GPS Tracking

^ I'm presuming the GPS is also going through the "On-Star" feature. However, I guess it's also safe to assume that cars that have the GPS built into the car can be tracked as well.

Ok, I'm late to the game again... lol.

You all act like "Big Gov" is tracking everyone all the time. There not. and yes to "attach" any tracking device to someones car they do need a warrant. However they would not do that unless you have broken the law, or the police believe you are involved in a crime that is on going. Honestly, local police have too much other things to worry about vs. tracking their populace. So that leaves the Feds and one has to think there are too many people out there for them to simply track every day.

Simply put.... don't break the law and you don't have to worry.

But... I think the ruling has more to do with can they use your "On-Star" to track you if need be. In this case there would be no need for a warrant because they wouldn't be "attaching" anything to your car. So the next question is why would they track you? Again only if they think you have been involved in a crime or are currently involved in one. Example; someone gives your license plate as being the bank robber. The police can find out if it has "On-Star" and track where the car is. Another example; you call 911 claiming someone stole your car. The police can locate it by using "On-Star" or even cutting off the engine if need be.

Well the point of the thread was that a judge ruled they don't need a warrant to go on your property and put a tracking device on your car. On-star, cell phones, etc are a voluntary gps, kind of like an opt-in system. In this ruling, a private citizen had his car "bugged" by the police going at night and putting a gps tracking device on his car sitting in his driveway WITHOUT getting a warrant. There was no urgency, or threat of immediate harm, they simply didn't go through the court system to get a warrant.

The ruling had nothing to do with On-star.

SBXVII: here is a link for the court case referenced:
Ninth Circuit Court: Secret GPS Tracking is Legal | Executive Gov (http://www.executivegov.com/2010/08/ninth-circuit-court-secret-gps-tracking-is-legal/)
The ruling, which sets precedent for Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon and Washington, holds that “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures” doesn’t apply to driveways.

This decision upsets years of legal precedent establishing “curtilage” (legalese for the property surrounding a house) as protected under the Fourth Amendment,
[note: the original yahoo link in the op failed.]

I understand the point, if you have nothing to hide why worry, but it is a very far reaching effect to say that the police have the right to go on your property, track your every move, and do not have to go through, what is a supposed safeguard, the motion of getting a warrant.

First, couldn't read the article b/c the link did not work at work. As to some of the other stuff:

See, I guess I would expect that your car is an extension of your property, and you would have a reasonable expectation of privacy as it relates to police access. I don't know the case law, but when police stop you, what is in hands reach is public, but they can't search anywhere else without a warrant or your approval. This seems to undermine that principle in that they can clearly go into places you would not normally check and place an intrusive device in such a way that you would have no knowledge of it. Again, if they have a warrant and probable cause ok.

As I recall my 4th Amendment cases, cars are treated slightly differently. If an officer has a articulable suspicion you are hiding something in your trunk, but does not have the authority to impound the vehicle, they can search your trunk b/c otherwise you could drive off and destroy the evidence before a warrant could be obtained. If on the other hand they can impound the car and secure it, they can't search it without first getting a warrant. Again, that's just my recollection from years back.

One more question, I am curious about if anyone knows. Can a private investigator, or even an average joe, do the same thing, legally? Could I, for example, place a GPS tracking device on my ex-wife's car, and then later use those results in court? (I am not, nor do I have any intention of, doing this!)

If you placed the device on her property without her permission, that would be trespass (Search warrants are essentially govt. authorized trespass). For that, you could be liable to criminal charges and/or civil suit. At the same time, I believe that there is no general exclusionary rule for illegally gained evidence in the State of Maryland but that would vary from state to state. [Note: There is a specific statute excluding the use of certain recordings in both civil and criminal trial.]

I stand corrected. However, I'll agree I think the decision is wrong and I'm almost betting that if and when it gets appealed or reviewed by the Supreme Court it will be reversed. I agree with them that delivery men and mail men can use the driveway but it doesn't mean they can tamper with other property while they are delivering. No different then people who put up the "No Trespass" signs. In the eyes of the court the "No Trespass" sign has no weight if whoever is on the property has a legal reason for being there, ie; police investigating a crime or wanting to speak with the home owner, or mail delivery.

The Supreme Court has ruled that no one not even police can walk onto someones property and take their trash, however if the trash has been put out at the curb then it's considered abandoned property and can be taken. Also just because your car is in a public parking lot does not give police permission to attach anything (GPS or listening device) to it without the owners permission or warrant.

But the Ninth Circuit doesn’t make precedent for the whole country, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia recently ruled that extended tracking via GPS requires a warrant. But, since conflicting precedent has now been set on the West Coast, this issue is bound for the Supreme Court. Hopefully, they’ll side with the rights of the people.

