NationStates Jolt Archive

Wisconsin court upholds GPS tracking by police


Wisconsin Court of Appeals it seems has lost their minds.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-ap-wi-gps-police,0,5890193.story

Retarded.

Attaching the device was not a violation, he wrote, because Sveum's driveway is a public place.

How is a driveway, assuming it is on privately owned property, a public place?

How is a driveway, assuming it is on privately owned property, a public place?

And how is attaching anything on someones car not at the very least vandalism? Am i allowed to stick bumper stickers on any car i see in their driveway?

How is a driveway, assuming it is on privately owned property, a public place?

I know that in PA, the state owns 16ft from the centerline of a road, maybe that's what they're going off of? The government also technically owns your property anyway, why else would you have to pay taxes?

I can't say that I'm surprised at this ruling. Just wait until the general public finds out that they can easily be tracked with their navigation systems and OnStar operators can disable their car at any given time under police orders.


"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." - von Goethe

As troubled as I am about the consequences of this ruling, I fear it is a correct one. The court is right, this isn't a constitutional violation.

How is a driveway, assuming it is on privately owned property, a public place?

That's....it's not exactly what they're saying here. It's not that the driveway was "private". What it means is, that it didn't give rise to a constitutional violation because his car was parked in view of the public, so the GPS tracker didn't give the police any more information than they could have gotten just through visual inspection alone.

What they're saying is, it's not a privacy violation because the car was never not in view of the public, so it didn't give the police any information they couldn't have gotten otherwise. That's the point.

And how is attaching anything on someones car not at the very least vandalism? Am i allowed to stick bumper stickers on any car i see in their driveway?

That is completely irrelevant to this matter. As your own source points out:

Sveum, 41, argued the tracking violated his Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure. He argued the device followed him into areas out of public view, such as his garage.

Was entering onto his property to attach the GPS trespassing? Yeah, maybe. Was attaching it to his car vandalism? Yeah, maybe.

But that's thoroughly irrelevant to the question before the Court. The Court here was not addressing whether the police trespassed on his property. It wasn't addressing whether they committed vandalism to his car. They were addressing whether Sveum's constitutional rights under the 4th amendment were violated. And they found, correctly in my opinion, that they were not.

The 4th amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. In this case, nothing got searched, and nothing got seized. They didn't search his car, they didn't seize his car. So no search or seizure took place. So his constitutional rights protecting against unreasonable search and/or seizure was not violated. No search or seizure, no rights violation.

His other argument was that the GPS gave away private information regarding his whereabouts. The Court also (again, properly in my opinion) disregarded this argument. The GPS didn't tell the police anything they couldn't have known through normal, legal surveillance.

If the police can physically, with their own two eyes, observe your car at the corner of 5th and Main Street without giving rise to a privacy violation, then it is equally not a privacy violation to observe you at the corner of 5th and Main Street through a GPS map. If the police can, with their own two eyes, watch him pull into his garage without giving rise to a privacy violation, then it is equally not a privacy violation to observe him pull into his garage through a GPS map.

Now, if the situation was different, and he had owned a large, many square acre expansive property, and the GPS told the police exactly where on the property the car was, that might have been different, because in that circumstance, they could not have gained that information through legal surveillance. But that's not what happened here. What happened here was that the police seized nothing, searched nothing, and gained no information that they could not have gained through other legal means. So no constitutional violation.

Did they perhaps commit a crime or two in placing the GPS unit? Sure, quite possibly. Is that in any way relevant to the question of whether his 4th amendment rights under the constitution were violated? No, not in the slightest.

What they're saying is, it's not a privacy violation because the car was never not in view of the public, so it didn't give the police any information they couldn't have gotten otherwise. That's the point.

The view being in public isnt the issue to me, its the fact of going on private property and physically attaching State property onto your private property. How is that any different then allowing the State to attach a random phone tap on a public phone? Even though the phone is always in public view and hearing, there is still an expectation of privacy.

Did they perhaps commit a crime or two in placing the GPS unit? Sure, quite possibly. Is that in any way relevant to the question of whether his 4th amendment rights under the constitution were violated? No, not in the slightest.

So how is this not considered as evidence illegally gained by committing a crime or two and disregarded as poisoned?

I wonder what will happen the first time a tinkerer finds one of these GPS trackers attached to his/her car, and takes it apart to harvest for projects. It's what I would do (I enjoy taking things apart). :D

Even though the device followed Sveum's car to private places, an officer tracking Sveum could have seen when his car entered or exited a garage, Lundsten reasoned.
But they didn't. "It's ok to say 'free weed at the police station' and arrest anyone that shows up because the officers could have followed them around and watched them buy weed."

The view being in public isnt the issue to me, its the fact of going on private property and physically attaching State property onto your private property. How is that any different then allowing the State to attach a random phone tap on a public phone? Even though the phone is always in public view and hearing, there is still an expectation of privacy.

Because the law makes a specific delineation here. The issue of phone booths was explicitly discussed in Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967). In that case, the Court held that an individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy in circumstances where a business has provided a service in such a way as to intend that its customers be allowed privacy. Note this case for that reason only really applies to phone booths, not the open air terminals where you can pick up a phone but still be surrounded by people. It's the act of enclosure that makes it private. So in your hpyothetical, if the phone was in "public hearing" there wouldn't be much expectation of privacy as anyone in the public, acting lawfully could still hear you. Katz dealt with booths, not open air phones.

In the same token, this individual could not argue that he had a reasonable expectation of privacy over the fact that his car was in a garage, as anyone standing on the street could see him pull in and out of the garage. If, standing legally, I can see/hear/smell (and this goes for dogs too) you, than what you do, say and smell like is not protected by privacy.

If you talk on your cellphone on a crowded street, guess what? You exposed that conversation to the public. Same as if you used an open air public telephone (telephone booths are a different story, that's why they enclose, so people can't hear you on them, they're specifically designed to give you privacy, if the public can hear, and it's reasonably known they could, no reasonable expectation)

So how is this not considered as evidence illegally gained by committing a crime or two and disregarded as poisoned?

Because the Fruit of the Poisonous Tree doctrine refers to evidence made inadmissable if it was obtained through a violation of the suspect's constitutional rights only. Not general criminal conduct.

The doctrine only applies if the evidence was obtained through violating someone's constitutional rights. That's the whole point of the argument. Arguing that the cops broke the law in general to do this may get the cops fired, reprimanded, maybe even arrested (providing no police immunity) but it won't do a damned bit of good to help this suspect. You have to prove your constitutional rights were violated in order to invoke the doctrine.

But they didn't. "It's ok to say 'free weed at the police station' and arrest anyone that shows up because the officers could have followed them around and watched them buy weed."

except, you know, those two things aren't at all the same. If he has no reasonable expectation of privacy, he has no reasonable expectation of privacy. Full stop.

except, you know, those two things aren't at all the same. If he has no reasonable expectation of privacy, he has no reasonable expectation of privacy. Full stop.

How can you argue with a straight face that you dont have an expectation of privacy from police sneaking into your garage in the middle of the night without a warrent and attaching a tracking device to your car?

In the same way a phonebooth is designed to protect my conversations in privacy, my home is designed to keep people from entering and attaching their property to mine without asking my permission.

Why not attach GPS devices to all the shoes on the doorstep too? After all, being on the outside doorstop means the sneakers are in view of public so its perfectly ok to tap them as well right?

How can you argue with a straight face that you dont have an expectation of privacy from police sneaking into your garage in the middle of the night without a warrent and attaching a tracking device to your car?

In the same way a phonebooth is designed to protect my conversations in privacy, my home is designed to keep people from entering and attaching their property to mine without asking my permission.

They had a warrant. But the argument is that they can "sneak" onto the driveway, which is apparently public property, without violating any rights, warrant or not. This is different, I guess, than entering a garage. They also placed it on the outside of the car, it seems, which I'd assume is another factor as to why this isn't a rights violation.

How can you argue with a straight face that you dont have an expectation of privacy from police sneaking into your garage in the middle of the night without a warrent and attaching a tracking device to your car?

I'm not arguing that. The fact that you think I am suggests to me that this conversation is probably above you. I suggest furthering your legal education before continuing.

Let me ask you three simple questions, ok?

1) Did the police search anything?

2) Did the police seize anything?

3) Did the GPS locator device tell them anything they couldn't have learned just by legally following him around?


If no to all 3 of these, what, exactly, is the constitutional rights violation? The constitution doesn't protect you from "police coming in your space and mucking with your shit." An "expectation of privacy" is a specific legal term of art that you are misusing, horribly. It has nothing to do with whether the police violated his privacy in installing the device and has to do with the question of whether the GPS device once installed gave the police any information that they couldn't have gotten otherwise.

