Does Warrantless GPS Tracking of People by the Police Violate the Fourth Amendment??

Creature said:
Probably the same way the police in several states can search your trash that is inside a trash can accessible to the public.
Click to expand...
No, the legal theory behind this is that you have thrown something away and placed it on public right-of-way to be disposed of. You have, in effect, relinquished control of ownership. If your trash receptacle is still on your property, the police would need a warrant, as you have yet to relinquish control.

My vehicle is mine, regardless of where it may be parked. Parking the vehicle does not reliquish control of ownership.
zukiphile said:
The Griswold formulation certainly courts ridicule, but it also serves as a warning of what can happen when matters are implied into the text.
Click to expand...
I agree.

However, we both know that the Courts, the Legislature and most attorneys have fallen into that very trap that Hamilton warned about, when the Anti-Federalists insisted upon a declaration of rights: If the right is not enumerated, it doesn't exist.

We can see this, in case after case, wherein the Court is loath to simply say, the right, while unenumerated, belongs to that group of rights (and Liberties) that lie within the framework of the ninth amendment, which amendment was supposed to have cured the disability Hamilton warned us of. It didn't; It doesn't; It won't.
A protection against being forced to lodge soldiers in your home is primarily just that, though it may serve an incidental purpose of protecting your privacy.
Click to expand...
There can be no privacy whatsoever when the King's man (the government) lodges in your home. Whatever goes on inside the home, whatever possessions may be in the home are completely open to inspection by the Agent of the government.

The history of the King placing troops in private homes was more than just feeding and bedding the agent for free. Many were placed into homes for the specific purpose of spying on them. You simply can't deny the chilling effect this would have upon the privacy of the individuals involved. It is, as it has been said, self-evident.

ETA:
publius42 said:
Well, if they have a warrant, they don't need your permission
Click to expand...
Hence my statement: You want to touch my stuff without my permission? Get a warrant.
 
Last edited:
zukiphile: I'm curious as to where you attended law school; how long you've practiced; the nature of your practice? Since we don't know your name, hopefully these questions won't be considered to be an invasion of your privacy. :)
 
So we all agree that attaching at GPS tracking device to our vehicle without a warrant is a violation of our constitutional rights!
 
You simply can't deny the chilling effect this [the king's man in your home] would have upon the privacy of the individuals involved. It is, as it has been said, self-evident.
Click to expand...

I don't deny the effect. I specifically deny the right of privacy as manufactured in Griswold. Spousal and confessor confidentiality are not constitutionally based, but have a tradition that would make them rights actually held by people, not ones that are an after thought to a larger more nebulous "privacy".

zukiphile: I'm curious as to where you attended law school; how long you've practiced; the nature of your practice? Since we don't know your name, hopefully these questions won't be considered to be an invasion of your privacy.
Click to expand...

In Ohio. 17 years. While my firm has something of a boutique practice in large estate planning and administration, I am involved primarily in transactional work and related liitgation.

I am certainly no constitutional scholar, and am quickly out of my depth in criminal matters. If that is the point you would make, don't bother. I concede it.
 
I agree with Recon7 Johnson's agreement with zxcvbob Johnson's disagreement with Creature Johnson's statement of agreement.

(With apologies to the great Mel Brooks)
 
A couple of questions....

Since GPS is one of the selling points of many new cars, and major rental agencies have them in their cars, if the police can get this data, does it matter if they (the police) put them there or just use the data from the existing system?

Second, While it may be your car, and you own it, no matter where it is parked, you use it on public roads. In fact, we are obligated to pay for the privilege and obtain the licenses (and insurance) in order to legally operate our cars on public roads. Quite literally, your right to privacy virtually vanishes once you drive off your property.

It is not impossible that we will soon see some requirement for a GPS system in all motor vehicles operated on public roads (maybe part of the license plate?), so I think the question about police placing them on your car will soon be moot. After all, won't we all be safer?
 
Since GPS is one of the selling points of many new cars, and major rental agencies have them in their cars, if the police can get this data, does it matter if they (the police) put them there or just use the data from the existing system?
Click to expand...

Actually, some of the rental companies are using the GPS in the cars to issue "fines" if you exceed the speed limit. There is a major lawsuit about this right now. It's also a fact that the data in systems built into modern cars WILL be subpoenaed by police in the event of a crime.
 
44 AMP writes:

Since GPS is one of the selling points of many new cars, and major rental agencies have them in their cars, if the police can get this data, does it matter if they (the police) put them there or just use the data from the existing system?

Second, While it may be your car, and you own it, no matter where it is parked, you use it on public roads. In fact, we are obligated to pay for the privilege and obtain the licenses (and insurance) in order to legally operate our cars on public roads. Quite literally, your right to privacy virtually vanishes once you drive off your property.

