Government Tracking
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. (Read about one man’s efforts to escape the surveillance state.)
It is a dangerous decision - one that, as the dissenting judges warned, could turn America into the sort of totalitarian state imagined by George Orwell. It is particularly offensive because the judges added insult to injury with some shocking class bias: the little personal privacy that still exists, the court suggested, should belong mainly to the rich.
If we connect the dots with the national health care database and fed powers to access financial accounts without probable cause, it does appear reasonable to think that our freedoms are coming to an end.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 25, 2010 at 0757 hrs
Once again, the 9th Circus proves to be THE most Leftist court in the US.
And clearly, “Leftism” is actually “Governing Class”-ism.
Posted by dad29 on August 25, 2010 at 0805 hrs
I wonder where the resident liberals around here will stand on this issue. They clearly believe that listening in on the phone calls of terror suspects is wrong… especially when it was done before 2009. Will they demand that their President and their Congress address the issue? Will they ignore it as long as Democrats are in power? Do they actually believe that tracking the unwashed bible thumpers and gun clingers is ok, but the ruling elite should be exempt?
Two things are becoming obvious though… the Democrats have stopped being the party of civil rights, and our Constitutional rights are being besieged by the government and we are in danger of losing them.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 25, 2010 at 0858 hrs
I love how the knee-jerk reaction among the non-lawyers is to blame liberal activism. Since it’s a decision you don’t like, it must be those pesky liberal judicial activists who are to blame, right? True, the Ninth Circuit is rightly regarded as a left-leaning court. But when it comes to erosion of 4th amendment rights, conservative judges are usually to “blame” with their pro-law enforcement ideology. The Rehnquist court consistently scaled back privacy rights in the 4th amendment context in favor of law enforcement and evolving law enforcement technologies. I could cite a dozen different opinions from Rehnquist, Scalia and your other heroes with dissents from all the usual “liberal” justices you despise, but you wouldn’t read them and would just stick to your “liberal activism” response. Here, Judge O’Scannlain was a Reagan appointee and I believe even ran for Congress as a Republican at one point early in his career. Judge Smith was a George W appointee and Wolle was also a Reagan appointee. What a terrible liberal decision, indeed!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 25, 2010 at 0903 hrs
And, for the record, I’m not speaking about the wisdom of the decision in my comments above. Personally, I think its a bad decision and I agree with Judge Kozinki’s dissent (who was joined by several “liberal” members of the 9th Circuit, appointed by Clinton and, horror of horrors, Carter). I’m only speaking to the mindless charge of liberal activism that always follows on this and other right-wing blogs. Believe it or not, not everything is black and white and not everything you believe in is protected by one side of the political spectrum; nor is everything you agree with opposed by the other side.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 25, 2010 at 0911 hrs
Sons of Liberty—You do understand, don’t you, that the obvious answer to your question lies in what is required by the 4th amendment: a warrant. I don’t know of any liberal who doesn’t think we should be listening in on terror suspect’s calls, so long as there actually is a reason for such a wiretap and that reason is established under the rule of law and not by executive fiat.
As for your other question, Yes, tracking the unwashed bible thumpers and gun nuts is ok, when there is a reason to do so and the police have a warrant. Nothing wrong with GPS with a warrant. And, of course, its also ok to track/search the elite—with a warrant. This shouldn’t be that difficult to understand.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 25, 2010 at 0936 hrs
The article isn’t clear about whether or not a warrant was obtained prior to attaching the tracking device (and using it). If there was one, I’m not sure this is any different than most other law enforcement techniques.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 25, 2010 at 0945 hrs
Wow, a rapid response.
#4 Change the subject and ignore the issue at question by showing that it’s really conservatives who are the problem
#5 Point out that the liberal side was actually in support of the issue that they ruled against. It’s just right wing chatter… nothing to see here.
#6 Blur the lines by ignoring the facts of this decision and implying that the decision and the liberal opinion both support your Constitutional rights.
All eyewash. There were no warrants. There was only cultural elitism, as Judge Kozinski pointed out. Constitutional rights aren’t just for Al-Queda supporters and rich folks you know… even if those rights are considered to be negative rights by the fella you call your president.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 25, 2010 at 0957 hrs
Talk about changing the subject. You somehow take this decision by conservative judges and use it to claim that it is really Obama and the liberals who don’t believe in Constitutional rights for anyone other than the elite (and, as you also fantasize, terrorists). As a con law prof with a more protective view of 4th amendment rights, I’m sure Obama would dissent along Kozinski on this one. Again, my point is that you and other conservatives use any perceived attack on constitutional rights as a way to attack “liberals,” because for some odd reason you assume objections to one amendment (2nd) shows their disdain for any other amendment. The truth is that “liberal” judges have done more to protect the 4th amendment—for ALL—than “conservative” judges. If you have evidence to the contrary, please let us know. You also use progressive’s protection of rights for one group (in this case, suspected terrorists) means that they must only care about that particular group, and somehow wouldn’t equally protect the same rights for other groups to whom you identify and support. The point for progressives is that constitutional rights don’t apply just when it’s easy to apply them and doesn’t risk offending the majority.