That is the question, that is what I am addressing. Did the police learn anything from the GPS device that they couldn't have legally obtained otherwise. And the answer is no. So no privacy violation.

Going into the man's property may be illegal, but, again, not unconstitutional, since nothing got seized and nothing got searched.

They had a warrant. But the argument is that they can "sneak" onto the driveway, which is apparently public property, without violating any rights, warrant or not. This is different, I guess, than entering a garage. They also placed it on the outside of the car, it seems, which I'd assume is another factor as to why this isn't a rights violation.

A driveway is not public property, it is private property. If there is a stranger camping in your driveway, you have every legal right to call the police and have him removed.

Will they also fit a cd player for me?

They had a warrant. But the argument is that they can "sneak" onto the driveway, which is apparently public property, without violating any rights, warrant or not. This is different, I guess, than entering a garage. They also placed it on the outside of the car, it seems, which I'd assume is another factor as to why this isn't a rights violation.

*sigh* no no no no no. This has absolutely nothing to do with the argument in the article. Nothing at all. Just read what I am saying.

He claimed the GPS violated his right to privacy because it showed him entering his private garage. That he had an expectation of privacy in his garage. Remember, the whole point of this argument is to show, somehow that the GPS violated his constitutional rights. So he argued that it did so, by showing him in his private garage. The court found that it didn't because even though it was a private garage, the fact that he entered it was something someone in the public could see. So while the GPS did show him in his private garage, this wasn't a privacy violation because he didn't have any reasonable expectation of privacy regarding the fact that he was in his garage, because the garage could be seen from the street, and he could be seen pulling in and out of it.

This all has nothing, absolutely nothing to do with the police entering his property to install the GPS in the first place. Your constitutional rights are not violated by the police entering your property without a warrant. It may be illegal, it may well be trespassing, but it is not unconstitutional. What is unconstitutional is if the police seize something or search something.

The installation of the GPS was neither a search nor a seizure. They entered his property without a warrant, fine, that's trespassing. Not unconstitutional. Also totally irrelevant to the private/public discussion in the article. That has to do with whether the information that the GPS gave the police violated his privacy rights. It didn't, because it didn't tell them anything that someone viewing his garage from the public couldn't have learned.

Again, entering his property, installing the GPS, quite possibly illegal, but not unconstitutional. Only unreasonable searches and seizures are unconstitutional. Nothing got searched, and nothing got seized.

A driveway is not public property, it is private property. If there is a stranger camping in your driveway, you have every legal right to call the police and have him removed.

Attaching the device was not a violation, he wrote, because Sveum's driveway is a public place.

"We discern no privacy interest protected by the Fourth Amendment that is invaded when police attach a device to the outside of a vehicle, as long as the information obtained is the same as could be gained by the use of other techniques that do not require a warrant," he wrote.

It very well may be a public place, we have no idea what the specific rationale behind that is.

Going into the man's property may be illegal, but, again, not unconstitutional, since nothing got seized and nothing got searched.

Really? Is there no constitutional right preventing people from walking around in your house without your permission? Or am I misunderstanding something?

A driveway is not public property, it is private property. If there is a stranger camping in your driveway, you have every legal right to call the police and have him removed.

Let's bring this to another analogy. Let's say you have a meth lab in your garage. Totally sealed on all 4 sides and a roof garage. Let's say that one day a cop happens to be walking by your house, as you pull your car into your garage. You open the garage door to pull in. The cop, walking by, looks into your garage, and sees your meth lab. He promptly arrests you.

What constitutional right of privacy was violated? Your garage is private property yes, but it's viewable from the public.

Really? Is there no constitutional right preventing people from walking around in your house without your permission? Or am I misunderstanding something?

You're not misunderstanding something. Literally no, there is not. There is no constitutional right preventing people from walking around in your house without your permission.

There may be a whole shit ton of state laws preventing that, but you don't have a constitutional right protecting that. Your right only extends to people walking around and unreasonably searching and seizing stuff.

That's the whole point.

It very well may be a public place, we have no idea what the specific rationale behind that is.

the term "public place" when discussing privacy refers to things that can be viewed from the public.

You're not misunderstanding something. Literally no, there is not. There is no constitutional right preventing people from walking around in your house without your permission.


That is strange. Could it be argued that it's against the spirit of the constitution?

I'm not arguing that. The fact that you think I am suggests to me that this conversation is probably above you. I suggest furthering your legal education before continuing.

Let me ask you three simple questions, ok?

1) Did the police search anything?

2) Did the police seize anything?

3) Did the GPS locator device tell them anything they couldn't have learned just by legally following him around?


1] They had to search the car to find a secret and hidden place for the GPS locater. There is nothing inaccurate about the sentence, " The police searched for a spot to hide the GPS locater." I do not believe the term search is narrowly defined as nessesarily looking for something illegal.

2] You could argue that while the police were installing the GPS device they have in essence taken custody and seized the car in the commission of the GPS installation. IE they took complete control of the vehicle, controlled access and altered it to their specifications. Just because something was returned to the same place doesnt mean it wasnt seized.

3] We have no idea what the GPS locator could have told them or not told them. What if the guy decided to take a road trip to Canada? Does Wisconsin have the right to track him there as well? Or even into a neighbor State? Is Wisconsin turning off the tracking device when the person is outside of Wisconsin jurisdiction? If he lives in a gated community, which is in essence many square miles of private property, does the State of Wisconson also have the right to track him around his own private property? What if he visits one of his friends 1000 acre Wisconsin Ranches. Does the State have the right to follow him around there too?


If you could prove the State was tracking you on property outside of absolute public property its a complete violation of civil and constitutional rights.

And while im not a lawyer ive spent a considerable time furthering my legal education so dont be a condescending ass.( I got accepted to Syracuse Law School in 1990 and interned in a law office for 2.5 years but decided wisely Real Estate was a better return on my time and money) Thank you.

the term "public place" when discussing privacy refers to things that can be viewed from the public.

Ah....how does this work with, say, windows and such? For example, since you can see through a window into bla-de-bla's house while the blinds are open, it is thus legal to just poke around into that specific room of the house? Unless he closes the blinds, of course. If so, I have an awesome idea for a tv show that combines Simon Says, junkies and the local police.

It has nothing to do with whether the police violated his privacy in installing the device and has to do with the question of whether the GPS device once installed gave the police any information that they couldn't have gotten otherwise.
Again, this goes back to my "wrong" comparison, breaking the law in the first place should void the relevance of the collected evidence here like in every other case. They, effectively, bugged the car. The difference being this bug was a tracking device and not a listening/viewing device. I fail to see the difference. I don't see how "they would've known where you were if they were following you anyway" is any more arguable than "they would've known what you were saying if they had been standing at your door listening anyway." Especially given the decision by the court that they don't need warrants.

Ah....how does this work with, say, windows and such? For example, since you can see through a window into bla-de-bla's house while the blinds are open, it is thus legal to just poke around into that specific room of the house? Unless he closes the blinds, of course. If so, I have an awesome idea for a tv show that combines Simon Says, junkies and the local police.

If a Police officer (or anyone else, actually) can see someone inside a house committing a crime without poking around and investigating, that is considered "in plain sight" by the courts - no warrant is needed to then act on it. And since a crime has been committed, or alleged to be committed, in the house, the police can then search the house without a warrant - they have just cause.

Regarding trespassing laws, I don't know the details of Wisconsin's laws, but in most places walking on to a property is NOT a violation - provided you don't climb a safety fence or otherwise "break and enter". So walking into this man's driveway to place the tracker is not trespassing.

Likewise, vandalism generally requires damage to an item or building. Simply adding an item, like a GPS recorder with a magnetic back, wouldn't count.

Again, this goes back to my "wrong" comparison, breaking the law in the first place should void the relevance of the collected evidence here like in every other case.

and once again, it doesn't do that "in every other case", your instistance that it does not withstanding. The poisonous tree doctrine only works when there's an underlying constitutional rights violation.


They, effectively, bugged the car. The difference being this bug was a tracking device and not a listening/viewing device. I fail to see the difference.

Really? You don't understand that while you might have a reasonable expectation of privacy regarding things said in the car, but you don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy regarding where the car is when you drive it on public streets? You don't understand that cars don't come equipped with magic cloaking devices, and then when you drive down the road people can see you? You really don't see the difference here? And you admit this in public?

I don't see how "they would've known where you were if they were following you anyway" is any more arguable than "they would've known what you were saying if they had been standing at your door listening anyway."

Because they can legally follow you to their hearts' content. They can't legally stand on your stoop. You only have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the things you do/say if someone, acting legally, would not be able to see or hear you.

