Does Warrantless GPS Tracking of People by the Police Violate the Fourth Amendment??
- Thread starter LanceOregon
- Start date
I would have to say that it doesn't violate your privacy since thing the public sees aren't private (in terms of a reasonable expectation of privacy or confidentiality).
It might violate a right of personal security though and is a possible unreasonable search. There is a principle that things so identified with a person's body can be treated as that person's body for analytical purposes. There is a case in which a court found the striking of a man's cane as he held it an assault; hitting his cane was found to be equivalent to hitting him.
Extending that principle to a person's car would be possible.
Because there is no such right anywhere in our law, and certainly not in the COTUS.
The "founding fathers" would LAUGH (if not cry) at the idea that there was no right to privacy under the system of government they were setting up; the existence of the Ninth Amendement shows that they desired the constitution to be read with an eye towards keeping freedom as the utmost principle at all times, and when skeptics pointed out that unless EVERY freedom of a citizen was specifically laid out in the BOR, a future government would take that as an excuse to step all over those rights, the Ninth Amendment was their solution.
Aspects of life that we consider private may enjoy constitutional protection, but that does not translate into a general right of privacy. That's a huge difference.
It is instructive to read the amendment.
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Rights retained by the people would have to actually be retained by them. Do you retain the right to keep your social security number or address entirely to yourself? I don't believe you do. Many consider their income to be private information, but you clearly lack the right to keep that from the government.
The 9th Am. doesn't reference freedom, or set up a rebuttable presumption that a right exists. It means that the rights set forth in the COTUS and bill of rights are not an exhaustive catalogue of our rights.
Interesting...but where then does one draw the line? Do you think the government should be able to access your medical records in order to see if you are a smoker? Smokers are more likely to require hospital care later in life and will be more of a burden on the medical system and taxpayers.
Brian Pfleuger
Moderator Emeritus
One of the biggest mistakes of modern times is to turn to the COTUS for justification or denial of specific measures. The COTUS was intended to provide for a federal system of government and to LIMIT the power of the FEDERAL government. Many of these issues should be kept at the state level and, in fact, there should be no requirement for all states to treat situations like all other states.
Yet your "argument" is essentially that, unless a right is specifically laid out in the BOR, it does not exist. Even the most jackbooted of statists can't come to this conclusion unless they deliberately choose to ignore the writings of the men who drafted the BOR. If a right or responsibility is not specifically laid out as being granted to the government (either state or federal), it is explicitly assumed to have been left to the people; that is the intent of the Ninth Amendment.
Indeed.
Actually, smokers save taxpayers money by expiring early, but I understand your point. I do not support increased access to people's medical records.
On the GPS issue? I would like to see the police get a warrant just so there is a check on this method of information gathering. Judges are generally very sympathetic to police actions, so many of them having served as prosecutors when young.
Generally, I would actually like to see people's privacy statutorily better protected than it is now.
No, that is not my position or "argument".
The amendment is text and does not have intent. Further, your restatement of that text is not accurate. You seem to be conflating the 9th and 10th Am. It actually reads,
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
They physically attach something to private property?
Not in favor of that at all. As GPS becomes cheaper it would be possible to just randomly attach these units to anybody and everybody so they can tell where you go and when you do it. How does this protect society. Get a damned warrant.
I'm still enraged over the random DUI checkpoints.
Not in favor of that at all. As GPS becomes cheaper it would be possible to just randomly attach these units to anybody and everybody so they can tell where you go and when you do it. How does this protect society. Get a damned warrant.
I'm still enraged over the random DUI checkpoints.
What planet are you on that "text does not have intent"? The text clearly SHOWS the intent of the framers of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, that intent being to guard the peoples' liberty from the government, just as the remainder of the Bill of Rights is supposed to. Just because there is no EXPLICIT right to privacy spelled out in the BOR (I'd have to think that the framers would have assumed that such a right would be as self-evident as, for example, the right to BREATHE), does not mean it does not exist, nor does it mean that dictators from either end of the political spectrum can simply ignore it.
The third from the sun.
Text has meaning. People have intent.
I agree. This does not mean that there was a pre-existing general right of privacy.
Which is a restatement of my assertion. If you imply something to the contrary into the text, the implication flows from you, not the text.
I think you would be wrong. People had much less privacy in the 18th century than they do now. They lived in smaller towns, in closer quarters, and were more likely to know the people they met throughout the day and have knowledge of one another's affairs.
The anonimity we in cities have today is historically unusual.
I never argued that a right to privacy doesn't exist just because it isn't in the BOR.
For a century and a half, there is no implication in our system of a generalised right of privacy. The 4th Am. along with other parts of the COTUS may be useful in maintaining ones privacy; this does not imply a generalised right of privacy.
And I'd think you'd be the one that was wrong; the vast majority of the people of the time would've been born, would've lived, and would've died all within 100 miles of the same spot, meaning simply that they would've consistently had interaction with the same people over and over again. They would've known as much about the activities of their neighbours (ie. "He's a farmer", or "he's a cooper") as you do about YOUR neighbours (ie. "He's an accountant", or "he's a computer-systems analyst"). Installing a GPS to keep track of someone is analogous to hiring a spy to keep track of that person, and I can't believe (having read the Federalist Papers, or many of the other personal writings of the "founding fathers") that they would allow such a thing on mere suspicion. If the apparatus of the State has a legitimate suspicion, let them apply for a warrant.
Brian Pfleuger
Moderator Emeritus
I'm enraged by all those cops driving randomly around just LOOKING for trouble. They're LOOKING for it I tell ya!
Sheesh. Are you serious?
JuanCarlos
New member
And here we're back to the "if you're not doing anything wrong you have nothing to worry about" argument. It's probably because he doesn't drive while drunk that it bothers him (and this is certainly the reason it bothers me). It's precisely because I'm doing nothing wrong that I find it unreasonable to randomly stop and detain me.
In states that use random checkpoints it might be a little different (I've never run into one up here), but around here it seems like a more effective method would be stiffer penalties for those that are caught. I've heard far too many stories of people maimed or killed by drivers who were on their fourth or fifth DUIs up here.
I've personally seen somebody die (great thing, being one of the first at the scene) after being struck on his a motorcycle by somebody who had multiple DUIs in the past, and was out on bail for a DUI just the week before. And, in fact, he had been driving drunk the week before on a license that was already suspended. So he killed somebody driving drunk while out on bail for driving drunk on a suspended license (I got ten bucks says I know what the license was suspended for).
Maybe if we started treating it like a real crime before the offender manages to kill somebody, that would be enough of a deterrent that random checkpoints wouldn't be necessary.
If the law was enforced to it's fullest, there would be a lot less need for a great number of things. However, (not trying to steer too far off post), checkpoints stop and find a great many drivers that are under the influence. And at least for that night, the roads are a little safer. My wife's brother was killed by a drunk driver when he was 21. Doing nothing wrong, but he got ran off of a cliff. He broke his back and was unable to detangle the safety belt from around his neck.
So there are things that might hinder my time of arrival for a few moments, but I don't mind, knowing my family won't be on the road with those idiots.
And I feel, in this situation, that the "if you're not doing anything wrong" arguement is very justifiable.
So there are things that might hinder my time of arrival for a few moments, but I don't mind, knowing my family won't be on the road with those idiots.
And I feel, in this situation, that the "if you're not doing anything wrong" arguement is very justifiable.