Private property....or not?

[timesjoke]

http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/08/27/oregon.gps.surveillance/index.html?hpt=T1

 

(CNN) -- Law enforcement officers may secretly place a GPS device on a person's car without seeking a warrant from a judge, according to a recent federal appeals court ruling in California.

 

Drug Enforcement Administration agents in Oregon in 2007 surreptitiously attached a GPS to the silver Jeep owned by Juan Pineda-Moreno, whom they suspected of growing marijuana, according to court papers.

 

When Pineda-Moreno was arrested and charged, one piece of evidence was the GPS data, including the longitude and latitude of where the Jeep was driven, and how long it stayed. Prosecutors asserted the Jeep had been driven several times to remote rural locations where agents discovered marijuana being grown, court documents show.

 

Pineda-Moreno eventually pleaded guilty to conspiracy to grow marijuana, and is serving a 51-month sentence, according to his lawyer.

 

But he appealed on the grounds that sneaking onto a person's driveway and secretly tracking their car violates a person's reasonable expectation of privacy.

 

"They went onto the property several times in the middle of the night without his knowledge and without his permission," said his lawyer, Harrison Latto.

 

The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the appeal twice -- in January of this year by a three-judge panel, and then again by the full court earlier this month. The judges who affirmed Pineda-Moreno's conviction did so without comment.

 

Latto says the Ninth Circuit decision means law enforcement can place trackers on cars, without seeking a court's permission, in the nine western states the California-based circuit covers.

 

The ruling likely won't be the end of the matter. A federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., arrived at a different conclusion in similar case, saying officers who attached a GPS to the car of a suspected drug dealer should have sought a warrant.

 

Experts say the issue could eventually reach the U.S. Supreme Court.

 

One of the dissenting judges in Pineda-Moreno's case, Chief Judge Alex Kozinski, said the defendant's driveway was private and that the decision would allow police to use tactics he called "creepy" and "underhanded."

 

"The vast majority of the 60 million people living in the Ninth Circuit will see their privacy materially diminished by the panel's ruling," Kozinksi wrote in his dissent.

 

"I think it is Orwellian," said Marc Rotenberg, executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, which advocates for privacy rights.

 

"If the courts allow the police to gather up this information without a warrant," he said, "the police could place a tracking device on any individual's car -- without having to ever justify the reason they did that."

 

But supporters of the decision see the GPS trackers as a law enforcement tool that is no more intrusive than other means of surveillance, such as visually following a person, that do not require a court's approval.

 

"You left place A, at this time, you went to place B, you took this street -- that information can be gleaned in a variety of ways," said David Rivkin, a former Justice Department attorney. "It can be old surveillance, by tailing you unbeknownst to you; it could be a GPS."

 

He says that a person cannot automatically expect privacy just because something is on private property.

 

"You have to take measures -- to build a fence, to put the car in the garage" or post a no-trespassing sign, he said. "If you don't do that, you're not going to get the privacy."

 

 

 

 

I would not have as much against this if the tracking devices were put on the vehicle while it was in a public place, but if the law enforcement officers have to tresspass on private property to attach this device on the vehicle, to me that should not be allowed.

 

 

Granted, the general rule of tresspass is without a fence and closed gate, there is an "assumption" that visitors are welcome, and I partly agree, so under that assumption, the owners of the property feel it is reasonable for people to visit on a social setting. I do not believe it can be assumed that the lack of a fence with a closed gate means you welcome the public to do whatever they want to do while on your property like swim in your pool or use your lawnmower.

 

I believe a reasonable person would understand that the property owner in most cases does not invite police officers to install tracking devices on their vehicles. A reasonable possition is to believe the activity is not wanted so to force that action on the owner should require a Judge's permission.

[wez]

 

 

I would not have as much against this if the tracking devices were put on the vehicle while it was in a public place, but if the law enforcement officers have to tresspass on private property to attach this device on the vehicle, to me that should not be allowed.

 

 

The vehicle itself is private property even if it is parked in a public place. At minimum they should have a got a warrant just like they would need one to tap someones phone.

 

That said.. I'm more worried about a police state where it's ok to invade peoples privacy even at the ok of a judge than I am people growing, selling, and smoking MJ..

[ImWithStupid]

 

 

I would not have as much against this if the tracking devices were put on the vehicle while it was in a public place, but if the law enforcement officers have to tresspass on private property to attach this device on the vehicle, to me that should not be allowed.

 

 

Granted, the general rule of tresspass is without a fence and closed gate, there is an "assumption" that visitors are welcome, and I partly agree, so under that assumption, the owners of the property feel it is reasonable for people to visit on a social setting. I do not believe it can be assumed that the lack of a fence with a closed gate means you welcome the public to do whatever they want to do while on your property like swim in your pool or use your lawnmower.

 

I believe a reasonable person would understand that the property owner in most cases does not invite police officers to install tracking devices on their vehicles. A reasonable possition is to believe the activity is not wanted so to force that action on the owner should require a Judge's permission.

 

I know that our local LE agencies operate under the rule that the device needs to be placed on the vehicle while parked in the public, but I would argue, and it has been upheld, that LE is allowed to enter the normal "curtilage" which included driveways and walkways to a residence, and not be a rights violation. i.e. If I have to walk past a window on your porch to knock on your door and see you have pot plants growing in your living room, it's not invading your privacy.

 

A reasonable person also understand that a property owner does not invite a Sheriff's Deputy to serve you law suit or divorce papers, but they aren't invading your privacy to walk up to your door to do that either.