Which is the entire point here. Someone, acting totally legally, can see you drive your car. They can see you at the corner of 5th and Main. They can see you pull into your driveway. So you have absolutely no expectation of privacy over the location of your car on public roads because people, in the public, acting 100% legallycan see you on those public roads. You do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy regarding the fact that you pulled your car into the driveway if people, in the public, acting 100% legally, can see you pull your car into your driveway

You do have a reasonable expectation of privacy in things you say in the car. And if you haven't figured out exactly why that is, and I haven't been nearly as enlightening regarding my little 4th amendment lesson as I had hoped, perhaps you can listen along just one last time. Why do you have a reasonable expectation of privacy in things you say in your car? Because, now say it with me class, people, in the public, acting 100% legally can not hear you.

And since you can not legally stand in front of someone's door (we call that trespassing) and overhear someone talking inside, what people say inside their own home (unless they leave their window open and talk loudly enough for it to be heard from a publicly accessible place, which is a whole other can of worms) is protected. No legal way of hearing it, thus a reasonable expectation of privacy.

But perhaps you're confused and are under the impression that when you drive your car in public, people are obligated under the law not to look at you. Because that's the only way you might conflate these two things.

Ah....how does this work with, say, windows and such? For example, since you can see through a window into bla-de-bla's house while the blinds are open, it is thus legal to just poke around into that specific room of the house? Unless he closes the blinds, of course. If so, I have an awesome idea for a tv show that combines Simon Says, junkies and the local police.

what you're refering to is the "plain view" exception. If the police, standing where they are legally allowed to stand, and looking where they are legally allowed to look, can see evidence of a crime "in plain view", then no warrant is needed.

Now what you're asking is a bit odd, basically you're asking "gee, if I can see into his den standing outside on the street and in the window, can I walk into his house and search his den, since I can see it?"

Tricky question, I suppose, constitutionally, the answer would be "yes", as long as you don't look at anything you couldn't see from the street. Which I suppose would be sorta pointless.

1] They had to search the car to find a secret and hidden place for the GPS locater. There is nothing inaccurate about the sentence, " The police searched for a spot to hide the GPS locater." I do not believe the term search is narrowly defined as nessesarily looking for something illegal.

You'd be wrong. Search in the 4th amendment context defines a search for evidence.

2] You could argue that while the police were installing the GPS device they have in essence taken custody and seized the car in the commission of the GPS installation. IE they took complete control of the vehicle, controlled access and altered it to their specifications. Just because something was returned to the same place doesnt mean it wasnt seized.

A "seizure" in the 4th amendment sense has been defined as a willful effort that impacts the owner's use and enjoyment of his property. At no point was he ever prevented from using it. At no point was it removed from his possession. If he showed up and said "get out of my car" and they didn't, that might have been a different story. But they didn't. Constitutional law doesn't operate on what could happen, it operates on what DOES happen.

3] We have no idea what the GPS locator could have told them or not told them. What if the guy decided to take a road trip to Canada? Does Wisconsin have the right to track him there as well? Or even into a neighbor State? Is Wisconsin turning off the tracking device when the person is outside of Wisconsin jurisdiction? If he lives in a gated community, which is in essence many square miles of private property, does the State of Wisconson also have the right to track him around his own private property? What if he visits one of his friends 1000 acre Wisconsin Ranches. Does the State have the right to follow him around there too?

All irrelevant. Coulda happened, might have happened, maybe would have happened. Didn't happen. Once again, constitutional law doesn't operate on what could happen, it operates on what does happen.

If you could prove the State was tracking you on property outside of absolute public property its a complete violation of civil and constitutional rights.

Yeah, if you could. Didn't happen here. It might have happened and if it did happen that would have been a violation. But it didn't. Once again, constitutional law doesn't operate on what could happen, it operates on what does happen.

And while im not a lawyer

That much is obvious

ive spent a considerable time furthering my legal education so dont be a condescending ass.

Did you pay for any of it? If so I'd say you got ripped off. To be clear, I'm not saying that we can't disagree about interpretation of the law. I'm not saying you can't even disagree with these judges.

I am saying then when you enter into an argument regarding constitutional rights, and you don't even understand the basics of how those rights work, then you can't really further the discussion. It's impossible to have a reasonable meeting of the minds regarding, say, the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine, when you don't understand what it is.

( I got accepted to Syracuse Law School i

I am not sure you realize this, but there's a lot more to actually learning the law than getting accepted to a place that is supposed to teach you the law. Actually going would be a good start. The fact that you got accepted to a law school...doesn't really say much about your legal knowledge. I'm sure you're a quite smart guy, and I'm sure you're accomplished in your field, but it's very obvious you don't understand the constitutional jurisprudence being discussed here. If you did, you wouldn't have asked things like why the poisonous tree doctrine doesn't apply.

Anyone know where I can buy a device for detecting GPS units?

Or, barring that... any electronics specialists? I'm thinking of making a high-watt multivibrator tuned to the GPS frequency to fry out any unshielded (and if it has an antenna, it's unshielded) device, of course, shielding or removing the car's satnav first.

They can't legally stand on your stoop.
I am pretty sure following you around town sounds alot more illegal than standing on your porch. Especially when they can put a tracking device on your car in the driveway without a warrant or your consent.

You only have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the things you do/say if someone, acting legally, would not be able to see or hear you.
Is standing on some one's porch illegal? Looking through some one's uncovered windows? Following their car around?

Someone, acting totally legally, can see you drive your car. They can see you at the corner of 5th and Main. They can see you pull into your driveway. So you have absolutely no expectation of privacy over the location of your car on public roads because people, in the public, acting 100% legallycan see you on those public roads.
Well if that is the same some one, that is stalking. Hey wait, wasn't that what the guy was arrested for?


And if you haven't figured out exactly why that is, and I haven't been nearly as enlightening regarding my little 4th amendment lesson as I had hoped
Being insufferable might be the reason.

And since you can not legally stand in front of someone's door (we call that trespassing)
I'll be damned if those damn Jehovah's Witnesses don't do it all the time though. Oh God, and Halloween. So many little law breakers.

and overhear someone talking inside,
Funny thing, houses are never quite sound proofed as well as cars, generally speaking.

what people say inside their own home (unless they leave their window open and talk loudly enough for it to be heard from a publicly accessible place, which is a whole other can of worms) is protected.
Perhaps you skipped the part where that was my argument?
And by publicly accessible, I suppose you mean the driveway (http://www.chicagotribune.com/technology/chi-ap-wi-gps-police,0,5867383.story)? Which, by proxy, equates to every area outside the house, let's just add "not covered by any extension of the house" for shits and giggles.

And how is attaching anything on someones car not at the very least vandalism? Am i allowed to stick bumper stickers on any car i see in their driveway?
Only if you have a badge.

That's....it's not exactly what they're saying here. It's not that the driveway was "private". What it means is, that it didn't give rise to a constitutional violation because his car was parked in view of the public, so the GPS tracker didn't give the police any more information than they could have gotten just through visual inspection alone.

What they're saying is, it's not a privacy violation because the car was never not in view of the public, so it didn't give the police any information they couldn't have gotten otherwise. That's the point.

...I hate you.

And am in absolutly no condition to argue anything you say. So yeah...

Gotta love how amid all the righteous indignation, armchair lawyering, and utter nonsense, not one single person has actually shown me one case, one statute, one quote, or one section of the constitution, or any document dealing with the constitution, that has actually shown a single thing I've said to be wrong. Because somehow being "insufferable" makes my points less valid.

Ah NSG. You're such a special place.

Gotta love how amid all the righteous indignation, armchair lawyering, and utter nonsense, not one single person has actually shown me one case, one statute, one quote, or one section of the constitution, or any document dealing with the constitution, that has actually shown a single thing I've said to be wrong.

Ah NSG. You're such a special place.

Well, I can't show any sources, but my issue is them placing the GPS on a car while it was on private property. I know the court ruling is against me, but that is different from observation.

Well, I can't show any sources, but my issue is them placing the GPS on a car while it was on private property.

Well sure, that bothers me too, but keep in mind, the issue was whether this was unconstitutional under the 4th amendment. The fact is, it's not a search or a seizure.

Unfortunately, the constitution only says what it says, not what we'd sometimes wish it says.

This sounds like a stupid measure, and I do not support it. Still, I am going to guess Neo Art knows exactly what the hell he is talking about; I therefore concede that walking into a person's house and placing a GPS on his car is perfectly legal, at least Federally.

Moral of the story park your car in your garage.
Make sure your work has a private garage. If your car is on the driveway they can attach a GPS device.
If you are that paranoid start sweeping for transmitters.

