Government Asserting Right to Track People With GPS Until They Commit a Crime.

[INRM]

Back in 2001, there was a case involving a Washington D.C. nightclub owner by the name of Antoine Jones who was suspected of dealing cocaine. He was tracked for an entire month without a warrant via a GPS device attached to his vehicle. The information gathered from the vehicle was then used to create probable cause and obtain search warrants at a location where he had been. Upon executing the warrant, they found the drugs. He was convicted and sentenced to life-imprisonment

Upon appeal, the D.C. Court of Appeals overturned his conviction due to the fact that the GPS device attached to his car was done without warrant and violated his 4th Amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure.

The Department of Justice asked the Surpreme Court to reverse the D.C. Court of Appeal's ruling. The argument is that a person has no reasonable expectation of privacy in his movement from one place to another in a public setting.

This is absolutely outrageous! This ruling would gut the 4th Amendment. It totally blurs the line between what's inside (as in inside somebody's private property, a car), and what's outside (a person walking down the street) and would give the government a virtual blank check to spy on people whenever they please.

Does anybody else see how dangerous this is?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

This is absolutely outrageous! This ruling would gut the 4th Amendment. It totally blurs the line between what's inside (as in inside somebody's private property, a car), and what's outside (a person walking down the street) and would give the government a virtual blank check to spy on people whenever they please.

Not it's not. This is clearly NOT about searching inside a car without a warrant. It's about tracking the location of the entire car. That is quite definitely something about which there is no expectation of privacy. IN fact, driving your car on public roads is a state-regulated privilege. Your driving behavior can be monitored at any time.

 

[INRM]

Are you kidding me? You can't see something incredibly dangerous with the government asserting the right to put tracking devices on cars without a warrant based on probable cause?

You don't think this will be abused in all sorts of different ways?

 

[BobTheCoward]

Are you kidding me? You can't see something incredibly dangerous with the government asserting the right to put tracking devices on cars without a warrant based on probable cause?

You don't think this will be abused in all sorts of different ways?

You misrepresent what Joe said. You made a comment about this having something to do with the contents of the car. Joe correctly pointed out that it has nothing to do with the interior of the car. The bug is on the exterior. The information provided is data people have no expectation of privacy over.

Now you just posted wondering why he thinks its not incredibly dangerous. At no point in Joe's post did he comment on his acceptance of the concept as specified or in general.

 

[Ladewig]

So has the appellate court decision been overturned? Just because someone in the Justice Department is unhappy with a outcome and decides to appeal a reversal does not mean that the end of privacy is imminent.

I'd rather the police didn't do it, but I can listen to arguments for each side with wailing about the End of America as We Know It. If the police are watching drug dealing on a street corner and they see a car stop and buy drugs, then don't need a warrant to follow that car all over county for hours on end. At the end of the shift, they can even call for another car to take their place and continue following the car.

ETA:removed

 

[TragicMonkey]

Would there be any difference, in law, between planting a tracking device on a car and monitoring it via technology versus assigning a cop to stake out and follow the suspect? I'm pretty sure you don't need a warrant to assign a cop to tail someone. Why would you need one to do the same thing via machinery?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Are you kidding me? You can't see something incredibly dangerous with the government asserting the right to put tracking devices on cars without a warrant based on probable cause?

You don't think this will be abused in all sorts of different ways?

Maybe so and maybe not, but what it most definitely will not do is blur the distinction between what's inside and what's outside as you claimed in the OP.

In fact, I think the novel ruling was the one that found putting a GPS tracker on the outside of a car parked in a public place (obviously, the cops shouldn't be allowed to enter the man's garage to do this) without a warrant to be unconstitutional.

As Tragic Monkey points out, would you feel safer with having police put a human tail on your vehicle? It would cost a lot more but achieve the same end.

 

[sarge]

Would there be any difference, in law, between planting a tracking device on a car and monitoring it via technology versus assigning a cop to stake out and follow the suspect? I'm pretty sure you don't need a warrant to assign a cop to tail someone. Why would you need one to do the same thing via machinery?

I don't share the OPs concerns that this might signal the end of civil rights as we know them, but there might be a difference between tailing a suspect and planting a device on his personal property to achieve the same ends.

