Court OKs warrantless use of hidden surveillance cameras

Freedom1Man · Nov 1, 2012

EMNofSeattle said:
How about instead of snippets of cases (probably taken far out of context) that seem to support your view, can you provide a SINGLE case that was not reversed in which a conviction for driving without a license or suspended license or whatever was thrown out on the grounds that a license is unconstitutional? I can't find one case in which a DW/oL conviction was overturned on the basis that DLs are not constitutional.

Because I can all but be assured that if any court had thrown out DL requirements on a constitutional basis that the appropriate State legislature or congress would waste no time amending their respective constitutions to allow it.

That is FAR from true.

You missed the part that shows they are totally willing to misapply the law.
So the rulings that are being made are based on the legal intent of the law and since the people don't bother to learn the limited intended use of the law there is no need to expose the truth.

I have proof of this in my documents box for a case that I was the process server on.
The price of my service was that I would get a copy of the final ruling because I found the case to be that interesting.

EDIT:

In the mentioned case the judges did not even bother to cite they law they were basing their ruling on. They made things up as they went in their ruling. It was disgusting. My friend did not have enough money to appeal the ruling any higher though.

Freedom1Man · Nov 1, 2012

EMNofSeattle said:
How about instead of snippets of cases (probably taken far out of context) that seem to support your view, can you provide a SINGLE case that was not reversed in which a conviction for driving without a license or suspended license or whatever was thrown out on the grounds that a license is unconstitutional? I can't find one case in which a DW/oL conviction was overturned on the basis that DLs are not constitutional.

Because I can all but be assured that if any court had thrown out DL requirements on a constitutional basis that the appropriate State legislature or congress would waste no time amending their respective constitutions to allow it.

Side note. Please show where the authority in the constitution for the state to mandate a license to use a personal automobile (or airplane) on the public highways.

EMNofSeattle · Nov 1, 2012

Freedom1Man said:
That is FAR from true.

You missed the part that shows they are totally willing to misapply the law.
So the rulings that are being made are based on the legal intent of the law and since the people don't bother to learn the limited intended use of the law there is no need to expose the truth.

I have proof of this in my documents box for a case that I was the process server on.
The price of my service was that I would get a copy of the final ruling because I found the case to be that interesting.

EDIT:

In the mentioned case the judges did not even bother to cite they law they were basing their ruling on. They made things up as they went in their ruling. It was disgusting. My friend did not have enough money to appeal the ruling any higher though.

That's great that you get the final rulings and read them, now has any conviction for driving without a license ever been thrown out on constitutional grounds by a court without being reversed? or has a higher court ever stated that a license was unconstitutional before remanding the case back. Has a court ever said "A driver's license is unconstitutional" in no uncertain terms?

Freedom1Man · Nov 1, 2012

EMNofSeattle said:
That's great that you get the final rulings and read them, now has any conviction for driving without a license ever been thrown out on constitutional grounds by a court without being reversed? or has a higher court ever stated that a license was unconstitutional before remanding the case back. Has a court ever said "A driver's license is unconstitutional" in no uncertain terms?

Well you'd have to read the legal dictionary from the time the laws were first written.

A driver was someone engaged in Commercial traffic on the public highways. Since using the public highways for commercial gain can be licensed (it's not a right) it's not germane to the right to travel argument.

Freedom1Man · Nov 1, 2012

EMNofSeattle said:
"A driver's license is unconstitutional"

Besides you don't even have a "Driver's License" unless you failed English class.

So when a cop asks for your "Driver's License" who's license are they asking for?
Check your wallet again, you don't have a "DRIVER'S LICENSE," nor do you have a "DRIVERS LICENSE."

In fact Washington State or the State of Washington (Washington is not a part of the states anyhow) does not even issue a "DRIVER'S LICENSE."

If you wish to prove me wrong cite the law showing where a "DRIVER'S LICENSE" is issued by the state.

EMNofSeattle · Nov 1, 2012

Freedom1Man said:
Besides you don't even have a "Driver's License" unless you failed English class.