This sounds like a stupid measure, and I do not support it. Still, I am going to go out on a limb here by guessing Neo Art knows exactly what the hell he is talking about; I therefore concede that walking into a person's house and placing a GPS on his car is perfectly legal, at least Federally.

be careful of your terminology. I'm not saying it's legal. I'm saying it's not unconstitutional (at least as far as the 4th amendment goes). Lots of things are illegal to do that are still perfectly constitutional. A state may make things more restrictive on their agents, they just can't make them less restrictive.

It very well may be that it broke a whole ton of laws for the cops to show up on his property and fuck with his stuff. But, as it neither constitutes a search nor a seizure, it didn't violate the 4th amendment.

Well sure, that bothers me too, but keep in mind, the issue was whether this was unconstitutional under the 4th amendment. The fact is, it's not a search or a seizure.

Unfortunately, the constitution only says what it says, not what we'd sometimes wish it says.I'm not very happy about the walking on to private property thing, either, but I agree with you completely (Seeing as you're the lawyer, here.), and you're also right. (That I can tell from my limited knowledge.)

be careful of your terminology. I'm not saying it's legal. I'm saying it's not unconstitutional (at least as far as the 4th amendment goes). Lots of things are illegal to do that are still perfectly constitutional. A state may make things more restrictive on their agents, they just can't make them less restrictive.

It very well may be that it broke a whole ton of laws for the cops to show up on his property and fuck with his stuff. But, as it neither constitutes a search nor a seizure, it didn't violate the 4th amendment.

But once the law is put into place by the state, is there any legal objection that could be raised by the public besides a vote (supposing the law is not unconstitutional)?

But once the law is put into place by the state, is there any legal objection that could be raised by the public besides a vote (supposing the law is not unconstitutional)?

I'm...not sure what you're asking. What option do the people have to challenge a law? If the law doesn't violate a state or federal constitution, the only redress is to vote in a new legislature.

If the law isn't unconstitutional, then it is valid. Take it up with the guys who passed it.

You'd be wrong. Search in the 4th amendment context defines a search for evidence.

It "can" and is most commonly referred to as such but do you have any cites that state its exclusively and only applied to evidence?



A "seizure" in the 4th amendment sense has been defined as a willful effort that impacts the owner's use and enjoyment of his property. At no point was he ever prevented from using it. At no point was it removed from his possession. If he showed up and said "get out of my car" and they didn't, that might have been a different story. But they didn't. Constitutional law doesn't operate on what could happen, it operates on what DOES happen.

If a tree falls in the woods and noone is around to hear does it mean it doesnt make a noise? The fact that an item is seized and police alter the item and return it doesnt magically erase the fact that the item was seized and in police custody just because noone walked in the garage and discovered them in the process of doing so.

Did you pay for any of it? If so I'd say you got ripped off.

You have no ability to properly judge nor value the education that i received nor should you try.

The reason i ask questions is because i dont know everything but its certainly clear to me that you dont either and your shitty attitude leaves no confidence in your responses either. Neo, do the forum a favor and turn down the tude about 5 or 6 factors and try to answer questions in the spirit they are asked and stop being an asshole about it. Its getting old and tired.

I'm...not sure what you're asking. What option do the people have to challenge a law? If the law doesn't violate a state or federal constitution, the only redress is to vote in a new legislature.

If the law isn't unconstitutional, then it is valid. Take it up with the guys who passed it.

I agree with the placing of a GPS device if the car is on a drive way.
But for entering a garage or other enclosed private property to place the gps area would that not be a forth amendment violation ?
Otherwise, I see issues with officers placing these devices on cars in garages and just happening to find a bag of pot in the garage.

It "can" and is most commonly referred to as such but do you have any cites that state its exclusively and only applied to evidence?





If a tree falls in the woods and noone is around to hear does it mean it doesnt make a noise? The fact that an item is seized and police alter the item and return it doesnt magically erase the fact that the item was seized and in police custody just because noone walked in the garage and discovered them in the process of doing so.

I'll tell you what, I'll make this real easy for you. Here's the actual ruling of the actual case. (http://www.wicourts.gov/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=36414) How about you point out exactly where their legal reasoning is wrong?

You're the one insisting they were in error. Well here it is. Show me the error.

You have no ability to properly judge nor value the education that i received nor should you try.

Frankly, if you're claiming you received a legal education, then I can very easily judge the value of that education based on how you present a legal argument. If you claimed to receive education as a brain surgeon, I can very easily judge the value of the education if it's quite obvious that you haven't a clue how to perform brain surgery.

The reason i ask questions is because i dont know everything but its certainly clear to me that you dont either

Again, if you feel that I don't know what I'm talking about, feel free to show me where I am in error.

and your shitty attitude leaves no confidence in your responses either.

Once again, if you feel my responses are wrong, prove it. If "my attitude" doesn't give you confidence in my knowledge...well...I really don't care. I'm not getting paid for this. I'm not basing my professional growth on this. If you don't trust my opinions, then don't. I don't care. This isn't my job, and you're not my boss. You're not confident in my response? I don't care.

But once again, if you were interested in actual intellectual honesty and not knee jerk "he's wrong because he was mean to me" why don't you actually try to justify your "no confidence" in me and actually prove me wrong? Can you?

Neo, do the forum a favor and turn down the tude about 5 or 6 factors and try to answer questions in the spirit they are asked and stop being an asshole about it. Its getting old and tired.

The sad part is, I've devoted significantly more time in discussing this article, parsing its language, discussing the actual laws, and demonstrating a firm understanding of constitutional jurisprudence than you have. the actual creator of the topic. In fact, I'll note that your original OP didn't even ask a question for me to answer in the first place.

So, if you find my attitude "old and tired" I assure you, it's far less "old and tired" than "chicken little"esq hyperbole laced OPs trying, and failing, to discuss complicated legal issues without demonstrating the actual requisite knowledge and understanding of those issues to properly do so, or even attempting to try, leaving it to the rest of us to correct your error.

In short, if you find my attitude condescending and rude, perhaps that's the price you pay for leaving your homework for me to do for you.

I'm...not sure what you're asking.

This:
What option do the people have to challenge a law?

If the law doesn't violate a state or federal constitution, the only redress is to vote in a new legislature.

If the law isn't unconstitutional, then it is valid. Take it up with the guys who passed it.

I see. I appreciate your expertise.

This:




I see. I appreciate your expertise.

Fair enough. I mean, if the law is legal then it's legal. It might not be nice, it might be something many people disagree with, but if it's legal it's legal.

It "can" and is most commonly referred to as such but do you have any cites that state its exclusively and only applied to evidence?





If a tree falls in the woods and noone is around to hear does it mean it doesnt make a noise? The fact that an item is seized and police alter the item and return it doesnt magically erase the fact that the item was seized and in police custody just because noone walked in the garage and discovered them in the process of doing so.



You have no ability to properly judge nor value the education that i received nor should you try.

The reason i ask questions is because i dont know everything but its certainly clear to me that you dont either and your shitty attitude leaves no confidence in your responses either. Neo, do the forum a favor and turn down the tude about 5 or 6 factors and try to answer questions in the spirit they are asked and stop being an asshole about it. Its getting old and tired.

Neoart is all up for a debate.
but you will likely lose unless your bring more game then *pout* privacy *pout*
This guy is such a good lawyer he got me out of a DUI on constitutional grounds. The third amendment no less. I didn't ever understand all of the argument but the judge agreed and dropped all charges and held the officer who pulled me over in contempt.

This guy is such a good lawyer he got me out of a DUI on constitutional grounds. The third amendment no less. I didn't ever understand all of the argument but the judge agreed and dropped all charges and held the officer who pulled me over in contempt.

all I gotta say is, you're damned lucky it was a RV camper and the cop asked to use the bathroom. Who woulda thought that a cop taking a dump on a portapotty would count as quartering soldiers?

Neo be quick, aye.

all I gotta say is, you're damned lucky it was a RV camper and the cop asked to use the bathroom. Who woulda thought that a cop taking a dump on a portapotty would count as quartering soldiers?

well he was a reservist, and he was on his weekend of service. Just Lucky he was moonlighting from the reserve unit to make an extra buck.


The whole thing wouldn't have happened If i didn't throw up in his lap while he was taking the dump.

Ah....how does this work with, say, windows and such? For example, since you can see through a window into bla-de-bla's house while the blinds are open, it is thus legal to just poke around into that specific room of the house? Unless he closes the blinds, of course. If so, I have an awesome idea for a tv show that combines Simon Says, junkies and the local police.