As for your last comment, if you’re an American, then Obama also is your President. Just as George W Bush was my President for 8 years.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 25, 2010 at 1015 hrs
Itinerant liberal here (don’t think I qualify as resident), simply echoing PJ12. Bad ruling.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 25, 2010 at 1120 hrs
I’m against warrantless searches and surveillance now as I was two years ago.
My question is, lots of you guys were fine with warrantless wiretappings (terror suspects!), but are you also OK with this development, too?
Posted by scott on August 25, 2010 at 1402 hrs
First, this is not a good ruling. Second sol, if conservatives/republicans are all for “protecting the constitution”, then why did bush approve of warrantless wire taps? Please take your rose colored conservative glasses off.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 25, 2010 at 1405 hrs
@lstw ... yet Democrats are oddly unconcerned with Barack’s continuation of President Bush’s policies on terrorism… oddly unconcerned about Barack’s support of the Patriot Act after they howled for so many years about President’s Bush’s use of the very same tools. Perhaps my glasses seem rose colored when viewed through the tint of your own. (By the way, Barack’s continuation of the policies of our former President are the one thing he seems to have gotten right)
@Scott Well, I’m glad you are as outraged at Barack as you were at President Bush. I’m sure you’ve posted scathing commentary on the subject on your own little blog. As for me, I have no issue with government listening to calls from foreign nationals known to be involved in terrorism. Using the same tools on them that we use to curb racketeering by the mafia is a smart way to go. Terrorism is racketeering of another sort, and they often use the same tactics used by organized crime. I assume that you are as against the RICO statutes as you are against the Patriot Act though. I agree with both.
Using those laws to track ordinary citizens and legal residents of the US would be wrong though. Laws are made for a specific reason… and both RICO and TPA are only applicable to a very narrow set of circumstances… and both require judicial oversight of the process. They just allow law enforcement to move as fast as the criminals and organized terrorists do.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 25, 2010 at 1425 hrs
I read liberal blogs every day who criticize the president for doing these things. Really.
FISA allowed law enforcement to begin wiretapping immediately and get the warrant after the fact. That’s pretty fast. And very few were ever denied. Still, Bush didn’t want to do that. Just went ahead without FISA warrants of any kind. And I know you love to parse your words carefully by saying “calls from foreign nationals known to be involved in terrorism” but the fact is American citizens can have their calls listened to without a warrant. That was, and still is, illegal and unconstitutional.
Posted by scott on August 25, 2010 at 1430 hrs
Bad ruling. Don’t much care for FISA or the Patriot act either…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 25, 2010 at 1438 hrs
but the fact is American citizens can have their calls listened to without a warrant.
Have they? Please show me.
The one thing I’ve had a great difficulty in getting from the left is a list of any rights that I lost under the Patriot Act… or even examples of specific infringements of the Constitution.
Simply saying that you believe it could be used in an illegal fashion is falling back on faith again. It hasn’t been used that way, and if it is, then those transgressions should be investigated and prosecuted. Fact is that I’ve still been unable to find any evidence that such a deviation has occurred…. and certainly nothing to prove to me that there is any large scale misuse of TPA. If you are aware of such things, please let us all in on the secret.
If we tossed aside laws simple because we believe that they might be misused, I suspect we’d have very little in the way of a legal system.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 25, 2010 at 1504 hrs
Have they? Please show me.
You know as well as I do that such surveillance isn’t a mater of public record. Nice dodge, though. It’s a fact requiring no examples to assert that American citizens can have their calls to or from suspects* tapped at any time, without warrant. It’s indisputable.
(*as designated by law enforcement, not a judge.)
It hasn’t been used that way, and if it is, then those transgressions should be investigated and prosecuted.
First, you don’t know that it hasn’t been used that way and it’s unreasonable to think that you (or anyone else) would know.
Posted by scott on August 25, 2010 at 1520 hrs
Hilarious that the lockstep culture warriors assume that we’re all equally willing to abandon our personal ethics if they go against the party line. Says a lot about the whole authoritarian versus nonauthoratarian theory. Some people choose their personal ethics based on what their leaders say. Some people choose their leaders based on what their personal ethics say.
In any event, I’m opposed to warrantless government surveillance regardless of which side is arguing in favor of it. I honestly don’t see how a person could flip their position on the issue based on which party happens to be in power. Maybe some of you can explain your sudden transformation into privacy advocates after years of defending policies that clearly pushed (and I would argue exceeded) the boundaries of 4th amendment exceptions. I’m kidding, of course. I know you won’t.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 25, 2010 at 1559 hrs
I honestly don’t see how a person could flip their position on the issue based on which party happens to be in power.