It is generally legal to physically listen in on a phone conversation without a warrant, and generally illegal to achieve the same result by employing a wire tap without a warrant.

I would come closer to agreement if you argued that law enforcement would be as justified in using unconnected automated surveilance (cameras, satelites, etc) as they would in physically tailing someone.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

It is generally legal to physically listen in on a phone conversation without a warrant, and generally illegal to achieve the same result by employing a wire tap without a warrant.

I think, though, the distinction isn't about tampering with someone's private property. (If so, warrantless wire taps would be legal as long as you get permission from the owners of the wires--the phone companies.) It's about where there is and is not a reasonable expectation of privacy.

I'd point out that it's legal for meter maids to put chalk marks on your tire to ascertain how long a car has been parked somewhere.

Again, I'm assuming the cops aren't breaking into your garage to plant the GPS tracker (and assuming the GPS tracker doesn't do something else like booby-trap your car or interfere with its functioning).

 

[sarge]

I think, though, the distinction isn't about tampering with someone's private property. (If so, warrantless wire taps would be legal as long as you get permission from the owners of the wires--the phone companies.) It's about where there is and is not a reasonable expectation of privacy.

I think there are (at least) two worrisome components: whether or not a person inside their car has a reasonable expectation of privacy and whether or not law enforcement can attach a tracking device to private property if the property is physically located in a public area.

I'm not much of a "slippery slope" guy, but I can see potential problems with allowing the police to physically attach a device to private property without first having demonstrated reasonable cause. I do not believe that an individual on public roads has a reasonable expectation to privacy about his commings and goings. I can see merit in the argument that there is a difference between physically following someone and placing a tracking device on their car.

I'd point out that it's legal for meter maids to put chalk marks on your tire to ascertain how long a car has been parked somewhere.

Again, I'm assuming the cops aren't breaking into your garage to plant the GPS tracker (and assuming the GPS tracker doesn't do something else like booby-trap your car or interfere with its functioning).

Would you feel differently if the device attached to the car was designed to pick up and record/forward the voices of the occupants of the vehicle, but worked only when the vehicle was in public and was attached only when the vehicle was in public?

 

[Ladewig]

It is generally legal to physically listen in on a phone conversation without a warrant, and generally illegal to achieve the same result by employing a wire tap without a warrant.

How can one physically listen to a phone conversation without a wire tap?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I think there are (at least) two worrisome components: whether or not a person inside their car has a reasonable expectation of privacy and whether or not law enforcement can attach a tracking device to private property if the property is physically located in a public area.

But again, contrary to INMR's fears, this case does nothing to blur the distinction between inside and outside the car.

Would you feel differently if the device attached to the car was designed to pick up and record/forward the voices of the occupants of the vehicle, but worked only when the vehicle was in public and was attached only when the vehicle was in public?

Yes, planting a bug inside a vehicle (to listen to conversations in a closed car) without a warrant would be legal. Even when police stop a car (a reasonable seizure), searching inside the car without permission or a warrant can only be done when there's probable cause.

But again, overturning the appellate court on this decision would do nothing to blur the distinction between these two different things.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

How can one physically listen to a phone conversation without a wire tap?

I think he meant listening to actual sound waves (using one of those eavesdropping mics with a parabolic reflector). Again, using those, the issue is whether or not there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. If you're in a public place (on the street, in a restaurant), they can listen to your conversations. If you left the windows open on your house, they can listen in. But I'm pretty sure courts have ruled against technology that might let them listen to conversations inside a closed house.

 

[Random]

I think, though, the distinction isn't about tampering with someone's private property. (If so, warrantless wire taps would be legal as long as you get permission from the owners of the wires--the phone companies.) It's about where there is and is not a reasonable expectation of privacy.

I'd point out that it's legal for meter maids to put chalk marks on your tire to ascertain how long a car has been parked somewhere.

Again, I'm assuming the cops aren't breaking into your garage to plant the GPS tracker (and assuming the GPS tracker doesn't do something else like booby-trap your car or interfere with its functioning).