It is not impossible that we will soon see some requirement for a GPS system in all motor vehicles operated on public roads (maybe part of the license plate?), so I think the question about police placing them on your car will soon be moot. After all, won't we all be safer?

-----------------

The above strikes me as a rather sad state of affairs, our all being "safer" being entirely beside the point, assuming that one were willing to grant the "safer" proposition, which I'm not.
 
44 AMP said:
does it matter if they (the police) put them there or just use the data from the existing system?
Click to expand...

There's using the data, and then there's using the data.

"Use" as in "get a warrant, go to OnStar or whomever, and request the records on what 44 AMP has been doing"

is different from

"Use" as in "any cop can request any record from OnStar at his sole discretion"

The latter is more the subject of this thread.
 
Zukiphile: Thanks for the info about yourself. My family's been involved in the law in my state for over 100 years now. My daughter works in a "boutique" firm in Atlanta, specializing in commercial litigation. I asked my youngest son's opinion about this discussion (He's third year law this year and doing very well in law school; already has a job offer!:)) and here's what he quickly provided:

"There was no search or seizure within meaning of Fourth Amendment when police placed a global positioning system (GPS) tracking unit underneath bumper of vehicle driven by defendant; device did not affect vehicle's driving qualities, did not draw power from vehicle's engine or battery, did not take up room that might otherwise have been occupied by passengers or packages, did not alter vehicle's appearance, and police could follow a car around or observe its route by means of cameras or satellite imaging without it being a search. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4.

From a Wisconsin case holding that there is no search or seizure upon placing a GPS tracking device on a car with no warrant. 'For a number dialed on a telephone, garbage placed at the curb, and the location of a vehicle, the Supreme Court and Seventh Circuit have reasoned that the information in question is either inherently public or has been disclosed to others, so that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy.'"
 
Alley, my congratulations on your having paid your last tuition bill.

"There was no search or seizure within meaning of Fourth Amendment when police placed a global positioning system (GPS) tracking unit underneath bumper of vehicle driven by defendant; device did not affect vehicle's driving qualities, did not draw power from vehicle's engine or battery, did not take up room that might otherwise have been occupied by passengers or packages, did not alter vehicle's appearance, and police could follow a car around or observe its route by means of cameras or satellite imaging without it being a search. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4.

From a Wisconsin case holding that there is no search or seizure upon placing a GPS tracking device on a car with no warrant. 'For a number dialed on a telephone, garbage placed at the curb, and the location of a vehicle, the Supreme Court and Seventh Circuit have reasoned that the information in question is either inherently public or has been disclosed to others, so that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy.'"
Click to expand...

That's a sound analysis. Of course these issues are difficult becuase there are at least two sides to argue.

What of the SC decision that a warrant is necessary to conduct thermal imaging surveillance on a home? That's just a more precise version of checking for snow or its absence on a roof in the winter. Why a warrant for something that can be "seen" from the street?

My discomfort at warrantless GPS placement comes primarily from an anticipation of using it in investigatory fishing expeditions. I know that the police abuse their authority for a wide range of reasons and don't see this method of surveillance being any less susceptible to misuse.
 
Zuk: That l.e. could arbitrarily, without probable cause, attach a tracking device to my vehicle just makes me feel creepy. I'd like to think that l.e. wouldn't spuriously track me, but I do know, as you certainly seem to, that l.e. lie frequently, even under oath, in open court.

My lawyer and lawyer-to-be are carrying considerable student loans! Son has just over 50% scholarships, but that still leaves over $16k per year, just for tuition!
 
There is a world of a difference between Case Law (legal sophistry, oftentimes) and Law.

Try reading The Law by Frederic Bastiat. It can be downloaded free of charge online.
 
What of the SC decision that a warrant is necessary to conduct thermal imaging surveillance on a home? That's just a more precise version of checking for snow or its absence on a roof in the winter. Why a warrant for something that can be "seen" from the street?
Click to expand...

Thermal imaging can reveal what is inside the home rather that just what can be seen from the outside. As it has been said before that inside you home or car you have an expectation of privacy but not on the outside where the home or car is. By using thermal imaging you can see where the people in the home are and how many are inside the home. It is much more than just snow on the roof.
 
zukiphile said:
I don't deny the effect.
Click to expand...
Is that an admittance that there is indeed an implied right to privacy within the Third amendment?
I specifically deny the right of privacy as manufactured in Griswold. Spousal and confessor confidentiality are not constitutionally based, but have a tradition that would make them rights actually held by people, not ones that are an after thought to a larger more nebulous "privacy".
Click to expand...
In making the above statement, are you not, along with the majority of the legal profession, dismissing Justice Goldberg's concurrence in Griswold?