Vaguely interestingly, there was a case relating to this in England in 1960 (Smith v Hughes [1960] 1 WLR 830, if you want to look it up) concerning that; prostitutes soliciting from windows was deemed to be "in the street", and they were prosecuted.

Did Americans make a huge fuss over privacy when car license plates were introduced - or is this paranoia a modern phenomenon?

Did Americans make a huge fuss over privacy when car license plates were introduced - or is this paranoia a modern phenomenon?

Modern for those who complain about the GPS; the thing that bothered me is police being able to enter anyone's house at will.

Did Americans make a huge fuss over privacy when car license plates were introduced - or is this paranoia a modern phenomenon?
Maybe not a particularly huge one, but yes.

Front license plate in particular have strong opposition to them to this day. Many choose to risk a fine rather than affix this implement to their vehicle.


In many states, "first-class citizens" (sort of) retain the freedom from license plates as a quiet reminder that they can.

Pardon me, but does not the car have the capability of roaming onto private property beyond public view, e.g., on a large private ranch, on private streets, within private parking complexes, et cetera, that remain larger than the GPS resolution? Which then would violate privacy requirements? And do not the police not have the ability to control this capability, and would have automatically recorded any such data?

The act of a police officer in attaching this device would then be the same act of one who attaches such a device to any other car, regardless of the car's behavior. So I beg your leave to find absurd a ruling that hinges on the behavior of the person being tracked in order to make the actions of the police constitutional or not. If Sveum could have rendered the police's actions unconstitutional by moving his car or parts thereof in perfectly legal fashion, how is that not a problematic action?

I am somewhat troubled that the court would broaden the scope of its ruling to such a degree (concluded that warrants were unnecessary for attaching tracking devices to private property currently in public view) when the case in question involved a warrant:
Police got a warrant to put a GPS on his car and secretly attached it while the vehicle was parked in Sveum's driveway
I've always been of the impression that the protection against unreasonable searches and seizures had something to do with whether or not police were required to obtain a warrant, not whether or not they could do so after having gotten a warrant. How would the question of whether or not police needed a warrant be considered germane in a case where a warrant was present?

Gotta love how amid all the righteous indignation, armchair lawyering, and utter nonsense, not one single person has actually shown me one case, one statute, one quote, or one section of the constitution, or any document dealing with the constitution, that has actually shown a single thing I've said to be wrong. Because somehow being "insufferable" makes my points less valid.

Ah NSG. You're such a special place.

Hey! I was off yesterday! Give me a break!!! :D

Nah, I got nothing on what's being argued here. except to agree with you Neo.

Modern for those who complain about the GPS; the thing that bothered me is police being able to enter anyone's house at will.
no where in the article does it state that the police can enter a person's house without their knowledge nor warrant.

Dunno why it's a problem... after all, most people already have a GPS unit on their person. it's called a Cell Phone for people and for cars? hello, OnStar?

the fact that the police had to reclaim the object inorder to find out where he went means that the GPS unit only recorded, did not sent.

add to that this little bit
However, the District 4 Court of Appeals said it was "more than a little troubled" by that conclusion and asked Wisconsin lawmakers to regulate GPS use to protect against abuse by police and private individuals.

means the court reconizes the potential for abuse and are urging lawmakers to rectify that.

Well, Wisconsin residents always have the option of simply removing the devices (assuming they find them) from their vehicles. Extra points if you place it on some other vehicle (preferably a police cruiser). Total win if you can somehow attach it to a wild animal.

*Plans never to buy a car. Or move to Wisconsin*

If Sveum could have rendered the police's actions unconstitutional by moving his car or parts thereof in perfectly legal fashion, how is that not a problematic action?

Because he didn't. There's not much more to say about that. He didn't. The issue is not, for the purposes of supression, whether it could have, or whether it might have, or whether it would in the future. All of it utterly irrelevant.

In a suppression motion the only relevant question, the only one is whether or not his rights were violated. They were not. Whether if he had changed something they might have been is utterly and completely irrelevant. They were not.

Because he didn't. There's not much more to say about that. He didn't. The issue is not, for the purposes of supression, whether it could have, or whether it might have, or whether it would in the future. All of it utterly irrelevant.
Not in examining the logical absurdity of it. What this ruling says is that whether or not the actions of the police are legal depends on what the suspect does in a manner that has absolutely nothing to do with criminal activity and that the police have no control over.

This would be like saying you could listen in on phone conversations as long as nobody utters the word "purple," at which point you've committed a serious constitutional violation of the rights of all parties involved. That you can walk on stilts down Main Street, so long as nobody moons you, at which point you - not the mooner - face a thirty year jail term. That you can poison moles in your yard, unless your neighbor happens to be watering her petunias on a Tuesday within one week of your having fed the receipt to your dog. Get it now? We're detached from the normal sequence of cause and effect applied to responsibility. We're in the land of post facto justification of action on the basis of tangential activity.

I don't question that it is a legally valid ruling that follows the precedence of prior rulings in similar cases as best as possible. However, it - or the combination of precedents it cites, really, the ruling doesn't add much legally new about what is and is not a search - logically entails legal absurdity on the topic.
In a suppression motion the only relevant question, the only one is whether or not his rights were violated. They were not. Whether if he had changed something they might have been is utterly and completely irrelevant. They were not.
Exactly. Whether or not his particular case constituted a violation of his constitutional rights. So why not simply say "there was a warrant issued specifically for this action" and be done with it? Sveum raised the question of whether or not the warrant was too broad, and I would expect that adjudicating that question would be simple and straightforward - as well as sufficient to close the case.

Neo Art's ability to correctly analyze the bases of a court's decision based on a lay article never ceases to amaze me.

But what always amazes me more are the armchair lawyers willing to claim the sky is falling or injustice has been done (let alone that the court in question and/or Neo Art are wrong in their analysis) without reading the frakkin' decision.

Here are links to the Wisconsin Court of Appeals decision in this case: html (http://www.wicourts.gov/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=36414), pdf (http://www.wicourts.gov/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=36414).

Essentially every niggling point raised in this thread is answered reasonably by the court in its opinion. Read the damn thing. Then question it.

Fucking real lawyers on NSG ruining everyones mass hysteria.

Neo Art's ability to correctly analyze the bases of a court's decision based on a lay article never ceases to amaze me.

But what always amazes me more are the armchair lawyers willing to claim the sky is falling or injustice has been done (let alone that the court in question and/or Neo Art are wrong in their analysis) without reading the frakkin' decision.

Here are links to the Wisconsin Court of Appeals decision in this case: html (http://www.wicourts.gov/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=36414), pdf (http://www.wicourts.gov/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=36414).

Essentially every niggling point raised in this thread is answered reasonably by the court in its opinion. Read the damn thing. Then question it.
The actual decision in full text was already linked to in this thread, btw. For shame! Not reading the full text of the thread before commenting!

:-P

Seriously, though, speaking of the sky falling, it looks to me like the court is as concerned as many of the posters in this thread about the possibility of mass GPS tracking with little reason.

In a suppression motion the only relevant question, the only one is whether or not his rights were violated. They were not. Whether if he had changed something they might have been is utterly and completely irrelevant. They were not.

Here's a better question. What would happen if this person were to take the GPS tracker, and sell it off to someone else? If the police contest, can he not claim it under the notion that it was either thrown away or somehow given to him? Sort of like someone tossing his wallet into your lawn and then running off.

*Plans never to buy a car. Or move to Wisconsin*

You'd be doing yourself a favor on both counts...

I've looked a bit into the matter.

Most times GPS trackers are installed, especially by professionals - police, PI, serious criminals - under the car dashboard. They're nearly impossible to find, hidden beneath or even within equipment that belongs there, so a regular mechanic, let alone an everyman, doesn't stand the best of chances at finding it. It takes a professional service technician familiar with the specific vehicle model to do it for sure. Such technicians will be promptly paid off by PI or criminals, or intimidated by the police - since the vehicle is being tracked, it's immediately known if it's taken to a shop.

Modern cars can be hacked to provide GPS tracking without any additional devices, but the police don't do it, as it's pretty easy for them to just install the device rather than mess with the software. At least the regular police.

Externally mounted units are mostly the realms of jealous husbands and wives. Police may use them when there's no other option, but it appears that they normally go for a proper installation. That makes it quite understandable why one would have serious objections to it and expect it to be akin to search and seizure.

let alone that the court in question and/or Neo Art are wrong in their analysis
The Court of Appeals is not the top court and the very idea that their decisions shouldn't be questioned is absurd on its face. Let's not even get into the completely asinine idea that we shouldn't question Neo Art's opinion.

Neo Art's ability to correctly analyze the bases of a court's decision based on a lay article never ceases to amaze me.

