I love the way this transpired:
1. FBI plants a GPS tracking device on an Arab-American student's car.
2. Student finds device; friend posts pics of it online.
3. Less than 48 hrs later, FBI visits student and confirms that the device was real by demanding he return the device.
4. The FBI discounts the whole affair, claiming the student was "boring."
Boring. After three to six months surveillance?
Return the device? What - did the FBI misplace it?
Ok, just kidding. But all kidding aside, the following disturbs me greatly:
"His discovery comes in the wake of a recent ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals saying it's legal for law enforcement to secretly place a tracking device on a suspect's car without getting a warrant, even if the car is parked in a private driveway"
Some investigators are of the mindset that they're hampered by our laws from conducting a "proper" investigation. Fortunately, those laws are the ones like the 4th Amendment which protects us from unreasonable search and seizure.
I would submit despite the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that monitoring any citizens' whereabouts without a warrant constitutes unreasonable search of evidence with respect to the citizens' whereabouts.
I mean seriously, folks!!!
1. Wanna know what and who we've been e-mailing? You need a warrant.
2. Want to know whether some guy has boxers in their dresser or Hoover's bloomers? You need a warrant.
3. Want to know where a person is going when conducting (and minding) their own business? Oh! No need for a warrant for that! Go ahead and attach a device used to both track the person to within 30 feet, and make a record of it as "evidence" for later submission in a court of law.
To whom else does this appear to be a total end-run around our 4the Amendment rights agains unreasonable search and seizure?
According to the article, "Afifi" is "a 20-year-old U.S.-born citizen" and he "cooperated willingly."
I could say I have a love-hate relationship with the ACLU, but that's not true. At times some of the stuff they do appears to me to be ridiculous. At other times, they throw their considerable legal resources against the erosion of our Civil Liberties... Hey! Hence their name.
Crap - the kid doesn't even drive a foreign make of vehicle. He drives a Ford!
"Afifi saw a wire sticking out near the right rear wheel and exhaust."
How much you want to bet this point will find its way into the FBI field manual within the week?
Still, two very glaring facts from the article remain:
1. The former agent, who asked not to be named, said the device was an older model of tracking equipment that had long ago been replaced by devices that don't require batteries.
2. "He said he was certain that agents who installed it would have obtained a 30-day warrant for its use."
Hence, it wasn't FBI. The question is: For whom are they covering?
And oh, by the way, very nice work on the part of Jennifer Kanaan, speaking Arabic to gain his trust, veiled threats by indicating they knew which restaurants he and his girlfriend (double-whammy there) frequented, and another trust point by congratulating him on a new job.
It's what's called a "sh** sandwich." Only they added more crap on top with their additional comments, before trying to deflate any alarm by telling him "not to worry."
For all I know, this natural-born American may yet be guilty as all get-out. Then again, he may be clean as a whistle.
Personally, my main issue involves the 4th Amendment. Decades ago some argued that "search and seizure" applied only to physical items, but not information. That was ruled on by the U.S. Surpreme Court, who declared that information, because it was as decisive in a case as physical evidence, also fell under the unreasonable search and seizure rules.
I wish I had a link for that case, but I'm not a Supreme Court decisions guru. I seem to recall it was in the earlier part of the 20th century, and may have been related to federal wire-tapping laws.
Regardless, I feel fairly certain that if this is elevated to the Supreme Court level, it will be decided the same way they have with respect to any and all other electronic methods of evesdropping, namely,
you need a warrant.
Thanks, FBI, for bringing this to our attention.