• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Court of Appeals allows WARRANTLESS GPS Tracking on Virginians

Darkshadow62988

Activist Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2010
Messages
238
Location
Iowa
The citizens of the United States actually won for a change? Really?

For a short while, though the court basically gave them instructions on how to get around this.

*snip*The Government’s alternative argument-that if the attachment and use of the device was a search, it was a reasonable one-is forfeited because it was not raised below. P. 12. 615 F. 3d 544, affirmed.*snip*

With a 5-4 split in reasoning it wouldn't take much for the court to rule the search reasonable.
 

nuc65

Activist Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2009
Messages
1,121
Location
Lynchburg, Virginia, USA
It will be interesting to see if anything comes of the virtual strip searches that cops are now using (like the TSA airport scanners) as they drive around and randomly search everybody for potential weapons.
 

TFred

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
7,750
Location
Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
Quote Originally Posted by TFred

*snip*The Government’s alternative argument-that if the attachment and use of the device was a search, it was a reasonable one-is forfeited because it was not raised below. P. 12. 615 F. 3d 544, affirmed.*snip*
With a 5-4 split in reasoning it wouldn't take much for the court to rule the search reasonable.
I think what that means is that since that argument was not raised earlier in the appeal process, it was not allowed to be raised at the SCOTUS level, and therefore, they did not consider it. It was as if it was not brought up at all.

TFred

ETA: And by the way, that is one of the more amusing points of the opinion... these LEOs got a warrant, let it expire, served it out of jurisdiction, then argued that they didn't need one because it wasn't a search, and then tried to argue that even if it was a search, it was a reasonable one. What a comedy of incompetence!
 
Last edited:

SFCRetired

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2008
Messages
1,764
Location
Montgomery, Alabama, USA
If you're really paranoid, you do what we used to do when I was stationed in Germany and Baader-Meinhof was going nuts: Do a thorough walk-around of your vehicle, looking in every crack and crevice large enough to take a device. Look under your vehicle with a flashlight. Last, but not least, pop the hood and look very carefully in the engine compartment.

The only difference is that we didn't fully pop the hood until we were darn sure there were no wires attached to it.
 

TFred

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
7,750
Location
Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
Which should be just a bit scary that the government persued it as long as they did......
Several things are scary about the Supreme Court.

1. As you note, that a 9-0 case went that far.
2. That any case is anything other than 9-0!
3. That there is enough disparity in lower courts to get different answers - all along the way.

All are very bad, IMHO...

TFred
 

Neplusultra

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2007
Messages
2,224
Location
Christiansburg, Virginia, USA
Several things are scary about the Supreme Court.

1. As you note, that a 9-0 case went that far.
2. That any case is anything other than 9-0!
3. That there is enough disparity in lower courts to get different answers - all along the way.

All are very bad, IMHO...

TFred

ABSOLUTELY CORRECT! These are the best of the best supposedly and yet they differ and argue like the rest of us. I firmly believe that truth and right are knowablw and can be established definitively but there are always personal biases. The skill is in recognizing them and addressing them intelligently leaving the opponent of truth with no where to go without looking foolish. But my experience with this is that even when you leave your ideological opponent speechless they most often will come back with the same argument again next week. Humility and trust in the truth is not as widespread as it should be.
 

peter nap

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
13,551
Location
Valhalla
Yes TFred, We are rapidly reaching the point where the Government can do as it likes unless we stop it.

Today, Grapeshot was treated with utter disrespect at the General Assembly by the Capital police.

One chased me down in the hall and wanted to search me because I had set the metal detector off. The problem with that as I pointed out to his Supervisor, I am not required to nor did I go through the metal detector, so I couldn't have set it off.

They were really pushing the envelope with anyone not wearing a bow tie today....and no, I didn't allow him to search me.

Grapeshot took a lot of pleasure in going back through the detector several times just to prove a point.
 

Neplusultra

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2007
Messages
2,224
Location
Christiansburg, Virginia, USA
I was watching PBS tonight as they discussed the decision, forget which program it was. They talked about "expectation of privacy" and made the inference that if you had GPS installed in your vehicle there may not be a case for this expectation!!! WHAT! I expect that the government will not use MY PROPERTY against me... I can't believe the woman said that. Much the same as I have an expectation of privacy for my cell phone calls even though the "call" is out there for anyone to intercept (which is illegal now).
 

nuc65

Activist Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2009
Messages
1,121
Location
Lynchburg, Virginia, USA
The price of freedom that was mentioned by the founders of our Republic is that one must be ever vigilant against the tyranny of government, and that government must be kept small and out of the private aspects of the individual.
 

Repeater

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2007
Messages
2,498
Location
Richmond, Virginia, USA
Yes TFred, We are rapidly reaching the point where the Government can do as it likes unless we stop it.

Today, Grapeshot was treated with utter disrespect at the General Assembly by the Capital police.

One chased me down in the hall and wanted to search me because I had set the metal detector off. The problem with that as I pointed out to his Supervisor, I am not required to nor did I go through the metal detector, so I couldn't have set it off.

They were really pushing the envelope with anyone not wearing a bow tie today....and no, I didn't allow him to search me.

Grapeshot took a lot of pleasure in going back through the detector several times just to prove a point.

So, Grapeshot = Rand Paul?

Sage commentary from the Dude who gets little respect from the RINO Establishment:
The police state in this country is growing out of control. One of the ultimate embodiments of this is the TSA that gropes and grabs our children, our seniors, and our loved ones and neighbors with disabilities. The TSA does all of this while doing nothing to keep us safe.
- Dr. Ron Paul (R-Freedom)
 

Repeater

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2007
Messages
2,498
Location
Richmond, Virginia, USA

jwinkeler

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2011
Messages
88
Location
Centreville, Va
Not sure if this has already been stated but the policy I've heard with Fairfax county as far as gps goes is If it's a battery powered one no warrant required but if they want a gps that taps into a vehicles power supply to do prolonged tracking (as the battery powered ones will die after a few hours) you must have a warrant
 

JoeSparky

Centurion
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,621
Location
Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
Not sure if this has already been stated but the policy I've heard with Fairfax county as far as gps goes is If it's a battery powered one no warrant required but if they want a gps that taps into a vehicles power supply to do prolonged tracking (as the battery powered ones will die after a few hours) you must have a warrant

Fairfax will need to update the policy to comply with the new Supreme Court ruling
 

TFred

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
7,750
Location
Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
Wow. Just wow.

TFred


GPS ruling is "hard" on the FBI—and that's a feature, not a bug

National Public Radio reports that the FBI is still complaining about January's Supreme Court ruling that installing a GPS tracking device on a suspect's car without the owner's knowledge requires a warrant under the Fourth Amendment. The FBI said last month that it was forced to turn 3000 GPS devices off when the Supreme Court handed down its decision.

[...]


Just WOW. Read the whole article. It is UNBELIEVABLE the attitude of some of "our" law enforcement personnel!

TFred
 

Thundar

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2007
Messages
4,946
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
If the RAS was sufficient, I do not see why a warrent was not obtained. It sounds to me like they were not sure of the RAS, tried the end around, got caught in the wrong and the courts let them get away with it. The ends evidently justified the means. I think we continue to slide down the slippery slope.

We are not sliding down a slippery slope. Thi natio and this commonwealth are in a rights destroying freefall.
 
Top