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.
Location: I currently exist only in a state of mind. one too complex for geographic location.
4,196 posts, read 5,824,975 times
Reputation: 670
Advertisements
um, no, but they are trespassing and tampering with your personal property. I invite anyone to try to put something like this on my car. the device would be smashed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rlchurch
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.
um, no, but they are trespassing and tampering with your personal property. I invite anyone to try to put something like this on my car. the device would be smashed.
If your cars is parked in an area that is public there is no trespass. The question of whether they have a right to attach a device to your property absent a court order seems a real issue. The earlier posted pointed out that police used to chalk tires, they current put parking tickets on your windshield. I can see that going either way depending upon the court.
I think it depends on how the device is attached. If they have to bolt it on, that is clearly altering your vehicle. Chalking tires and putting tickets on a car don't alter the vehicle in any way.
Location: I currently exist only in a state of mind. one too complex for geographic location.
4,196 posts, read 5,824,975 times
Reputation: 670
that's fine. they have the right to do it. I also have the right to smash the device with a hammer. it would be a waste of money for the government.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rlchurch
If your cars is parked in an area that is public there is no trespass. The question of whether they have a right to attach a device to your property absent a court order seems a real issue. The earlier posted pointed out that police used to chalk tires, they current put parking tickets on your windshield. I can see that going either way depending upon the court.
If your cars is parked in an area that is public there is no trespass. The question of whether they have a right to attach a device to your property absent a court order seems a real issue. The earlier posted pointed out that police used to chalk tires, they current put parking tickets on your windshield. I can see that going either way depending upon the court.
I think you make good points.
The issue of the expectation of privacy is a valid one. When you are traveling on public roads, how much expectation can you have? But my gut reaction is that there is a difference between chalking tires, and attaching devices to a vehicle. Chalk is by its very nature impermanent. A tracking device seems to much more invasive. The information it's going to provide to the police will be much more detailed. Yes, the police can follow you and surveil your activities without a warrant, and yet someone in authority has to determine that your value to an investigation does warrant the expenditure of such resources even if a legal warrant isn't sought or needed. The use of a tracking device on a vehicle greatly increases the level of surveillance, they now can track your every movement, without much expenditure of resources at all. So your relative value to an investigation doesn't have to be very much at all to merit such expenditure. Suddenly, the ability to surveil and track law-abiding citizens is greatly expanded. And that's a scary thought to me. Does that make sense?
The issue of the expectation of privacy is a valid one. When you are traveling on public roads, how much expectation can you have? But my gut reaction is that there is a difference between chalking tires, and attaching devices to a vehicle. Chalk is by its very nature impermanent. A tracking device seems to much more invasive. The information it's going to provide to the police will be much more detailed. Yes, the police can follow you and surveil your activities without a warrant, and yet someone in authority has to determine that your value to an investigation does warrant the expenditure of such resources even if a legal warrant isn't sought or needed. The use of a tracking device on a vehicle greatly increases the level of surveillance, they now can track your every movement, without much expenditure of resources at all. So your relative value to an investigation doesn't have to be very much at all to merit such expenditure. Suddenly, the ability to surveil and track law-abiding citizens is greatly expanded. And that's a scary thought to me. Does that make sense?
You point's valid, but I don't think it's a legal issue. I'd be happy with the state passing a law that required a warrant for this type of activity. I just don't see that a warrant would currently be required.
BTW the technology exists to track cars today without GPS devices. Your car creates a unique enough signature when crossing one of those wire loops in the road that control traffic lights and count cars, that you can differentiate among cars with those too.
If you've got an automated toll card in your car, they can track you with that.
You point's valid, but I don't think it's a legal issue. I'd be happy with the state passing a law that required a warrant for this type of activity. I just don't see that a warrant would currently be required.
BTW the technology exists to track cars today without GPS devices. Your car creates a unique enough signature when crossing one of those wire loops in the road that control traffic lights and count cars, that you can differentiate among cars with those too.
If you've got an automated toll card in your car, they can track you with that.
Yes, the technology exists to track cars, but a GPS device provides far more detail. The loop in the road says you passed this way at a certain time. The GPS device says you left your house at 7:35, that stopped at the local McDonalds drive-thru for 6.4 minutes, that you parked at the post office for 18.3 minutes, that you proceeded to a medical clinic where your car was parked for slightly over two hours, and that you then went to Wal-Mart. The loop in the road doesn't suggest to investigators that they should call the offices in the medical clinic to see what doctor you visited, or that since you went to Wal-Mart after seeing a doctor that you possibly had a prescription filled. The depth of the information, and what avenues of exploration are then opened up is where the violation of privacy starts. The fact that the GPS device seems so innocuous, is so inexpensive (when compared with the manpower and resources police would previously use) and easy, is what's concerning. Both methods require no warrant. But one method requires the police to have compelling reasons in order to justify the expense. And one method doesn't require compelling reasons of any sort, just suspicion. So opening the door wide to the method that doesn't require much judgment seems less reasonable when weighed against an individual's rights.
Yes, the technology exists to track cars, but a GPS device provides far more detail. The loop in the road says you passed this way at a certain time. The GPS device says you left your house at 7:35, that stopped at the local McDonalds drive-thru for 6.4 minutes, that you parked at the post office for 18.3 minutes, that you proceeded to a medical clinic where your car was parked for slightly over two hours, and that you then went to Wal-Mart. The loop in the road doesn't suggest to investigators that they should call the offices in the medical clinic to see what doctor you visited, or that since you went to Wal-Mart after seeing a doctor that you possibly had a prescription filled. The depth of the information, and what avenues of exploration are then opened up is where the violation of privacy starts. The fact that the GPS device seems so innocuous, is so inexpensive (when compared with the manpower and resources police would previously use) and easy, is what's concerning. Both methods require no warrant. But one method requires the police to have compelling reasons in order to justify the expense. And one method doesn't require compelling reasons of any sort, just suspicion. So opening the door wide to the method that doesn't require much judgment seems less reasonable when weighed against an individual's rights.
Again nothing there is something the police aren't fully empowered to collect today. Your argument is that GPS tracking is cheaper. That isn't a "rights" argument.
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.