Oceania, here we come!!!!?!

**shoi** · 08-25-10, 10:06 PM

Originally Posted by Toker

Hahahaha you people are too fucking easy. I'm just trolling. Oh lordy....

the thing is though i've seen more ridiculous things posted by people who weren't trolling...

**rock_lobster** · 08-25-10, 11:06 PM

Is it limited specifically to your driveway? What if my car is in my garage? I know it sounds petty, but so does bugging my vehicle without any accountability.

**triggerhappy2005** · 08-26-10, 12:25 AM

Originally Posted by Gumby

This should not be a Republican or Democrat issue. This should not be a left or right issue. This should be an American issue and as Americans, we should all stand up to this sort of blatant trampling of our constitutional rights. We live in a country where the law is pretty clear. Generally speaking, our laws support the philosophy that it is better for 100 guilty men to go free than for one single innocent person to be wrongfully convicted.

But it's the Republicans who always pull this shit.

**rock_lobster** · 08-26-10, 12:40 AM

Originally Posted by triggerhappy2005

But it's the Republicans who always pull this shit.

That's a strong word.

And, I think gumby meant, it shouldn't turn into a "There go those quief nugget republicans again infringing upon our rights", but moreso into a discussion of banding together to preserve our constitutional rights in tact.

**Red_Lizard2** · 08-26-10, 01:10 AM

Originally Posted by triggerhappy2005

But it's the Republicans who always pull this shit.

Except, isn't the 9th circuit known to lean more towards the left?

Guess it shouldn't be surprising, Police and Intelligence agencies always are trying to find ways to get more power. See FBI/CIA/etc. blaming the fact it is "too hard to get a wiretap" as the reason they weren't able (or had a better chance) to stop 9/11 from happening (them skipping the fact, they act like selfish brats, and they had enough information to GET ONE already).

**Kraker Jak** · 08-26-10, 01:55 AM

Sometimes...it just urkes me....people, listen....

The Fourth amendment of the constitution states,

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly descibing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized..."

Now let me break this down for you.

You have the irght to be secure in your person, house, papers, and effects.

now "House" has been broadly construted to include:
1) Structures used as residences, including those used on a temporary basis, like...lets say a hotel room
2) Buildings ATTACHED to the residence (garages)
3) buildings not PHYSICALLY attached to a residence that nevertheless are used for intimate activities of the home (like a shed)
4) the "curtilage" of the home, which is the land immediately surrounding and associated with the home, such as a backyard

Now, like the courts ruled, "reasonable expectation of privacy" is the exception to the rule. You DO NOT have a reasonable expectation of privacy to your muffler on your car...you do NOT have a reasonable expectation of privacy if you grow pot plants in your back yard. Some examples include open fields, areas of public access, open view, open smell, overflights, dog sniffs, VIN searches, and common areas

but what you guys are failing to understand, is placing the GPS on the bottom of the car is neither a SEARCH nor a SEIZURE or a violation of a REASONABLE expectation of privacy. If you read up on Katz v. United States 389 U.S. 347 (1967) you would understand this. In this case, federal officers, acting without a warrant, attached an electronic listening device to the outside of a telephone booth where the defendant engaged in a number of telephone conversations. The controlling legal test at the time for the determining whether police conduct violated the Fourth Amendment was known as the "TRESSPASS DOCTRINE. Under the trespass doctrine,t he Fourth Amendment did NOT apply in the apsence of PHYSICAL INTRUSION, a TRESSPASS ino a "constitutionally" protected area, such as your HOUSE!.

Therefore, this will stick, and god bless the United States

**Red_Lizard2** · 08-26-10, 01:57 AM

So, in other words, you are for this? (yet hate big government, hmmm...)

**Kraker Jak** · 08-26-10, 02:00 AM

Originally Posted by Red_Lizard2

So, in other words, you are for this? (yet hate big government, hmmm...)

OMFG....this has NOTHING to do with big government. TRUST ME when I say this. They are not going around putting GPS signals on random people just to watch them where they go, they have not, will not, and NEVER will do this.

What I AM all for, is being able to BUILD case against known drug cartels, and get as much information as you can prior to the arrest. This is called PROBABLE CAUSE, which is a relatively low form of evidence. but when the arrest is made, BEYOND a REASONABLE doubt must me met in order to make a conviction. So yes, I am ALL for the US government agents/officials being able to tail people, and find out, in this case, where the supply of illegal narcotics were coming from, without having to arrest him, and ask him nicely "pretty please mr man, tell us where your drugs are" (of course, this is after he has been read his miranda rights, clammed up, and now hires a rich ass lawyer, that gets him off, and he goes back out comitting the same crime)

It's called INVESTIGATIVE POLICE WORK!

**~~hawgballs~~** · 08-26-10, 07:02 AM

Originally Posted by Kraker Jak

but what you guys are failing to understand, is placing the GPS on the bottom of the car is neither a SEARCH nor a SEIZURE or a violation of a REASONABLE expectation of privacy. If you read up on Katz v. United States 389 U.S. 347 (1967) you would understand this. ........

I think not.......... and neither do other the courts.

Fortunately, other courts are coming to a different conclusion from the Ninth Circuit's - including the influential U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. That court ruled, also this month, that tracking for an extended period of time with GPS is an invasion of privacy that requires a warrant.

**Consultant** · 08-26-10, 07:36 AM

Is it illegal for an undercover cop to tail you and record your whereabouts and route without a warrant? (I don't know, I'm asking)

If the answer is no, then how is it different to do it electronically?

Is the issue the coming onto of private property? If you park in the street or they apply the tracking device while you are in the grocery store?

Is electronic tracking different than physical surveillance?