I'm apparently in company because my simple question has been entirely ignored

So when a cop asks for your "Driver's License" who's license are they asking for?
Check your wallet again, you don't have a "DRIVER'S LICENSE," nor do you have a "DRIVERS LICENSE."

So mine says "intermediate license" becuase I got mine when I was 16 and it doesn't expire until I'm 21, but it's the exact same now as a "DRIVER LICENSE" which is what it says. So I added one "s" what exactly does this mean?

In fact Washington State or the State of Washington (Washington is not a part of the states anyhow) does not even issue a "DRIVER'S LICENSE."

I don't care that you think we're still a territory, that argument has long been settled as Washington has been treated as a state. Congress voted to allow Washington to become a state and President Harrison signed it. Congress in Art 1 Sec 4 is given the authority to admit states. as far as the constitution is concerned Washington is a state. In fact I can find anything validating anything you've said to contrary.

If you wish to prove me wrong cite the law showing where a "DRIVER'S LICENSE" is issued by the state.

RCW 46.20.001
License required — Rights and restriction.

(1) No person may drive a motor vehicle upon a highway in this state without first obtaining a valid driver's license issued to Washington residents under this chapter. The only exceptions to this requirement are those expressly allowed by RCW 46.20.025.

(2) A person licensed as a driver under this chapter:

(a) May exercise the privilege upon all highways in this state;

(b) May not be required by a political subdivision to obtain any other license to exercise the privilege; and

(c) May not have more than one valid driver's license at any time.

RCW 46.20.005
Driving without a license — Misdemeanor, when.

Except as expressly exempted by this chapter, it is a misdemeanor for a person to drive any motor vehicle upon a highway in this state without a valid driver's license issued to Washington residents under this chapter. This section does not apply if at the time of the stop the person is not in violation of RCW 46.20.342(1) or *46.20.420 and has in his or her possession an expired driver's license or other valid identifying documentation under RCW 46.20.035. A violation of this section is a lesser included offense within the offenses described in RCW 46.20.342(1) or *46.20.420.

RCW 46.20.015
Driving without a license — Traffic infraction, when.

(1) Except as expressly exempted by this chapter, it is a traffic infraction and not a misdemeanor under RCW 46.20.005 if a person:

(a) Drives any motor vehicle upon a highway in this state without a valid driver's license issued to Washington residents under this chapter in his or her possession;

(b) Provides the citing officer with an expired driver's license or other valid identifying documentation under RCW 46.20.035 at the time of the stop; and

(c) Is not driving while suspended or revoked in violation of RCW 46.20.342(1) or *46.20.420.

(2) A person who violates this section is subject to a penalty of two hundred fifty dollars. If the person appears in person before the court or submits by mail written proof that he or she obtained a valid license after being cited, the court shall reduce the penalty to fifty dollars.

Freedom1Man · Nov 1, 2012

EMNofSeattle said:
I'm apparently in company because my simple question has been entirely ignored

So mine says "intermediate license" becuase I got mine when I was 16 and it doesn't expire until I'm 21, but it's the exact same now as a "DRIVER LICENSE" which is what it says. So I added one "s" what exactly does this mean?

I don't care that you think we're still a territory, that argument has long been settled as Washington has been treated as a state. Congress voted to allow Washington to become a state and President Harrison signed it. Congress in Art 1 Sec 4 is given the authority to admit states. as far as the constitution is concerned Washington is a state. In fact I can find anything validating anything you've said to contrary.

I think you just made my point for me.

Punctuation has legal meaning.

EMNofSeattle · Nov 1, 2012

Freedom1Man said:
I think you just made my point for me.

Punctuation has legal meaning.

not in this case it doesn't. The driver license issued by the DoL is certainly valid as the "driver's license" mentioned in state law. no judge in their right mind will sustain your argument.

nor your idea that Washington isn't a state either.

Freedom1Man · Nov 2, 2012

EMNofSeattle said:
not in this case it doesn't. The driver license issued by the DoL is certainly valid as the "driver's license" mentioned in state law. no judge in their right mind will sustain your argument.

nor your idea that Washington isn't a state either.