First, couldn't read the article b/c the link did not work at work. As to some of the other stuff:



As I recall my 4th Amendment cases, cars are treated slightly differently. If an officer has a articulable suspicion you are hiding something in your trunk, but does not have the authority to impound the vehicle, they can search your trunk b/c otherwise you could drive off and destroy the evidence before a warrant could be obtained. If on the other hand they can impound the car and secure it, they can't search it without first getting a warrant. Again, that's just my recollection from years back.



If you placed the device on her property without her permission, that would be trespass (Search warrants are essentially govt. authorized trespass). For that, you could be liable to criminal charges and/or civil suit. At the same time, I believe that there is no general exclusionary rule for illegally gained evidence in the State of Maryland but that would vary from state to state. [Note: There is a specific statute excluding the use of certain recordings in both civil and criminal trial.]

Your first part is somewhat correct. It can be done but to answer both points you brought up the police will at some point, most likely in court, have to prove exigent circumstances. Meaning that if they waited for a warrant the evidence would have been lost or destroyed. So stopping a vehicle and smelling marijuana but not finding it on the drivers person or inside the car might give some reason to belive it's in the trunk and the search might be valid. But it doesn't mean police can pull cars over at will and search the trunk of the car.

and.. you are correct in regards to the rule. If the Supreme Court feels the police violated the rights of the citizen all evidence at the point where the officer violated the rights and after is illegally obtained evidence and will be thrown out.

I would suspect after the Supreme Court hears the case they should and hopefully will error on the side of caution for the public and their rights and rule that the police violated the citizens rights when they placed the device on the suspects car with out a warrant. Why? The car was in the driveway, not moving, and parked. The police could have had someone watching the vehicle while another officer got the warrant. I imagine the police had been following him or others for weeks or months and couldn't find the crop so they decided to plant a tracking device on the vehicle to locate it. Being on the guys property is not an issue but planting the device should be looked at as trespassing on the owners property/vehicle with out permission. I guarentee there would be some fire if a citizen decides to plant a tracking device on police cars with out permission.

Perhaps the guy should sue the department for stalking. lol. cause in Virginia I have heard of ex-spouses getting nailed by police for doing the same thing.

Just read the opinion. Talk about some tortured use of "expectation of privacy". According to the Court, b/c his property wasn't gated and/or didn't have no Trespassing signs, he had no expectation of privacy.

Sure, I expect that passers by may look on my property and see what I have left lying about. I do not expect and would vehemently protest passers-by entering my property and taking a closer look at things. I certainly do not expect the passing public to tamper with anything on my property.

Then there was the "no expectation of privacy as to the exterior of his car" issue. Again, those things plainly visible without inspection, i.e. the paint job, the rims, things in plain view on the roof/bed (but not stuff inside closed containers). On the other hand, I certainly expect that, if I hid something in a difficult to access area of the undercarriage (for whatever reason I chose to do so), I have a certain level of privacy to the undercarriage of my car. Again, not absolute, but enough such that I would protest anyone from crawling under the car to perform an inspection of its undercarriage.

Again, I think placing the device anywhere on my property w/out my permission constitutes a trespass, and, as such, requires a court order or exigent circumstances. As for the information gained from such a lawfully placed device, that's fair game and, again in my opinion, admissible.

Just read the opinion. Talk about some tortured use of "expectation of privacy". According to the Court, b/c his property wasn't gated and/or didn't have no Trespassing signs, he had no expectation of privacy.

Sure, I expect that passers by may look on my property and see what I have left lying about. I do not expect and would vehemently protest passers-by entering my property and taking a closer look at things. I certainly do not expect the passing public to tamper with anything on my property.

Then there was the "no expectation of privacy as to the exterior of his car" issue. Again, those things plainly visible without inspection, i.e. the paint job, the rims, things in plain view on the roof/bed (but not stuff inside closed containers). On the other hand, I certainly expect that, if I hid something in a difficult to access area of the undercarriage (for whatever reason I chose to do so), I have a certain level of privacy to the undercarriage of my car. Again, not absolute, but enough such that I would protest anyone from crawling under the car to perform an inspection of its undercarriage.

Again, I think placing the device anywhere on my property w/out my permission constitutes a trespass, and, as such, requires a court order or exigent circumstances. As for the information gained from such a lawfully placed device, that's fair game and, again in my opinion, admissible.

Well, that's all I was sayin'. (of course you added your usual 240 words)

Another lawsuit has been filed on this. Interesting bit on this one:

The guy takes his car in, the mechanic finds - and removes it ...
They weren't sure what it was, but Afifi had the mechanic remove it and a friend posted photos of it online to see whether anyone could identify it. Two days later, Afifi says, agents wearing bullet-proof vests pulled him over as he drove away from his apartment in San Jose, Calif., and demanded their property back.

Looks like the Supreme Court ruled, and imo ruled correctly:

Supreme Court: Warrant Needed For GPS Tracking « CBS Baltimore (http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2012/01/23/supreme-court-warrant-needed-for-gps-tracking/)

and in fact the wikipedia on the case makes it look like all 9 justices concurred in one form or another.