But what always amazes me more are the armchair lawyers willing to claim the sky is falling or injustice has been done (let alone that the court in question and/or Neo Art are wrong in their analysis) without reading the frakkin' decision.

Here are links to the Wisconsin Court of Appeals decision in this case: html (http://www.wicourts.gov/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=36414), pdf (http://www.wicourts.gov/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=36414).

Essentially every niggling point raised in this thread is answered reasonably by the court in its opinion. Read the damn thing. Then question it.

So people can't disagree with a law? Or a ruling? If someone does something and even if the courts say it is alright doesn't mean people have to think it is right and justified.

Well, Wisconsin residents always have the option of simply removing the devices (assuming they find them) from their vehicles. Extra points if you place it on some other vehicle (preferably a police cruiser). Total win if you can somehow attach it to a wild animal.

attach it to an animal. wrap it in food and feed it to an animal.
After a week of chasing the car, they find it in a big steamy pile of bear shite.

Here's a better question. What would happen if this person were to take the GPS tracker, and sell it off to someone else? If the police contest, can he not claim it under the notion that it was either thrown away or somehow given to him? Sort of like someone tossing his wallet into your lawn and then running off.

Or, what would happen if the person were to take it apart, to harvest the GPS device for parts?

I like taking stuff apart. :D

Neo Art........bite me ;)

http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=799375

Top court: Police cannot track suspect with GPS

"It was wrong for a police investigator to slap a GPS tracking device under a defendant's van to track his movements, the state's top court ruled today. A sharply divided NY Court of Appeals, in a 4-3 decision, reversed the burglary conviction of defendant Scott Weaver, 41, of Watervliet. Four years ago, State Police tracked Weaver over 65 days in connection with the burglary investigation."

snip


seems this might need a Scotus ruling as the Appeals courts do not know how to deal with the technology.

let me fix this for you.

seems this might need a Scotus ruling as the Appeals courts do not know how to deal with the technology.

I can speak for myself thank you.

I can speak for myself thank you.

okay. Just find it odd to result to name calling when your talking to a lawyer (or any expert in their field).

Thats assuming Neo is an expert in his field. Any hack can get someone off on a DUI. To be an expert in the field requires a much higher standard. For example, you need a special license to be allowed to argue in front of the US Supreme Court. Before you qualify Neo as an expert, credentials must be closely examined. If two different State Appeals Courts disagree, then Neo is in way over his pay grade anyway.

Thats assuming Neo is an expert in his field. Any hack can get someone off on a DUI. To be an expert in the field requires a much higher standard. For example, you need a special license to be allowed to argue in front of the US Supreme Court. Before you qualify Neo as an expert, credentials must be closely examined.

To my knowledge he is a lawyer who focuses on constitutional law. The DUI thing was a joke. The 3rd amendment reference should have clued you in to that.

In addition.....state courts in Oregon and Washington have said that police use of GPS without a warrant is prohibited under their constitutions

A couple of interesting questions raised by judges in NY case

"The judges with New York's Court of Appeals grilled both lawyers. They asked whether it would be lawful for people to attach GPS monitors on their neighbors' vehicles, whether automakers could install them in all new cars so authorities could monitor movement and whether "no trespassing" stickers on bumpers would prevent a driver from being tracked by GPS."

http://fourthamendment.com/blog/?blog=1&c=1&more=1&pb=1&tb=1&title=ny_gps_case_in_the_press

What I said, with relevant portions emphasized.

Neo Art's ability to correctly analyze the bases of a court's decision based on a lay article never ceases to amaze me.

But what always amazes me more are the armchair lawyers willing to claim the sky is falling or injustice has been done (let alone that the court in question and/or Neo Art are wrong in their analysis) without reading the frakkin' decision.

Here are links to the Wisconsin Court of Appeals decision in this case: html (http://www.wicourts.gov/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=36414), pdf (http://www.wicourts.gov/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=36414).

Essentially every niggling point raised in this thread is answered reasonably by the court in its opinion. Read the damn thing. Then question it.

The hysterical over-reactions to what I said:

The Court of Appeals is not the top court and the very idea that their decisions shouldn't be questioned is absurd on its face. Let's not even get into the completely asinine idea that we shouldn't question Neo Art's opinion.

So people can't disagree with a law? Or a ruling? If someone does something and even if the courts say it is alright doesn't mean people have to think it is right and justified.

To be clear, I did not say that the court, the law, or Neo Art should not be questioned. What I did criticize was questioning the court's decision WITHOUT READING THE FRAKKIN' DECISION!! How dare I suggest that questions should not be based in total ignorance and hysteria!

The actual decision in full text was already linked to in this thread, btw. For shame! Not reading the full text of the thread before commenting!

:-P

:eek::$

My bad. Although in my defense, there appears to be little evidence in most posters comments that anyone bothered to read the case after Neo Art linked to it.

Seriously, though, speaking of the sky falling, it looks to me like the court is as concerned as many of the posters in this thread about the possibility of mass GPS tracking with little reason.

Um. Exactically. So the "court has lost its mind" train of thought is particularly absurd.

In addition.....state courts in Oregon and Washington have said that police use of GPS without a warrant is prohibited under their constitutions

A couple of interesting questions raised by judges in NY case

"The judges with New York's Court of Appeals grilled both lawyers. They asked whether it would be lawful for people to attach GPS monitors on their neighbors' vehicles, whether automakers could install them in all new cars so authorities could monitor movement and whether "no trespassing" stickers on bumpers would prevent a driver from being tracked by GPS."

http://fourthamendment.com/blog/?blog=1&c=1&more=1&pb=1&tb=1&title=ny_gps_case_in_the_press

1. Other states concluding that certain uses of GPS technology without a warrant violates a STATE consitutional provision is irrelevant to the correctness of the Wisconsin court's decision. State constitutions are different. Also the circumstances involved in the cases differ.

2. You really should read the Wisconsin court's opinion as it raises the same issues about how GPS technology could be abused and calls for legislation preventing such abuses.

In addition.....state courts in Oregon and Washington have said that police use of GPS without a warrant is prohibited under their constitutions

i'm not sure if you realize this or not, but Oregon, New York, Washington and Wisconsin? All different states. All different state constitutions. And what the court of Oregon, Washington or New York say about their constitutions has absolutely nothing to do with the constitution of Wisconsin and even less to do with the Federal constitution which the original article that you linked discussed. Why does it seem you don't comprehend your own sources?

More to point, if you had bothered to read the actual opinion upon which your own source was based, you would have realized that the ruling was very restricted and very fact dependent. The reality that other states confronted with different facts and different constitutions came to a different result neither invalidates this court's ruling or my analysis of that ruling. As much as you may wish to think that since your apple contains the words "car" "GPS and "constitution" that it must be an orange, I fear the law doesn't work that way.

Oh, and that "special license" to argue in front of the supreme court? You know how you get one? You...fill out a form, and send in a check.

Oh, and that "special license" to argue in front of the supreme court? You know how you get one? You...fill out a form, and send in a check.

signing checks is a very difficult task.

i'm not sure if you realize this or not, but Oregon, New York, Washington and Wisconsin? All different states. All different state constitutions. And what the court of Oregon, Washington or New York say about their constitutions has absolutely nothing to do with the constitution of Wisconsin and even less to do with the Federal constitution which the original article that you linked discussed. Why does it seem you don't comprehend your own sources?

More to point, if you had bothered to read the actual opinion upon which your own source was based, you would have realized that the ruling was very restricted and very fact dependent. The reality that other states confronted with different facts and different constitutions came to a different result neither invalidates this court's ruling or my analysis of that ruling. As much as you may wish to think that since your apple contains the words "car" "GPS and "constitution" that it must be an orange, I fear the law doesn't work that way.


Actually the facts in both cases are very similar and the arguments for and against by the lawyers are nearly identical.( At least as far as the news takes it anyway)

A few interesting snippets from the majority opinion in NY..

One need only consider what the police may learn, practically effortlessly, from planting a single device. The whole of a person’s progress through the world, into both public and private spatial spheres, can be charted and recorded over lengthy periods possibly limited only by the need to change the transmitting unit’s batteries. Disclosed in the data retrieved from the transmitting unit, nearly instantaneously with the press of a button on the highly portable receiving unit, will be trips the indisputably private nature of which takes little imagination to conjure: trips to the psychiatrist, the plastic surgeon, the abortion clinic, the AIDS treatment center, the strip club, the criminal defense attorney, the by-the-hour motel, the union meeting, the mosque, synagogue or church, the gay bar and on and on. What the technology yields and records with breathtaking quality and quantity, is a highly detailed profile, not simply of where we go, but by easy inference, of our associations — political, religious, amicable and amorous, to name only a few — and of the pattern of our professional and avocational pursuits. When multiple GPS devices are utilized, even more precisely resolved inferences about our activities are possible. And, with GPS becoming an increasingly routine feature in cars and cell phones, it will be possible to tell from the technology with ever increasing precision who we are and are not with, when we are and are not with them, and what we do and do not carry on our persons — to mention just a few of the highly feasible empirical configurations.