Unlike C.J. Douglas, J. Harlan and J. White, Goldberg found the privacy right to reside specificly in the Ninth and extended the protection via the 14th's due process clause (incorporation). This stands in stark contrast with Douglas and Harlan by using the 14th's "Liberty" issues and Due Process.

IMO, J. Goldberg got it mostly right. Therefore dismissing Griswold out of hand (as many are want to do, and for good reason), dismisses the one real reasoning in that case. A bit of bathwater and baby, don't you think?
44 AMP said:
Second, While it may be your car, and you own it, no matter where it is parked, you use it on public roads.
Click to expand...
Where the vehicle is used, is not the issue. The issue is purely a property issue: Does the Government, barring a warrant, have the authority to touch private property?
In fact, we are obligated to pay for the privilege and obtain the licenses (and insurance) in order to legally operate our cars on public roads.
Click to expand...
That would be a nice thread, all on its own. For this thread, I believe it is irrelevant.
Quite literally, your right to privacy virtually vanishes once you drive off your property.
Click to expand...
Rights don't "vanish," merely because your location changes. While such a right, as privacy, may be diminished, it doesn't "vanish."
 
I don't deny the effect.
Click to expand...

Is that an admittance that there is indeed an implied right to privacy within the Third amendment?
Click to expand...

No. Text can have a variety of effects. By way of analogy, the 16th Am. has caused many people misery at the hands of cold-hearted government minions. This does not imply a general right of the government to cause people misery.

I specifically deny the right of privacy as manufactured in Griswold. Spousal and confessor confidentiality are not constitutionally based, but have a tradition that would make them rights actually held by people, not ones that are an after thought to a larger more nebulous "privacy".
Click to expand...

In making the above statement, are you not, along with the majority of the legal profession, dismissing Justice Goldberg's concurrence in Griswold?
Click to expand...

I don't agree that most dismiss the later part of Goldberg's analysis, the part with which I take issue.

Unlike C.J. Douglas, J. Harlan and J. White, Goldberg found the privacy right to reside specificly in the Ninth and extended the protection via the 14th's due process clause (incorporation). This stands in stark contrast with Douglas and Harlan by using the 14th's "Liberty" issues and Due Process.

IMO, J. Goldberg got it mostly right. Therefore dismissing Griswold out of hand (as many are want to do, and for good reason), dismisses the one real reasoning in that case. A bit of bathwater and baby, don't you think?
Click to expand...

No. Part of his reasoning is sound. Specifically,

Goldberg said:
In determining which rights are fundamental, judges are not left at large to decide cases in light of their personal and private notions. Rather, they must look to the "traditions and [collective] conscience of our people" to determine whether a principle is "so rooted [there] . . . as to be ranked as fundamental." Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U.S. 97, 105. The inquiry is whether a right involved

is of such a character that it cannot be denied without violating those "fundamental principles of liberty and justice which lie at the base of all our civil and political institutions." . . .
Click to expand...

In other words, the 9th Am. does protect rights not listed in the COTUS, but not just any right an author can conjure to support a desired result.

After this, Goldberg proceeds to describe a sort of general theme to the specific rights in the COTUS, and then create other different rights based on his perception of the general theme. The problem with seeing penumbra rising from the text, then ruling on specific cases according to those penumbra is that this framework permits courts to resolve issues based on their own values rather than those set forth on the COTUS or other laws. There is hardly a better example of this than an undefined right of privacy. This permits a court to decide to protect what it likes as "private", but lets the government proceed against matters the court doesn't like as not "private". Thus your income is not private, indeed in the case of a hate crime, your opinions are not private, but your minor daughter's decision to have a serious medical procedure, an abortion, is so private that you don't need to be advised of it. The promethian concept has no substance, it can fit any desired conclusion.

We do have a 4th Am. As competent as Alleykat's son's rationale is, it makes more sense in this case to stick close to the text of the COTUS, and restrict abuse of this process as a search and seizure.
 
In determining which rights are fundamental, judges are not left at large to decide cases in light of their personal and private notions. Rather, they must look to the "traditions and [collective] conscience of our people" to determine whether a principle is "so rooted [there] . . . as to be ranked as fundamental." Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U.S. 97, 105. The inquiry is whether a right involved
Click to expand...

Of course, it all comes down to a judges decision, since the rule guiding their decision is itself the decision of a judge (or group thereof).:rolleyes::eek:
 
Perhaps we all need to buy one of these??

sku_13956_2_small.jpg



http://www.tecknogeeks.com/shop/detection_devices


I guess such devices are not illegal to own??

Have you scanned your vehicle lately??

.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top