The GPS tracker does interfere with the functioning of the car. If it has mass, it adds weight to the car, thus increasing the amount of fuel needed to travel in the car. The operator of the vehicle is subsidizing his own warrantless monitoring (if only very slightly) without his knowledge or consent.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

The GPS tracker does interfere with the functioning of the car. If it has mass, it adds weight to the car, thus increasing the amount of fuel needed to travel in the car. The operator of the vehicle is subsidizing his own warrantless monitoring (if only very slightly) without his knowledge or consent.

How about if I had "significantly interferes with"?

You could also argue that chalking a car tire adds weight to the vehicle--but that weight is insignificant. Even the added weight of the gps device would not measurably affect the vehicle's performance.

Anyway, I'm not aware of a challenge like that even being made. I was simply trying to point out that it would be different if the cops attached a device whose purpose and effect was to interfere with the car's performance (like cause the battery to drain so that the person needed to get a jump start, for example).

 

[Rougarou]

I think he meant listening to actual sound waves (using one of those eavesdropping mics with a parabolic reflector). Again, using those, the issue is whether or not there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. If you're in a public place (on the street, in a restaurant), they can listen to your conversations. If you left the windows open on your house, they can listen in. But I'm pretty sure courts have ruled against technology that might let them listen to conversations inside a closed house.

That's legal now? My understanding has always been that photographing in public was legal, but using sound amplifiers from a distance to hear a conversation was illegal.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

That's legal now? My understanding has always been that photographing in public was legal, but using sound amplifiers from a distance to hear a conversation was illegal.

[ETA: Is a parabolic reflector an amplifier? Aren't all microphones, in a way, amplifiers?]

I'm pretty sure that's not correct. What would the legal basis for that distinction be?

The case that showed the limits of this sort of thing was Kyllo v. US where thermal imaging was used to more or less see inside a house (at least enough to know that gro-lights were being used to grow marijuana based on huge hot spots). Using thermal imaging this way was ruled an unreasonable search. The case was decided based on the idea that entering the home (even if only through passive technology) was beyond a bright line drawn by the 4th Amendment.

Here is a case where microphone surveillance in a public place was upheld (despite there being a reasonable expectation of privacy):
Kee v. City of Rowlett Texas

Here's a case where microphone evidence was seen to violate due process because it comprise harrassment and stalking:
- H.E.S., Plaintiff-Respondent, v. J.C.S., Defendant-Appellant. - NJ Supreme Court (sort of complicated, because this issue came up after a domestic abuse trial was already set or started, I believe)

but most of these cases involve under-cover officers wearing a "wire", and mostly using microphones this way has been upheld.

Here's an interesting case:
People v. Camacho (CA Supreme Court)
When police answered a call for a violation of noise ordinance, they arrived at the address and found no excessive noise. However, they were able to see in an open window (and hear non-excessive sounds) that led to a cocaine bust. Seeing the defendant handling baggies of white powder was enough to allow the cops to enter (through a window) and arrest him.

 

[Rougarou]

JoeTheJuggler, the difference explained to me between a wire and an amplifier is that you have no expectation of audible privacy from someone who is next to you, but if you move away where no one can hear you, it would be an invasion of privacy to listen in with the help of an amplifier. I'll look for sources later when I have more time.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

JoeTheJuggler, the difference explained to me between a wire and an amplifier is that you have no expectation of audible privacy from someone who is next to you, but if you move away where no one can hear you, it would be an invasion of privacy to listen in with the help of an amplifier. I'll look for sources later when I have more time.

I agree that in general the principle is expectation of privacy.

I think you'd have a tough time distinguishing between a directional microphone, a mic with a parabolic reflector, and an "unamplified" microphone. (ETA: Just as I don't think you can distinguish between one camera lens and another.) It's not really about the technology, but about the expectation of privacy.

If you're out in public, you generally don't have that expectation. (Obviously a public restroom is another matter--perhaps more obvious if you consider taking photographs/video.)

ETA: And FWIW, the expectation of privacy is not equivalent to being aware you're being observed/listened to/photographed.

ETA: And I'm speaking primarily about Constitutional issues (esp. 4th Amendment). I don't think there's anything to prevent states from passing laws that might protect privacy beyond the degree afforded by the 4th Amendment.

 

[BobTheCoward]

I guess the next obvious question is

Has there ever been a precedent where information with no expectation of privacy was ruled protected by the 4th when that information is collected en masse?