As to the Constitution aspect to the case:

The judge added the ruling had no bearing on federal cases, because the United States Supreme Court has not ruled upon whether the use of GPS by the state in criminal investigations constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment, and most federal appellate courts have not addressed the issue.
“In light of the unsettled state of federal law on the issue, we premise our ruling on our State Constitution alone,” Judge Lippman wrote, citing similar decisions in Washington State and Oregon

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/12/court-strikes-down-gps-tracking-without-warrant/?pagemode=print

The judge added the ruling had no bearing on federal cases, because the United States Supreme Court has not ruled upon whether the use of GPS by the state in criminal investigations constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment, and most federal appellate courts have not addressed the issue.

please note, most courts have not addressed the issue of whether GPS constitutes a search. at least one case that has done so, the one in this very thread, has clearly stated it does not.

“In light of the unsettled state of federal law on the issue, we premise our ruling on our State Constitution alone,” Judge Lippman wrote, citing similar decisions in Washington State and Oregon


Bolded part for emphases. State constitution. STATE constitution. My whole argument is that this is not, in the fact pattern present in the article, impermissible under the 4th and 14th amendments of the federal constitution.

The fact that some states have found it impermissible under their own state constitutions is really not relevant to that.

Although this guy may be a scumbag, this kind of surveillance reeks of Big Brother and the ramifications might create a whole new meaning to "police state".

Also, this GPS tracking device automatically assumes that only one person drove this car?

Also, this GPS tracking device automatically assumes that only one person drove this car?

Something i hadnt even considered. But if the police are asserting they can GPS anyone they want, whenever they want or for no reason whatsoever, i guess it doesnt really matter much.

Thats assuming Neo is an expert in his field. Any hack can get someone off on a DUI. To be an expert in the field requires a much higher standard. For example, you need a special license to be allowed to argue in front of the US Supreme Court. Before you qualify Neo as an expert, credentials must be closely examined. If two different State Appeals Courts disagree, then Neo is in way over his pay grade anyway.

wait a minute here. You, the very same guy who tried to argue that you had sufficient legal knowledge to intelligently talk about the matter despite the fact you haven't so much as stepped one foot in a law school class room, are now implying that I, a member of two state bars, and two federal bars, am unqualified to discuss it?

Those are some big brass ones you got there.

Although this guy may be a scumbag, this kind of surveillance reeks of Big Brother and the ramifications might create a whole new meaning to "police state".

Also, this GPS tracking device automatically assumes that only one person drove this car?

the GPS device only says where the car was. They would need some other evidence to prove the defendant drove the car. I am guessing a camera watching the car at his home to see who gets in.

Also, this GPS tracking device automatically assumes that only one person drove this car?

It assumes no such thing. It only assumes that the car was where the GPS said it was. He is totally free to argue, at trial, that it wasn't him driving it. And I'm fairly certain any lawyer worth his bar card would make that exact argument.

It's also pretty obvious that his jury at trial did not believe him

wait a minute here. You, the very same guy who tried to argue that you had sufficient legal knowledge to intelligently talk about the matter despite the fact you haven't so much as stepped one foot in a law school class room, are now implying that I, a member of two state bars, and two federal bars, am unqualified to discuss it?

Those are some big brass ones you got there.

I very clearly qualified my statements by stating i wasnt a lawyer but that in fact i had more legal training then your average non lawyer. I stated no more and no less. You of all people should understand the standards of an expert. If you spent your life doing environmental law, no matter how many bars you were a member of, you would not be an expert in say a murder trial. I dont know who you are from Jack Squat so i require a certain level of proof to accept someone as an expert. If you are activly practicing Federal law and not running a shitty little office in small town USA getting Grandma out of speeding tickets and doing house closings then thats a different story.

I very clearly qualified my statements by stating i wasnt a lawyer but that in fact i had more legal training then your average non lawyer. I stated no more and no less. You of all people should understand the standards of an expert. If you spent your life doing environmental law, no matter how many bars you were a member of, you would not be an expert in say a murder trial. I dont know who you are from Jack Squat so i require a certain level of proof to accept someone as an expert. If you are activly practicing Federal law and not running a shitty little office in small town USA getting Grandma out of speeding tickets and doing house closings then thats a different story.

The fact is though, I don't expect you or anyone else on this forum to take my claims of expertise seriously. By all means, don't trust me. Don't believe me. Don't take my word for it. Do not think that because I claim to be an attorney that I expect my word on law to be above reproach.

Indeed, if you doubt my qualifications, or feel I have misstated my background, by all means, show me, and everyone else on this forum, where I have made a mistake. Show me where I went wrong.

I dont expect anyone to believe me on law because I say I'm a lawyer. I do expect people who challenge my qualifications to actually back up their claims and show everyone exactly what mistake I made.

Neo Art, what would be the legal precedent if you located one of these GPS units in your vehicle, recognized it, and decided to move it, dismantle it, and/or keep it for other purposes?

Would that be legal?

Would that be legal?
I'd guess that they'd make up some bullshit charge like tampering with evidence. Even though it was planted by the cops (isn't that illegal?).

To be clear, I did not say that the court, the law, or Neo Art should not be questioned. What I did criticize was questioning the court's decision WITHOUT READING THE FRAKKIN' DECISION!! How dare I suggest that questions should not be based in total ignorance and hysteria!

Are we stacking logical fallacies now? Stacking a strawman on a concrete foundation of an appeal to authority. You are assuming no one read the decision, which has nothing to do with my counter argument in the first place.

And in the spirit of admitting mistakes...I think I made one. I think so. It's actually an incredibly nuanced point here. The 4th amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. Let's leave aside the question of whether installing the GPS was an unreasonable search and/or seizure. It seems there was a warrant to do that, and the defense also appears to have conceded that it was not unreasonable in general (the court also makes noise about the fact that it may not be unreasonable to install it, but that appears largely to be dicta).

When discussing whether or not a search was unreasonable the first question is whether or not a search took place. Secondly, if so, the next question is, is it unreasonable? If the answer to both is "yes", then the defendant's 4th amendment rights were violated, and any information or evidence gained as a result of this unreasonable search disappears in a puff of jurisprudential smoke. If the answer to either is "no" (IE no search, or a search that was not unreasonable) the defendant's right against unreasonable search was simply not violated.

The question thus is whether or not the GPS information, the actual showing of the location of the car constituted a search under the 4th amendment. The Supreme Court has not answered this question, and there's been no consistency across the circuits. The question of "does the information a GPS locator reveal constitute a search?" has not been answered in a consistent fashion. I stated that this Court stated it was not a search. I think I was wrong.

Here's where it gets very nuanced. There is a doctrine called the "reasonable expectation of privacy" doctrine. It basically states this: you can not contest the constitutional validity of a search if the alleged search revealed no information for which you did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Reasonable expectation of privacy meaning, essentially, that if the law abiding public, acting in a predictably law abiding fashion, could have ascertained that information in a totally law abiding way, you have no reasonable expectation of privacy. You have no reasonable expectation of privacy for conversation had out on the street, because the public, acting totally legally, can overhear you. You have no reasonable expectation of privacy regarding the contents of your trash that you discard to the curb because once discarded, anyone can legally go through it. You have no reasonable expectation of privacy regarding the content of your public blog posts, because anyone can read them.

What this means is that if the cops arrest you because of something they overhear you say on the street, or because of evidence they find in your discarded trash, or because of something they read in your public blog, you do not get to contest it as an unreasonable search because it was all publicaly available. Once you place something into the public view, so that anyone in the public can observe it, you do not have the right to claim it was learned through an unreasonable search. Searches that reveal publicly available information are presumptively reasonable. Or presumptively not a search as defined by the 4th amendment, it's not exactly clear. Either way, you do not have the right to challenge it because you willingly placed it into the public observation and the cops, as members of that public, observed it.

What they are saying in this case then, is this. The first step in determining whether an act constituted an unreasonable search is if the act revealed anything that was not publically available. If not, you don't even get to ask the question of whether or not it meets the definition of a search. In short, to use the legal phrase, you do not have standing to ask the question. Standing basically means if you have the legal right to allege an offense that, if true, has harmed you. And you can not be "harmed", in the legal sense, if the act did not reveal anything you did not willingly make available to the public observation.