**thumbs up**
It happens all the time in American Politics, and I’m very tired of it.Have they? Please show me.
Brandon Mayfield. Here is a weak piece about it. I have read articles with more details that really upset me, but I thought that the Washington Post would get a little more credibility
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/10/AR2006031002027.html
Here is my question to you now that I have answered yours.
Show me a terrorist attack that has been thwarted by stomping on a US CITIZEN’S 4th amendment rights?Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 25, 2010 at 1719 hrs
[begin incendiary comment]
Well if it was a Muslim family living at the house I’m sure the Tea Partiers, GOP’ers, and Palin wet dreamers around here would love to allow the police to hop on to private property without a warrant and tag the cars with a GPS. Especially if it was within that invisible line marking how close Muslims are allowed to get to the WTC grounds!
[end incendiary comment]Examples of hypocrisy are virtually unlimited on both sides guys. So how about focusing on the merits of the fucking ruling instead of looking for a conspiracy everywhere?
The biggest flaw I see in the ruling is this distinction between gated and non-gated properties as being the difference between private and non-private. That’s totally illogical. It’s like saying if you leave your front door unlocked the police are allowed to walk in and search without a warrant. And we all know that’s not allowed. So what difference does a front yard or driveway make? I see this going down in flames at SCOTUS - perhaps even 9-0.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 25, 2010 at 1751 hrs
I wonder were Feingold and Johnson stand on this scary stuff. This is scary stuff.
This is scary stuff.
This is scary stuff.
This is scary stuff.
This is scary stuff.
This is scary stuff.
This is scary stuff.
This is scary stuff.
This is scary stuff.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 25, 2010 at 1819 hrs
So, how would the judges feel about average citizens placing tracking devices on cars in driveways, since there is after all, no reasonable expectation of privacy?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 25, 2010 at 2023 hrs
You know as well as I do that such surveillance isn’t a mater of public record. Nice dodge, though.
So let me get this straight… the Patriot Act has been abused but the proof is that all the records are secret… so there is no proof?? The proof is that there’s no proof… and you think that I am the one dodging?
Stunning logic there. Proof denies faith, eh?
@DRG Read the link. Clearly the poor guy got screwed by misidentified finger prints, but, as you said, the link to the Patriot act is weak. Hardly a smoking gun. Also, it seems that warrants were issued for the searches done by the FBI. No rights were violated… it was just a case of poor police work.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 25, 2010 at 2326 hrs
Seems like this is discrimitory against those who have to park in driveways as opposed to a garage. That’s basically what the 9th has ruled on in the past on other cases.
I have t say I am surprised this came from the 9th- but maybe they are becoming more conservative- they put a hold on gay marriage while the appeals go on.
I am afraid to see what is next. Since your mail box is out side, do the feds have the right to see what is mailed to you without a warrant?
This also seems to be a property rights argument. Where does the home end and start or is anything considered outside the foundation of the home considered to be open to the government without warrants? We already know garbage is not considered safe.Posted by Dan on August 26, 2010 at 0004 hrs
It does seem like the distinction between curtilage and open fields is on its way out. At this point I wouldn’t be surprised to see warrantless mailbox searches either. That nasty old liberal William Rehnquist and his court set us down this path with the garbage decision in CA v. Greenwood, and we’ve been losing ground (literally) ever since.
Aerial surveillance, co-occupant consent to search, container searches, “good faith” reliance on flawed warrants, lower reasonable suspicion standard, searching homes from outside by use of infrared heat sensors, higher standard required to recover damages after illegal searches, intrusive searches of vehicles on private property without reasonable suspicion, and dog searches were all products of the Rehnquist court. And those are just the cases that specifically dealt with real property and the 4th. The hits have kept on coming under the Roberts court, which make this whole “blame the liburls” thing even more retarded.
It seems that only cold-blooded people who live in windowless walk-ups with no driveway or yard have a reasonable expectation of privacy these days. And given the current make up of the court, we’re not even close to hitting bottom yet.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 26, 2010 at 0921 hrs
“...I’m glad you are as outraged at Barack as you were at President Bush.”
While not addressed to me, I’ll give my $0.02 anyway. Yes, infractions on our rights are terrible regardless of the party affiliation of the president. I do, however, believe that creating that theretofore inexistent power is more egregious than retaining it. Every president is loath to relinquish power on the grounds of precedent.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 26, 2010 at 1409 hrs
The loser bastard who stole her handbag is just the kind of idiot who probably fled to steal for decades. I'm glad he was caught. It is useless pile of dog shit.
Posted by translation services on September 15, 2010 at 0917 hrs
Total Entries: 19655
Total Comments: 129831
Most Recent Entry: 02/11/2012 08:28 pm
Most Recent Comment on: 02/11/2012 04:55 pm
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 57
Total anonymous users: 2
Most Recent Visitor on: 02/11/2012 09:13 pm
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).