JuanCarlos
New member
I will say that I respect his consistency. And I don't mean that sarcastically.
EDIT: And that's one. I believe we have at least three or four more to hear from.
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
EDIT: And that's one. I believe we have at least three or four more to hear from.
I think controlling and keeping track of fire-arms is the best way to prevent future fire-arm bans.
That's an interesting take on history.
Out of curiosity, of those who don't think that warrants should be required for GPS tracking, how many would support 100% mandatory by-firearm registration? I mean, if you're not doing anything wrong it shouldn't be an issue, so I figure none of you should have any issue with it.
You've now stopped talking about a chicken, and moved to the chicken-hawk. That's a different ball game all together, and a bad transfer to boot.
The registration of firearms means the government can and will walk into your home and take any gun they feel like...eventually. Ask the rest of the world. Canada, registered...now they have no handguns, well limited. Australia, registered...GOV mandatory buy back and limited numbers. Now that's where my "BIG BROTHER" paranoia kicks in. If anyone is for firearm registration, you need to wake up and do some research. What do you think Brady, BHO, and the rest of the Left Liberal Sissy's want???Not just registration, not just semi-auto's, not just handguns...NO GUNS IN THE HANDS OF CIVILIANS. PEROID.
It costs time and taxpayer money to fool with warrants to do wiretaps, so why not dispense with warrants in that area as well?
Are you getting desprate and running out of an actual argument? That makes no sense whatsoever. No one was talking about wiretaps. We are talking about watching where a vehicle goes on a map/computer screen. Not listening to conversations.
Because your premise is incomplete and your reasoning is overbroad. The police do all sorts of things sometimes for little reason or no good reason. Unreasonable searches could also catch a drug-dealer, but that isn't a sound argument in their favor.
Holy Crap are you serious??? Do you think that the local police dept is actually going to walk around town, and stick GPS trackers on a bunch of random vehicles, just to see where they go?? NO, they will not. They will put them on the vehicles of "actual suspects", to see where they go and frequent. That's the most unrealistic argument yet. And please tell me HOW my "premise is incomplete and my reasoning is overbroad"(said in a deep, british, and mocking voice).
We are talking about watching where a vehicle goes on a map/computer screen. Not listening to conversations.
If only it were that easy. There is a bit more to it than that.
Holy Crap are you serious??? Do you think that the local police dept is actually going to walk around town, and stick GPS trackers on a bunch of random vehicles, just to see where they go?? NO, they will not. They will put them on the vehicles of "actual suspects", to see where they go and frequent. That's the most unrealistic argument yet. And please tell me HOW my "premise is incomplete and my reasoning is overbroad"(said in a deep, british, and mocking voice).
Check that statement. The police overstep their bounds everyday. It is why many criminal cases are thrown out for procedural problems.
Because your premise is incomplete and your reasoning is overbroad. The police do all sorts of things sometimes for little reason or no good reason. Unreasonable searches could also catch a drug-dealer, but that isn't a sound argument in their favor.
Holy Crap are you serious???
Yes. What part of my statement seems unserious to you?
Do you think that the local police dept is actually going to walk around town, and stick GPS trackers on a bunch of random vehicles, just to see where they go??
No, I nowhere suggest that placement would be random.
And please tell me HOW my "premise is incomplete and my reasoning is overbroad"(said in a deep, british, and mocking voice).
I did. This part addresses your premise that the police wouldn't do something without reason:
The police do all sorts of things sometimes for little reason or no good reason.
This part addressed the overbroad reasoning you employed:
Unreasonable searches could also catch a drug-dealer, but that isn't a sound argument in their favor.
I can expand on either if that's needed.
JuanCarlos
New member
Out of curiosity, of those who don't think that warrants should be required for GPS tracking, how many would support 100% mandatory by-firearm registration? I mean, if you're not doing anything wrong it shouldn't be an issue, so I figure none of you should have any issue with it.
You've now stopped talking about a chicken, and moved to the chicken-hawk. That's a different ball game all together, and a bad transfer to boot.
The registration of firearms means the government can and will walk into your home and take any gun they feel like...eventually. Ask the rest of the world. Canada, registered...now they have no handguns, well limited. Australia, registered...GOV mandatory buy back and limited numbers. Now that's where my "BIG BROTHER" paranoia kicks in. If anyone is for firearm registration, you need to wake up and do some research. What do you think Brady, BHO, and the rest of the Left Liberal Sissy's want???Not just registration, not just semi-auto's, not just handguns...NO GUNS IN THE HANDS OF CIVILIANS. PEROID.
/facepalm
That's exactly what I was looking for. Beautiful rant.