So, words have legal meaning.
I want to take your gun's hammer.
I want to pluck your chicken's feather.
The cop wants your driver's license. Do you have a driver?

EMNofSeattle · Nov 2, 2012

Freedom1Man said:
So, words have legal meaning.
I want to take your gun's hammer.
I want to pluck your chicken's feather.
The cop wants your driver's license. Do you have a driver?

:banghead:

ok so you get a judge to buy that argument, the legislature will remove all the commas from the law.

You're grasping at straws here, first you claim "driver's license" appears no where in the law, now you're saying it invalidates the law.

We'll take another stab at this, HAS ANY CONVICTION FOR DRIVING WITHOUT A LICENSE EVER BEEN OVERTURNED ON THE GROUNDS THAT A LICENSE IS NOT CONSTITUTIONAL? Ever?

if yes please provide the case.

this is all regarding your theory that you can operate an automobile with no license and that's legal. where is that stated in any law or court case?

The problem with your idea F1man, is that your ideas are sound and well researched, but it's a purely academic discussion. I really don't think a judge or jury will buy the argument, and THAT is what matters.

davidmcbeth · Nov 2, 2012

EMNofSeattle said:
How about instead of snippets of cases (probably taken far out of context) that seem to support your view, can you provide a SINGLE case that was not reversed in which a conviction for driving without a license or suspended license or whatever was thrown out on the grounds that a license is unconstitutional? I can't find one case in which a DW/oL conviction was overturned on the basis that DLs are not constitutional.

Because I can all but be assured that if any court had thrown out DL requirements on a constitutional basis that the appropriate State legislature or congress would waste no time amending their respective constitutions to allow it.

If you are looking, look in NH ....

In my state, if you drive w/o a license then you get a ticket. You pay it and you continue to drive? Ya just get another ticket. You pay that and you continue to drive? Ya just get another ticket.

I l-o-v-e the conflicting government arguments of air v. auto travel. You have the right to travel but you don't have the right to drive but you also don't have the right to be a passenger (via air).

I'm cuckoo for cocoa puffs.

Freedom1Man · Nov 2, 2012

EMNofSeattle said:
:banghead:

ok so you get a judge to buy that argument, the legislature will remove all the commas from the law.

You're grasping at straws here, first you claim "driver's license" appears no where in the law, now you're saying it invalidates the law.

We'll take another stab at this, HAS ANY CONVICTION FOR DRIVING WITHOUT A LICENSE EVER BEEN OVERTURNED ON THE GROUNDS THAT A LICENSE IS NOT CONSTITUTIONAL? Ever?

if yes please provide the case.

this is all regarding your theory that you can operate an automobile with no license and that's legal. where is that stated in any law or court case?

The problem with your idea F1man, is that your ideas are sound and well researched, but it's a purely academic discussion. I really don't think a judge or jury will buy the argument, and THAT is what matters.

It's been proven that people are stupid and judges are corrupt.

I have answered your question and so I see no need to keep going because you refuse to see that the answer has been provided.

I guess I will explain it in person if you show up on the 2nd Saturday.

OC for ME · Nov 2, 2012

Freedom1Man said:
What about putting a GPS tracker on a car parked in public?

You Sir seem to have some level of difficulty understanding my post.

What correlation can you provide regarding a car (private property) parked on public property to my post regarding private property (land). If there is a direct correlation between the installation (attachment) of a device onto private property (car) parked on public property, to the installation of a device onto private property (tree?) while trespassing on to that private property (land) then I am more than willing to reconsider your point.

At this point your contention remains preposterous. The court ruling in the OP has further eroded the definition of private property and the limits thereof. This case is ripe for overturning. However, the eventual outcome of a appeals process is uncertain given that the courts are loath to impede LE in their efforts to "make us all safe."

Freedom1Man · Nov 2, 2012

OC for ME said:
You Sir seem to have some level of difficulty understanding my post.

