount to a disruption of your "persons, houses, papers, and effects." Essentially, you carry on about your life, and you never know the police are watching.
I have "lost" this debate on numerous Constitutional law cases we discussed in law school. The one I remember most had to do with whether the police could use heat-seeking equipment to look into a house and spot a hydroponic marijuana garden. I said that the police should be able to do this, because the heat is viewed from a public place. The courts said otherwise.
Another case had to do with cops flying over a warehouse full of drugs, where there was a hole in the roof and the cops could see the drugs from the airplane using telescopic photography. I said, "It's in plain sight!" The courts said otherwise. Because the cops had to use telescope equipment, and because it was "apparent" that the warehouse owner had "tried to conceal his activities" by putting a "roof" on the warehouse, this was a violation of the 4th amendment!
It seems that the scope of the 4th amendment has been stretched and stretched, until now it seems that the cops must avert their eyes to public acts of violence for fear of illegally "searching" the public streets!
Creature why is it different the results are the same, the Investigative Agency knows where you have been. Weather it takes a whole team with a helicopter and six surviellance vehicles or one cop with a computer sitting at a desk following you on the screen.
2 + 2 = 4
or
1 + 3 = 4
Same result different method of getting there.
2 + 2 = 4
or
1 + 3 = 4
Same result different method of getting there.
Brian Pfleuger
Moderator Emeritus
No...the analogy is spot on and asks a perfectly valid question. Please explain why the rules are diffrent, in regards to tracking and location finding, when it comes to government and civilians?
Many rules are different for government vs civilians.
Can you buy an F-16 fighter?
Can you have lights and sirens on your car in case you need to get somewhere fast?
Can you declare war on behalf of the rest of America?
Can you pull someone over for speeding?
Some things are left to the agents of security and peace, which is the purpose of the government. Whether they are fulfilling that mission correctly or well is another topic.
Why is tracking different for civi's vs goverment? Simple, the only reason to track the police is to defeat their purpose, which is to protect the people. The reason they track you is to stop you from harming the people. That's THEIR job, not mine, not yours.
It is exactly the reason you can't have sirens and F-16s.
Creature why is it different the results are the same, the Investigative Agency knows where you have been. Weather it takes a whole team with a helicopter and six surviellance vehicles or one cop with a computer sitting at a desk following you on the screen.
Guilt is being assumed and is the basis for tracking. This is wrong.
Would it be legal for me to build a jammer that I could employ whenever I drive around?
Some things are left to the agents of security and peace, which is the purpose of the government.
Since when?
Brian Pfleuger
Moderator Emeritus
Guilt is being assumed and is the basis for tracking. This is wrong.
Would it be legal for me to build a jammer that I could employ whenever I drive around?
Point 1) Presumption of innocence is, in many cases, the job of a judge and jury. The police have no such duty. Guilt is being assumed by any officer who attempts to arrest or follow you for anything.
Point 2) No, it would not be legal. For the same reason I outlined above. You are attempting to defeat the persons whose job is to protect the populace.
Brian Pfleuger
Moderator Emeritus
Some things are left to the agents of security and peace, which is the purpose of the government.
Since when?
Since the constitution was written. The job of government is to protect the people and maintain an environment that allows you to live the liberties that are outlined within that document.
JuanCarlos
New member
Point 1) Presumption of innocence is, in many cases, the job of a judge and jury. The police have no such duty. Guilt is being assumed by any officer who attempts to arrest or follow you for anything.Guilt is being assumed and is the basis for tracking. This is wrong.
Would it be legal for me to build a jammer that I could employ whenever I drive around?
Point 2) No, it would not be legal. For the same reason I outlined above. You are attempting to defeat the persons whose job is to protect the populace.
I'm pretty sure that isn't why it would be illegal...it'd be illegal because such a device would likely be regulated by the FCC. Saying it's illegal because it would be preventing the police from tracking you is right up there with saying it would be illegal to close your blinds because it might prevent the police from looking in your window. Is it illegal when I encrypt my email, as well?
Since the constitution was written. The job of government is to protect the people and maintain an environment that allows you to live the liberties that are outlined within that document.
It is not the job of the people to submit to undue encroachment of the police without due process. It is the job of the judicary to keep the powers of the executive (state) in check. That is why the 4th Amendment exists.
The lack of oversight is the problem. The lack of oversight is the crux of the arguement against the NSA Wire-Tap debacle and is at the heart of The Patriot Act's flawed initative. The more information government gathers on people, the more power it will have over them. The more expansive and secretive government intrusions become, the easier it becomes for government to rule by fear.
Brian Pfleuger
Moderator Emeritus
It is not the job of the people to submit to undue encroachment of the police without due process. It is the job of the judicary to keep the powers of the executive (state) in check. That is why the 4th Amendment exists.
The lack of oversight is the problem. The lack of oversight is the crux of the arguement against the NSA Wire-Tap debacle and is at the heart of The Patriot Act's flawed initative. The more information government gathers on people, the more power it will have over them. The more expansive and secretive government intrusions become, the easier it becomes for government to rule by fear.
On this we do not necessarily disagree. The effectiveness or intentions with which the government carries out its duties is another matter from why they can do things we cannot.
The job of government is to protect the people. That is why they have different rules than civilians, which is the answer to your question.
The job of government is to protect the people.
Not really. Let's make this simple:
If it really is the job of the government to protect the people, why do you not have a government-paid security guard standing watch at the foot of your drive way?
How about this: can you sue the police for not protecting your wife and daughter if they are raped?
Brian Pfleuger
Moderator Emeritus
If it really is the job of the government to protect the people, why do you not have a government-paid security guard standing watch at the foot of your drive way?
Because that's too specific.
I'm not saying this to insult you, I'm seriously asking--- Have you ever read the constitution? I mean the whole thing. Consider the purposes it gives to government. Consider that in truth, the US constitution has very little to say about what your local PD does.
Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
The ONLY purpose of the federal government is to protect the lives and interests of the people.
Because that's too specific.
Well then...isnt attaching GPS tracking devices to property to track individual citizens also "too specific"? Doesnt attaching a tracking device to a privately-owned vehicle amount to a search? Doesnt using someone’s property (vehicle for mounting the device; powering it perhaps) without their (or a court’s) consent, basically amount theft?
Following your logic that it is not an invasion of privacy and is not illegal surveillance, then why cant I attach GPS tracking devices to a specific person's car...for example, the chief of police of my town, so that I may track his/her whereabouts to ensure he/she does not viloate the public trust? Is it not my right as a taxpayer to know when a public figure violates his or her oath of office?
And yes, I have read the Constitution of the United States. Notice the captial C?
Last edited:
Guilt is being assumed and is the basis for tracking. This is wrong.
So are you saying the police should not investigate suspected on going criminal enterprises like drug trafficing, child porn or even child abuse because to investigate it the cops would have to assume some level of guilt.