The GPS locator, in this case, did not tell the police anything that they could not have learned simply by lawfully standing in the public, and looking at his car. He had no reasonable expectation of privacy regarding the location of his car, because it was at all times in view of the public. As a result, he doesn't even get to challenge the GPS as a search. He's not allowed. That's because whether or not it was a search does not matter, it didn't yield any information that was private. He didn't have standing to object to the act as an unreasonable search.

And because he didn't have standing to claim the act of the GPS reporting his location constituted an unreasonable search, because the GPS didn't reveal any information for which he had a reasonable expectation of privacy, the question of whether it's a search or not remains unaskable. And because he can't ask it, the court can't answer it. He does not have standing to claim it was a search (let alone an unreasonable one) because he had no expectation of privacy.

So they never addressed whether or not it constitutes a search. It was irrelevant to this case.

Now, why have OTHER states defined it as a search under State law? For a few reasons, perhaps. First reason? The GPS did reveal information not available to the public, which would grant him standing. Or, perhaps, under that state law, they are still allowed to contest a search methodology as unreasonable, even if the search revealed only things for which the defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy. The issue of standing I have outlined is the rule for federal law standing. State constitutional claims may differ.

For an example of standing differences between states, let's say in NY you're charged with possession of narcotics. You want to claim the search was unconstitutional. This is a dangerous move, because in order to say that the search was unconstitutional, you need standing. So in order to claim that the search for drugs was a bad search, you have to, essentially, admit that they were your drugs (if they weren't your drugs, you have no standing to contest the search, because they weren't yours). In Massachusetts on the other hand, under law, anyone charged with a crime of possessing an illegal item has automatic standing to contest the search without such contesting considered evidence of admission that the item seized was theirs.

I'd guess that they'd make up some bullshit charge like tampering with evidence.

A GPS device isn't "evidence"

Even though it was planted by the cops (isn't that illegal?).

Haven't you actually read the thread? No, it's not.

Now, here's the sticky part. Theoretically the GPS device is police property. One can argue that by putting it on your car they essentially transferred title to you, in which case it's yours. Another argument is that surveillance equipment never belongs to the one being surveyed.

I think if you destroyed it, one could make an argument, a very weak one, that you destroyed government property. I'm not sure it'd fly. You are, of course, however, free to remove it from your property. You're not in any way obligated to reveal information about yourself. It's sorta in violation of the 5th amendment.

Gads, how totalitarian.

Why not make every citizen wear a house-arrest ankle bracelet then?

Wisconsin was also the enlightened place in which a county DA decided that two underaged kids who had sex had in fact "statutorily raped each other", and charged them both as adult rapists and sex offenders.
http://bgates43.newsvine.com/_news/2009/03/19/2566349-the-teen-rape-double-standard-

If by attaching it to your car they gave you the device, wouldn't monitoring the device electronically be considered an illegal search? Wouldn't retrieving the device afterwords be considered and illegal seizure?

A GPS device isn't "evidence"



Haven't you actually read the thread? No, it's not.

Now, here's the sticky part. Theoretically the GPS device is police property. One can argue that by putting it on your car they essentially transferred title to you, in which case it's yours. Another argument is that surveillance equipment never belongs to the one being surveyed.

I think if you destroyed it, one could make an argument, a very weak one, that you destroyed government property. I'm not sure it'd fly. You are, of course, however, free to remove it from your property. You're not in any way obligated to reveal information about yourself. It's sorta in violation of the 5th amendment.

So, what if you removed it, and threw it in the trash? It's not destroyed, just not in the place that the police left it (therefore, it's doubtful they'd be able to find it).

So, what if you removed it, and threw it in the trash? It's not destroyed, just not in the place that the police left it (therefore, it's doubtful they'd be able to find it).

I will answer legitimate question with smart ass remark: If the police have trouble locating a GPS tracking device I posit you didn't have much to worry about in the first place.

I will answer legitimate question with smart ass remark: If the police have trouble locating a GPS tracking device I posit you didn't have much to worry about in the first place.

pick it up wrap tin foil around it and toss it in a dump truck should do the trick.

I will answer legitimate question with smart ass remark: If the police have trouble locating a GPS tracking device I posit you didn't have much to worry about in the first place.

Well, the GPS tracking device mentioned in the article wasn't one that broadcasts, but one of the ones that needs to be recovered and downloaded. That's what my question was based on.

Well, the GPS tracking device mentioned in the article wasn't one that broadcasts, but one of the ones that needs to be recovered and downloaded. That's what my question was based on.

honestly? I don't really know. The realm of finding and destroying police equipment is not exactly something common, or anything I'm versed on. I'd argue that you have a de facto if not necessarily de jure right to do so.

honestly? I don't really know. The realm of finding and destroying police equipment is not exactly something common, or anything I'm versed on. I'd argue that you have a de facto if not necessarily de jure right to do so.

So on the off chance that you find one planted on your property, disabling and selling it for scrap isn't prosecutable? I've always wondered about that.

Hang on... now, so, speaking hypothetically, if the police don't need a warrant to attach GPSes to cars in Wisconsin, because the Wisconsin circuit court decided that it doesn't constitute a search, could I, as a private citizen (perhaps on an amateur private investigator lark or feeling like stalking all of my neighbors at once), legally go around attaching GPSes to cars all over Wisconsin?

Hang on... now, so, speaking hypothetically, if the police don't need a warrant to attach GPSes to cars in Wisconsin, because the Wisconsin circuit court decided that it doesn't constitute a search, could I, as a private citizen (perhaps on an amateur private investigator lark or feeling like stalking all of my neighbors at once), legally go around attaching GPSes to cars all over Wisconsin?

the definition of "search" or "not search" regarding the 4th amendment is always a question of government action. Whether or not the court defines such an act as a search and/or seizure as defined by the 4th amendment has absolutely no bearing, none what-so-ever, on whether it's legal or not under state law. It's a federal constitutional matter which relates to whether the actions of the government would violate constitutional rights or not.

Whether it violates state statutes is utterly unrelated to that question.

the definition of "search" or "not search" regarding the 4th amendment is always a question of government action. Whether or not the court defines such an act as a search and/or seizure as defined by the 4th amendment has absolutely no bearing, none what-so-ever, on whether it's legal or not under state law. It's a federal constitutional matter which relates to whether the actions of the government would violate constitutional rights or not.

Whether it violates state statutes is utterly unrelated to that question.
Well, I was curious, because the NY judges in the other GPS decision that we started talking about seemed curious about it. I'll assume the two issues are generally linked in state law, then, for the moment, and move on.

I am also curious about this point, which was talked about some earlier, but was not very interesting to me earlier:
Let's leave aside the question of whether installing the GPS was an unreasonable search and/or seizure.
Were there not a specific warrant to perform a GPS installation on a private vehicle, couldn't that be reasonably construed to be a search or seizure of the vehicle? In this specific case the police had a warrant, but what the real question - and potential outrage - here is about the case that the police do not obtain a warrant.

And a more specific example, to the point of "driving around private property larger than GPS resolution" - had Sveum been driving into, out of, and around one or more gated communities that did not permit general public access, would that not have then qualified as a search, per the case cited in the Wisconsin decision involving the shipping container being moved around the warehouse? (The name escapes me at the moment.)

Were there not a specific warrant to perform a GPS installation on a private vehicle, couldn't that be reasonably construed to be a search or seizure of the vehicle? In this specific case the police had a warrant, but what the real question - and potential outrage - here is about the case that the police do not obtain a warrant.

Search? No I don't think a good argument could be made about it being a search. A seizure? ....Maybe. That one is considerably trickier. The Wisconsin court seems to suggest no, it's not. But again I think that largely dicta because in this case there was a warrant.

An argument I think could be made about it being a seizure (probably not a search though), the question then is whether it's an unreasonable one.

And a more specific example, to the point of "driving around private property larger than GPS resolution" - had Sveum been driving into, out of, and around one or more gated communities that did not permit general public access, would that not have then qualified as a search, per the case cited in the Wisconsin decision involving the shipping container being moved around the warehouse? (The name escapes me at the moment.)

A gated community is tough. The whole "reasonable expectation of privacy" analysis doesn't really require that information to be available to everyone in the public, merely anyone in the public. Though not everyone can legally enter a gated community, members of that community can. It'd be...significantly trickier. There is some case law on gated communities, honestly I'm not entirely familiar with it.

Certainly if he had been driving through...say...a large tract of wooden area that he owned that could get around the standing problem for that reason. Gated communities...I dunno, I'm not sure exactly how it'd fall on the privacy expectation.