Big Brother Alert -- Cops can GPS your Car w/out a Warrant. (how much, compared)
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.
I must have missed the seize part unless this seizure that you speak of is a figurative one. In the latter case, I don't see how surreptitiously attaching a device to your car constitutes an unreasonable search or seizure.
They have to take possession of your personal property without your knowledge or consent, and while they have possession of it, they attach a tracking device. If it were reasonable, they would surely be able to obtain a warrant to do this.
What part of your privacy is being abrogated by knowing where your car is at any given moment? Where is the expectation of privacy when you are driving on a public street, park on a public thoroughfare and as the court pointed out, observed parking even in a private garage? A GPS doesn't reveal what you have said, what you have written or what you possess.
As for what stops them from doing this to other pieces of personal property... well unless your home moves, I don't see what the point would be to place a tracking device on it.
Taking possession of your personal vehicle is a prerequisite for attaching the tracking device. The tracking device is just a surveillance device, in the same way that a bug would be a surveillance device.
So if, without your knowledge or consent, they took your briefcase and didn't open it but only attached a microphone to enable them to listen to your conversations, you think this would be lawful. I think every lawyer in this country would disagree with you.
The surveillance in this case clearly involves them taking possession of your personal vehicle to attach a surveillance device. If the seizure is reasonable, they should obtain a warrant to do so. Removing the judicial safeguard of a warrant allows people who are not criminals, who are not suspected of any crimes, to be tracked without their knowledge or consent because the police feel they might be of assistance. It is unreasonable search and seizure.
What part of your privacy is being abrogated by knowing where your car is at any given moment? Where is the expectation of privacy when you are driving on a public street, park on a public thoroughfare and as the court pointed out, observed parking even in a private garage? A GPS doesn't reveal what you have said, what you have written or what you possess.
As for what stops them from doing this to other pieces of personal property... well unless your home moves, I don't see what the point would be to place a tracking device on it.
I think you are missing my fundamental point... obviously, you don't have a privacy right when you are driving around... you can be tailed... your stops can be monitored, etc. I have NO problem with that. My issue is that the cops, at least in that circuit, can come to your driveway as you sleep, go under your car, and attach a gps device to your vehicle. To me, there is an expectation of privacy that the authorities cannot attach foreign devices to your vehicle without a warrant. What this means is that they can place the same type of surveillance device on ANY piece of your private property. They can attach a camera to your house to monitor when you leave and enter your house (that's a visible act)... they can attach a tiny gps device to your briefcase or purse... again, I have no problem with them doing this when it does not involve the integrity of your private property but this case just opens up police power unreasonably.
If the "government" wants to track the location of my car they are welcome to do so. If the tracker is a Private Investigator he will have a problem. If I were doing anything illegal I would not be using my own car and neither would any crook with a semi-functioning brain. I would “sweep my vehicle” and, if tagged, never use it for anything illegal. BTW - People should be aware that the “On Star” system already allows GPS Tracking of individual vehicles.
I figure this is just another “the government is tracking me” paranoia thread. If you use your vehicle on the public roads and your vehicle already has a traceable license plate adding an electronic bug only makes the task of tracking you easier but not any different from a legal point of view.
For one, OnStar does not have police power. Two, OnStar is an option that you can accept or decline. Three, people who opt for OnStar are implicitly aware that the system tracks their vehicle. Surely you recognize these as fundamentally different from the state tracking your vehicle without your knowlege or consent and without a warrant.
I think this discussion is a red herring... the bottom line for me is that if they can "seize" your vehicle and attach a gps without a warrant given the court's reasoning, what stops them from doing this to any piece of personal property that you own? Certainly, besides your home, your highest expectation of privacy is with respect to your vehicle.
The bottom line is that they can seize your vehicle and do any thing they want because they own it. If you really want to know how it works google the state owns your car. It has to do with legal wording that you agree to when you get a drivers license, and license the vehicle. Once the vehicle is licensed the state has a legal claim on it, they have already floated bonds attached to it, which makes them an owner. That is why they drill it thru your head that driving is a privilege. That is why their name is at the top of the title.
The state's areguments are reasonable. If no warrant is needed to track a car visually, none is needed to track it by another means. And it is not necessary to enter the car to attach it.
Years ago, the police used to ride around in 2-hour parking zones and put a chalk mark on the tread of car tires. Two hours later, they go back and if the chalk mark is still there, the car is given an overtime parking ticket. How is attaching a GPS any different from placing a chalk mark on the tire? In both cases, they are attaching something to the car, without entering the car, that enables them to gather information that could have been obtained by watching the car.
There could be a different problem, though. If the motorists only drives to places where it is legal to go, how can his itinerary be suspicion of a crime for which an additional search warrant can be issued? It's the second warrant that I would challenge, the one based on knowledge of where he had traveled with the GPS. If there was already a restraining order restricting his movements, then yes, where he goes can be evidence. But absent an order, a citizen can go wherever he pleases, without that by itself giving probable cause for an additional warrant.
The state's areguments are reasonable. If no warrant is needed to track a car visually, none is needed to track it by another means. And it is not necessary to enter the car to attach it.
Years ago, the police used to ride around in 2-hour parking zones and put a chalk mark on the tread of car tires. Two hours later, they go back and if the chalk mark is still there, the car is given an overtime parking ticket. How is attaching a GPS any different from placing a chalk mark on the tire? In both cases, they are attaching something to the car, without entering the car, that enables them to gather information that could have been obtained by watching the car.
There could be a different problem, though. If the motorists only drives to places where it is legal to go, how can his itinerary be suspicion of a crime for which an additional search warrant can be issued? It's the second warrant that I would challenge, the one based on knowledge of where he had traveled with the GPS. If there was already a restraining order restricting his movements, then yes, where he goes can be evidence. But absent an order, a citizen can go wherever he pleases, without that by itself giving probable cause for an additional warrant.
I just want to know when the first warrant was issued.
I think the real question will hing on whether this violates some privacy right. I suspect that when attached to a vehicle it does not. If the police want to tail your vehicle around with a squad car today, they need no warrant, so they aren't gathering any more information about your behavior than they already can.
The analogies are all flawed as they result in the police gathering information in a situation where you have a legal expectation of privacy.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
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.