[ImWithStupid]

I would not have as much against this if the tracking devices were put on the vehicle while it was in a public place, but if the law enforcement officers have to tresspass on private property to attach this device on the vehicle, to me that should not be allowed.

 

 

The vehicle itself is private property even if it is parked in a public place. At minimum they should have a got a warrant just like they would need one to tap someones phone.

 

 

There is no expectation of privacy to the exterior of your vehicle.

[wez]

 

There is no expectation of privacy to the exterior of your vehicle.

 

I expect people not to f ck with the exterior of my vehicle and I'm sure I'm not alone.

 

Then I'm sure you wont mind when I decide to use your windshield as a toilet.. hahahaha

[eddo]

yeah, I'm not thinking this is a good idea.

 

get a warrant, and I am ok with it. Without a warrant? not good.

 

I would rank it under illegal search and seizure- they are searching your location without your permission.

 

I'll have to think on this some more- but for now- no thanks.

[timesjoke]

 

I know that our local LE agencies operate under the rule that the device needs to be placed on the vehicle while parked in the public, but I would argue, and it has been upheld, that LE is allowed to enter the normal "curtilage" which included driveways and walkways to a residence, and not be a rights violation. i.e.

 

I believe the "intent" is to let the officer do what any normal citizen would do and to have the same freedoms a normal citizen would have in "visiting" the person and residence.

 

I don't believe installing tracking devices on private property would fall under that description.

 

 

If I have to walk past a window on your porch to knock on your door and see you have pot plants growing in your living room, it's not invading your privacy.

 

But even with that example you could not kick down the door to confiscate what you believed to be a pot plant, you can use your observations and assumptions as the basis for the search warrant and the Judge will almost always accept that in the example your giving, but I have also seen many cases where even those observations from a window did not always give the officer an automatic search warrant.

 

A reasonable person also understand that a property owner does not invite a Sheriff's Deputy to serve you law suit or divorce papers, but they aren't invading your privacy to walk up to your door to do that either.

 

But are they not operating under the power of the courts while delivering those court documents?

[ImWithStupid]

I know that our local LE agencies operate under the rule that the device needs to be placed on the vehicle while parked in the public, but I would argue, and it has been upheld, that LE is allowed to enter the normal "curtilage" which included driveways and walkways to a residence, and not be a rights violation. i.e.

 

I believe the "intent" is to let the officer do what any normal citizen would do and to have the same freedoms a normal citizen would have in "visiting" the person and residence.

 

I don't believe installing tracking devices on private property would fall under that description.

 

 

If I have to walk past a window on your porch to knock on your door and see you have pot plants growing in your living room, it's not invading your privacy.

 

But even with that example you could not kick down the door to confiscate what you believed to be a pot plant, you can use your observations and assumptions as the basis for the search warrant and the Judge will almost always accept that in the example your giving, but I have also seen many cases where even those observations from a window did not always give the officer an automatic search warrant.

 

A reasonable person also understand that a property owner does not invite a Sheriff's Deputy to serve you law suit or divorce papers, but they aren't invading your privacy to walk up to your door to do that either.

 

But are they not operating under the power of the courts while delivering those court documents?

 

Really? Do we have to do this?

 

OK. I walk past your window and see you snorting what appears to be a controlled substance. I can kick down your door.

 

Next. No they are not operating under the "power of the courts". First, not all papers served are from the court or have been filed with the court and a could be a paper from an attorney, landlord, etc... Second serving papers from the court does not give law enforcement some special power to circumvent somebody's rights, what so ever.

[hugo]

Law officers are certainly allowed to trail suspects without a warrant. All this does is make it easier and saves on resources. I see no problem with it.

[ImWithStupid]

Law officers are certainly allowed to trail suspects without a warrant. All this does is make it easier and saves on resources. I see no problem with it.

 

Exactly. No different than following someone with traffic cams or an UAV.

[atlantic]

I agree with Hugo.

[timesjoke]

 

Really? Do we have to do this?

 

I guess you do, lol.

 

 

 

OK. I walk past your window and see you snorting what appears to be a controlled substance. I can kick down your door.

 

So you have to change the scenario to try and argue with me?

 

In your first example you saw what you believed to be an illegal item but no visual of people or the destruction of evidence, and there is the difference.

 

Under the belief that evidence is being destroyed you can force entry to secure that evidence but that was not what you described in your first coment and under that first example you "count not" have entered the dwelling without a warrant.

 

Instead of always trying to one-up me, why not just admit that the police are supposed to have limits on their power?

 

 

 

Next. No they are not operating under the "power of the courts". First, not all papers served are from the court or have been filed with the court and a could be a paper from an attorney, landlord, etc... Second serving papers from the court does not give law enforcement some special power to circumvent somebody's rights, what so ever.

 

Actually your again trying to change your example.....what did you say?

 

" to serve you law suit or divorce papers"

 

Law enforcement is compelled to serve legal court papers, they are allowed to charge for that duty but they cannot refuse to serve them because it is a function of the Courts to gurantee service. While your delivering a courts summons ect...your functioning under the umbrella of the courts, depending on the State, this even allows the officer to tresspass on private property and other abilities that under any other situation he could not do.

 

 

Don't let IWS fool you guys, law enforcement would not be doing anything they did not have to do, and the entity that forces them to do it is the courts.

 

 

 

Now, that is not to say they are the "only" people doing this, professional process servers do exist and these guys make very good money, and they also exist because of the courts and how provable service is a requirement of the legal system. Without being able to prove delivery, you could never hold anyone accountable for refusing to appear or following other Court orders.