Quote:
Originally Posted by txgolfer130
Absolutely not. And if SCOTUS doesn't agree then it just might be time to pressure to have some removed.
|
Well you better get a big can of Justice remover;
UNITED STATES V. KNOTTS, 460 U. S. 276 (1983)
JUSTICE REHNQUIST delivered the opinion of the Court.
Monitoring the beeper signals did not invade any legitimate expectation of privacy on respondent's part, and thus there was neither a "search" nor a "seizure" within the contemplation of the Fourth Amendment. The beeper surveillance amounted principally to following an automobile on public streets and highways. A person traveling in an automobile on public thoroughfares has no reasonable expectation of privacy in his movements. While respondent had the traditional expectation of privacy within a dwelling place insofar as his cabin was concerned, such expectation of privacy would not have extended to the visual observation from public places of the automobile arriving on his premises after leaving a public highway, or to movements of objects such as the chloroform container outside the cabin. The fact that the officers relied not only on visual surveillance, but also on the use of the beeper, does not alter the situation. Nothing in the Fourth Amendment prohibited the police from augmenting their sensory faculties with such enhancement as science and technology afforded them in this case. There is no indication that the beeper was used in any way to reveal information as to the movement of the chloroform container within the cabin, or in any
UNITED STATES V. KNOTTS, 460 U. S. 276 :: Volume 460 :: 1983 :: Full Text :: US Supreme Court Cases from Justia & Oyez
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