So registration is automatically the first step towards confiscation, but there's absolutely no way that warantless GPS tracking would ever be abused. Gotcha.
Hint: there are a lot of relatively moderate gunowners who would call what you just kicked out there a tin-foil-hat paranoid overreaction.
Holy Crap are you serious??? Do you think that the local police dept is actually going to walk around town, and stick GPS trackers on a bunch of random vehicles, just to see where they go?? NO, they will not. They will put them on the vehicles of "actual suspects", to see where they go and frequent. That's the most unrealistic argument yet. And please tell me HOW my "premise is incomplete and my reasoning is overbroad"(said in a deep, british, and mocking voice).
I don't think anybody was suggesting they'd throw them on cars randomly.
But the easier you make tailing people (like requiring only a warrantless transmitter rather than a team to follow them) the more likely that the people being tracked may wind up not being "actual suspects," but rather people being tracked for reasons personal, political, whatever.
Besides which, if these people are "actual suspects" why can't they get a warrant to track the car? I mean, it's not like anybody's suggesting they shouldn't be able to do this at all. Just that some level of external oversight might not be a horrible idea, or prohibitively expensive.
If the government wanted your guns they would have them.
If that were the case, you will hear about all over news for weeks.
That statement tells me nothing. You giving up?? What else is a GPS Tracker on a car going to tell me?If only it were that easy. There is a bit more to it than that.
The police overstep their bounds everyday. It is why many criminal cases are thrown out for procedural problems.
We aren't talking about police overstepping their bounds. We are talking about the police putting a unit on a suspects car to see where they go instead of a vehicle tail or helo tail.
did. This part addresses your premise that the police wouldn't do something without reason:
Quote:
The police do all sorts of things sometimes for little reason or no good reason.
No you didn't. It looks like to me and the rest that you mean that the police will do this just that random. Because of the part, "little reason or no good reason". You need to elaborate if you want to get your point accross.
Unreasonable searches could also catch a drug-dealer, but that isn't a sound argument in their favor.
Maybe I didn't elaborate. We aren't talking about unreasonable searches we are talking about watching a blip on a computer screen and seeing where it goes, BUT more to come on that cause Creature is going to explain the "More to it than that".
wcpexpert said:No one was talking about wiretaps
Actually you were. You said these GPS tracking devices would be "something that will save tax payer dollars, be more effencient, and aid in stopping crime." Dispensing with warrants for wiretaps would also save taxpayer dollars, be more efficient, and aid in stopping crime. If those are adequate reasons to do something, we should dispense with wiretap warrants.
I don't see what would be so very wrong with having police state their reason for putting a tracking device on my car or on my person to a judge. To me, it's a question of who owns the car (or jacket) in question. If it's mine, I get to say what equipment is installed in it. If the government shares ownership, they can have the same say, with no checks and balances. But they don't share ownership, so they can't. IMO.
If that were the case, you will hear about all over news for weeks.
?????????????
If the government wanted to confiscate all firearms they could right now, but the gain isn't worth the loss - so they have no reason to.
I really LOL when people talk about fighting the government....blah blah blah. If the government wants your guns, they will have them. If the government wants you dead, you will be dead. If the government wants your family, your life and your dog, they will have them.
The simple truth is they don't really care about you, the gain of taking your fire-arms is not worth the loss, so they have no reason to do it.
No you didn't. It looks like to me and the rest that you mean that the police will do this just that random. Because of the part, "little reason or no good reason". You need to elaborate if you want to get your point accross.I did. This part addresses your premise that the police wouldn't do something without reason:
The police do all sorts of things sometimes for little reason or no good reason.
"Little reason or no good reason" doesn't imply random selection, but selection for a bad reason. Putting a GPS on everyone who leave a local range, absent any other reason, would be for no good reason.
Maybe I didn't elaborate. We aren't talking about unreasonable searches ...Unreasonable searches could also catch a drug-dealer, but that isn't a sound argument in their favor.
I am. The question is whether we should do anything that could catch a criminal. No one with respect for civil liberites believes we should.
Hope the elaboration helped. Let me know if more is required.
Actually you were.
Actually, I wasn't. don't put words in my mouth.
What law is being broken?? Name it. It doesn't go against the 4th. It's no different than...let me break it down.
Dispensing with warrants for wiretaps would also save taxpayer dollars, be more efficient, and aid in stopping crime
If you want to use wire taps for your example, then fine. For the police to listen to your phone conversation without a tap, they would have to be in the room with you undetected. Impossible and illegal, so there making the use of wiretaps requires a warrent. The police following you around all day without you knowing about it, probable and not illegal, the warrent to do the same surveilence electronically, not needed.