What correlation can you provide regarding a car (private property) parked on public property to my post regarding private property (land). If there is a direct correlation between the installation (attachment) of a device onto private property (car) parked on public property, to the installation of a device onto private property (tree?) while trespassing on to that private property (land) then I am more than willing to reconsider your point.

At this point your contention remains preposterous. The court ruling in the OP has further eroded the definition of private property and the limits thereof. This case is ripe for overturning. However, the eventual outcome of a appeals process is uncertain given that the courts are loath to impede LE in their efforts to "make us all safe."

What is your personal view on putting a GPS tracker on a car parked in public?

What would the legal stance be if it were found and then destroyed?

As for a correlation. Your automobile is a direct extension of your private property. If someone were to put a bumper sticker under your car but not on your car there would be no property damage, but if they put one ON your car that is private property that is being damaged. That is part of the reason you can demand a search warrant before a cop can search your car.

A cop can do a visual inspection of your car through the windows but may not enter without either a warrant or permission. Likewise a cop can do a visual inspection of your property from the street.

So back to the GPS tracker. If the object was placed attached to your automobile, no matter where it was parked, that should be the same as an officer throwing rocks at your house even if he/she is doing it from the public road.

If the officers are allowed to GPS your car simply because it's parked in a public location then they could simply mail you a false or real summons that requires you to appear at court and while you are parked use that time to GPS your car.

If you caught someone reaching up under your car would you not be worried about damage? Might the GPS cause damage to your car? If a cop can legally place objects in/on your car then would it not be logical to say that cops are legal in putting a potato in your exhaust pipe?

OC for ME · Nov 5, 2012

Freedom1Man said:
What is your personal view on putting a GPS tracker on a car parked in public?

What would the legal stance be if it were found and then destroyed?

As for a correlation. Your automobile is a direct extension of your private property. If someone were to put a bumper sticker under your car but not on your car there would be no property damage, but if they put one ON your car that is private property that is being damaged. That is part of the reason you can demand a search warrant before a cop can search your car.

A cop can do a visual inspection of your car through the windows but may not enter without either a warrant or permission. Likewise a cop can do a visual inspection of your property from the street.

So back to the GPS tracker. If the object was placed attached to your automobile, no matter where it was parked, that should be the same as an officer throwing rocks at your house even if he/she is doing it from the public road.

If the officers are allowed to GPS your car simply because it's parked in a public location then they could simply mail you a false or real summons that requires you to appear at court and while you are parked use that time to GPS your car.

If you caught someone reaching up under your car would you not be worried about damage? Might the GPS cause damage to your car? If a cop can legally place objects in/on your car then would it not be logical to say that cops are legal in putting a potato in your exhaust pipe?

I'm not sure why you continue to reference a GPS tracking device on a car. In United States v. Jones it was ruled that LE could not attach a GPS tracking device on a car without a warrant. Your comparison is not logical.

The OP cites a exception regarding private property (land) and what constitutes a reasonable expectation of privacy on your land. The OP cites "heavily wooded, 22 acre" tract of land, where the installation of the surveillance device(s) was done "legally" while LE was trespassing (illegally). The search for pot plants would not require cameras if the cops could just look from the road and see the pot plants. The cops had to go beyond visual range to install surveillance devices, there by trespassing onto posted land.

There is no correlation between your GPS tracking scenario and the circumstances regarding the illegal surveillance conducted by the government cited in the OP linked story.

Court OKs warrantless use of hidden surveillance cameras

Freedom1Man

Regular Member

Freedom1Man

Regular Member

EMNofSeattle

Regular Member

Freedom1Man

Regular Member

Freedom1Man

Regular Member

EMNofSeattle

Regular Member

Freedom1Man

Regular Member

EMNofSeattle

Regular Member

Freedom1Man

Regular Member

EMNofSeattle

Regular Member

davidmcbeth

Banned

Freedom1Man

Regular Member

OC for ME

Regular Member

Freedom1Man

Regular Member

OC for ME

Regular Member