Does the government recognize any expectations of privacy anymore?
A couple of years ago someone on “that other blog” called me an authoritarian. If that is someone that believes in the rule of law, that the consent of the governed permits that authority over us and that we as citizens are required to follow the rules and obey the law, then yes, I guess I am. But we as citizens should always be vigilant in monitoring that authority, to keep it honest and keep it limited only to what we allow it to do. A blind unfettered faith in the government is a recipe for disaster and not in keeping with our spirit of a limited government.
The Fourth Amendment, part of the Bill Of Rights states:
The Fourth Amendment (Amendment IV) to the United States Constitution is the part of the Bill of Rights which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures. The amendment specifically also requires search and arrest warrants be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause. It was adopted as a response to the abuse of the writ of assistance, which is a type of general search warrant, in the American Revolution. Search and arrest should be limited in scope according to specific information supplied to the issuing court, usually by a law enforcement officer, who has sworn by it.
Essentially it says that the police need something first, probable cause, a reasonable suspicion based on articulated facts, something tangible that points to a commission or a crime, even if it is something in plain sight that they viewed from a place where they had a lawful right to be, but no fishing expeditions. We do not allow them to stop cars or people just to shake the tree to see what falls out. People and their possessions are protected by the Fourth Amendment, domiciles (a man’s home is his castle) and vehicles (although less protected due to their mobility) are also covered.
And even though police surveillance and detection methods have evolved (camera’s, phone lines, recorders, GPS, satelites) the rules have not changed and protections have remained in place, for now:
Government agents can sneak onto your property in the middle of the night, put a GPS device on the bottom of your car and keep track of everywhere you go. This doesn’t violate your Fourth Amendment rights, because you do not have any reasonable expectation of privacy in your own driveway — and no reasonable expectation that the government isn’t tracking your movements.
That is the bizarre — and scary — rule that now applies in California and eight other Western states. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which covers this vast jurisdiction, recently decided the government can monitor you in this way virtually anytime it wants — with no need for a search warrant.
First off, how is it possible that the Ninth Circuit court (the most overturned judicial body in the history of jurisprudence) continually and consistently gets everything wrong? Even here, where the dissenting judge (a conservative) blasts his fellow judges for turning our nation into a totalitarian regime.
There are two issues here, where you do and do not have an expectation of privacy (where you are protected and where you are not),and does the government have the authority (devoid of any proof to substantiate) to GPS your vehicle, to track everywhere you go, just to see where it might lead?
Before we continue, it should be pointed out that all these landmark police action cases (yes, this will go to the Supreme Court so we can call it landmark) all start out with scumbags as defendants. There is no doubt that Juan Pineda-Moreno was dirty. Guys like Miranda, total jerk offs, and it is hard to feel sorry for losers like these, but their constitutional protections are no less applicable here, the understanding being that if protections are not afforded to all, then nobody has them.
First, the expectation of privacy issue. Being that the car was parked in plain view but on a private driveway on private property, I would say that it does apply. If you have to trespass to access the car, then yes, there is a certain level of expectation here, and if the car was say parked in front of the house but on the street, a place where everyone has a legal right to be, then that would be a whole different kettle of fish, so here I think the court got it wrong, with the clear acknowledgment that case law over the years has always allowed police a certain level of subterfuge (they can lie to you and tell you things that are not true).
The other issue is the GPS:
The court went on to make a second terrible decision about privacy: that once a GPS device has been planted, the government is free to use it to track people without getting a warrant. There is a major battle under way in the federal and state courts over this issue, and the stakes are high. After all, if government agents can track people with secretly planted GPS devices virtually anytime they want, without having to go to a court for a warrant, we are one step closer to a classic police state — with technology taking on the role of the KGB or the East German Stasi.
Here, I agree as well. I like the use of GPS devices. They are part and parcel to all other forms of surveillance (telephoto lenses, wire taps, video cams) as long as they are done within the lawful constraints provided. You can’t set up a video cam in someone’s house or tap their phone unless you have some probable cause that a crime has been committed and you get a lawful warrant from a judge. If all these bars are lawfully navigated then sure, plant that GPS and let the dirtbag lead you right to his marijuana fields. But in this case, they had a suspicion (whatever the hell that means) and without doing any other police work to confirm that suspicion, they planted the GPS device, hoping that it would lead them to pay dirt. But let’s assume for a moment that this guy was clean, some vindictive girlfriend makes stuff up to the police because he was banging her sister, the GPS device gets planted and the police, for a certain period of time, follow him around where ever he goes. After a week or so nothing pans out so they break it off, never telling the poor guy btw that he was being followed. Was any of his rights been violated?
Plenty of liberals have objected to this kind of spying, but it is the conservative Chief Judge Kozinski who has done so most passionately.
We have not heard the last of this issue, but on it’s face, this seems smarmy to be, it is lazy police work and not in keeping with the spirit of the Fourth Amendment, that the rights of the people can only be broached under very limited conditions and not at the whims of mere suspicion.
Breakin' the Law, Breakin' the Law!
Regarding crime, investigation, law, and morons who can't behave themselves.