Little reason or no good reason" doesn't imply random selection, but selection for a bad reason. Putting a GPS on everyone who leave a local range, absent any other reason, would be for no good reason.
But what I am getting at is, the police aren't going to do that with out some sort of reason. Are you implying, they could use the GPS to target groups? And possibly for other than honorable intentions. That would be wrong. But what if one of the guys at the range that day were a gun runner that they were targeting and they didn;t know what vehicle was going to transfer to, while trying to loose his tail. So they put a GPS on 7 different vehicles. They catch him in the middle of the deal. I don't know.
I'm not going to argue anymore, but I don't feel they are violating my rights. if they want to watch my blip go home, work, and walmart. Fine. Boring day.
But I didn't have to waste the 2 cops time and my money for them to watch my car.
JuanCarlos
New member
I'm not going to argue anymore, but I don't feel they are violating my rights. if they want to watch my blip go home, work, and walmart. Fine. Boring day.
But I didn't have to waste the 2 cops time and my money for them to watch my car.
Not really holding out much hope of convincing you, maybe just providing a little perspective, but think about it. You just said pretty much the exact same thing about this as S832 said about gun registration. Plenty of people don't think mere registration violates their rights, and hey if some guy wants to spend all day keeping track of what guns I own, fine. Boring day.
And, considering that all anybody is really advocating is the requirement for some form or warrant or probable cause to do this anyway (not saying they can't), I'd suggest that it would have about the same effect on crime. Which is to say, not much.
Nobody's saying they have to waste two cops' time and money to watch your car. They're saying maybe they should have to waste ten minutes of a judge's time (or two cops' time, assuming they're fishing and can't get a warrant).
But what I am getting at is, the police aren't going to do that with out some sort of reason.
I agree. If their reason is poor, the judge might not issue a warrant or they might not pursue one.
Are you implying, they could use the GPS to target groups? And possibly for other than honorable intentions.
Of course they could.
That would be wrong.
And a judge might let them know that.
But what if one of the guys at the range that day were a gun runner that they were targeting and they didn;t know what vehicle was going to transfer to, while trying to loose his tail. So they put a GPS on 7 different vehicles. They catch him in the middle of the deal.
They can explain that to a judge.
I don't know.
I'm not going to argue anymore, but I don't feel they are violating my rights.
I'm sure they appreciate that feeling.
I really do see a connection with wiretapping, GPS tracking is a form of electronic surveillance. Yes a police officer can "tail" you as you drive around town, he could also listen to you talk on your phone if you are out in public. If the police are going to spy on an individual using electronic devices, I would like for them to get warrants.
If it's warrantless then it violates the spirit of the law. Period.
Of course, some Manichean judge will rule it's okay and damned near every LE officer will claim it "aids them doing their job".
The "Me Victim" crowd will also applaud to a lesser extent because they'll do anything to be made to feel "safe" whatever the Hades that is.
I'm of the opinion that the Founders would despise most modern Americans... but I aint one of 'em.
Of course, some Manichean judge will rule it's okay and damned near every LE officer will claim it "aids them doing their job".
The "Me Victim" crowd will also applaud to a lesser extent because they'll do anything to be made to feel "safe" whatever the Hades that is.
I'm of the opinion that the Founders would despise most modern Americans... but I aint one of 'em.
Juan Carlos:
No, I do believe in a right to privacy and think that the warrantless, surreptitious attaching of a GPS unit to my vehicle violates my right to privacy. Just not sure where, in the Constitution, the "right to privacy" comes from. Clearly, it's not from the "search and seizure" provision.???
FWIW: The drivel of the pro-gun registration member is just too silly to merit a response.
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.
No, I do believe in a right to privacy and think that the warrantless, surreptitious attaching of a GPS unit to my vehicle violates my right to privacy. Just not sure where, in the Constitution, the "right to privacy" comes from. Clearly, it's not from the "search and seizure" provision.???
FWIW: The drivel of the pro-gun registration member is just too silly to merit a response.
No, I do believe in a right to privacy and think that the warrantless, surreptitious attaching of a GPS unit to my vehicle violates my right to privacy. Just not sure where, in the Constitution, the "right to privacy" comes from. Clearly, it's not from the "search and seizure" provision.???
The "right to privacy" was discovered and proclaimed in the middle of the 20th century by the SCOTUS in Griswold. It is a "made up" right not well regarded by fans of close reading of COTUS text.
I don't think a GPS attached to your car violates your privacy since driving a car is not a private act. It certainly works against your anonimity, which we in the city take for granted. But I also don't think we have a right to anonimity either.
You may have hit on something with the search and seizure protection. A continuous report of your car's location is arguably a search for your location and a partial seizure of your control over your vehicle.