[speechlesstx]

According to the 9th circus court of appeals, you have no reasonable expectation of privacy... unless you're rich.

Government agents can sneak onto your property in the middle of the night, put a GPS device on the bottom of your car and keep track of everywhere you go. This doesn't violate your Fourth Amendment rights, because you do not have any reasonable expectation of privacy in your own driveway — and no reasonable expectation that the government isn't tracking your movements.

That is the bizarre — and scary — rule that now applies in California and eight other Western states. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which covers this vast jurisdiction, recently decided the government can monitor you in this way virtually anytime it wants — with no need for a search warrant. (See a TIME photoessay on Cannabis Culture.)

It is a dangerous decision — one that, as the dissenting judges warned, could turn America into the sort of totalitarian state imagined by George Orwell. It is particularly offensive because the judges added insult to injury with some shocking class bias: the little personal privacy that still exists, the court suggested, should belong mainly to the rich.

This case began in 2007, when Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) agents decided to monitor Juan Pineda-Moreno, an Oregon resident who they suspected was growing marijuana. They snuck onto his property in the middle of the night and found his Jeep in his driveway, a few feet from his trailer home. Then they attached a GPS tracking device to the vehicle's underside.

After Pineda-Moreno challenged the DEA's actions, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit ruled in January that it was all perfectly legal. More disturbingly, a larger group of judges on the circuit, who were subsequently asked to reconsider the ruling, decided this month to let it stand. (Pineda-Moreno has pleaded guilty conditionally to conspiracy to manufacture marijuana and manufacturing marijuana while appealing the denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained with the help of GPS.)

In fact, the government violated Pineda-Moreno's privacy rights in two different ways. For starters, the invasion of his driveway was wrong. The courts have long held that people have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their homes and in the "curtilage," a fancy legal term for the area around the home. The government's intrusion on property just a few feet away was clearly in this zone of privacy.

The judges veered into offensiveness when they explained why Pineda-Moreno's driveway was not private. It was open to strangers, they said, such as delivery people and neighborhood children, who could wander across it uninvited. (See the misadventures of the CIA.)

Chief Judge Alex Kozinski, who dissented from this month's decision refusing to reconsider the case, pointed out whose homes are not open to strangers: rich people's. The court's ruling, he said, means that people who protect their homes with electric gates, fences and security booths have a large protected zone of privacy around their homes. People who cannot afford such barriers have to put up with the government sneaking around at night.

Judge Kozinski is a leading conservative, appointed by President Ronald Reagan, but in his dissent he came across as a raging liberal. "There's been much talk about diversity on the bench, but there's one kind of diversity that doesn't exist," he wrote. "No truly poor people are appointed as federal judges, or as state judges for that matter." The judges in the majority, he charged, were guilty of "cultural elitism." (Read about one man's efforts to escape the surveillance state.)

The court went on to make a second terrible decision about privacy: that once a GPS device has been planted, the government is free to use it to track people without getting a warrant.

Thank God for conservative judges, eh? Looks like those flaming liberal judges are perfectly fine with not only taking your rights away, but looking out for their rich buddies in the process. But go ahead, I know you're going to blame this on Bush...

[cdad]

I wonder what they are going to say when its discovered and destroyed? Can they then claim it was government property? Also is the line drawn at just government agencies? Does it now mean someone wanting to stalk another can freely do so? Or in divorce / custody disputes?

[excon]

But go ahead, I know you're gonna blame this on Bush...

Hello Steve:

Howdja guess?

excon

[Kitkat22]

hello steve:

Howdja guess?

excon

:d:d

[Kitkat22]

:d:d

Yep

[excon]

Hello again, Steve:

Remember the Patriot Act that you LOVED and I DIDN'T?? This is what it has spawned:



excon

PS> (edited) You can't read it, but BLACK is Endemic Surveillance Society's.

[paraclete]

Hello again, Steve:

Remember the Patriot Act that you LOVED and I DIDN'T??? This is what it has spawned:



excon

PS> (edited) You can't read it, but BLACK is Endemic Surveillance Society's.

Thanks for that Ex it's nice to live in a free country

[tomder55]

Seems inconsistent to the 9ths usual rulings.
Now the other day ;the court declared mud is a pollutant . That is more in line with their typical decision.
Appeals court: mud from logging roads is pollution

Let's ask something just for argument sake. Let's say an unmarked police car follows Cheech out his driveway . What is the difference between that and planting a gps tracker on the car? The net result is the same. The cops know where you went and when. Do cops need a warrant to conduct a stakeout ? No they do not.

However ,the reasonable expectation of privacy question is the difference. It seems a weak argument to say that you need to have a gated fence for your driveway ,and your car to get equal protection.
The cop following you would not be violating your reasonable expectation to be secure in your property. That is why the unmarked car or the camera on the public street does not violate your rights ,but putting a gps on the car without a court order is one.

[Just_Another_Lemming]

When I first saw this, I was very curious as to why the other three judges ruled the way they did. I wanted to see the caselaw they were basing their decision on. For anyone interested, here is the decision. I have pulled out what I believe compelled them to make a case in order to deny the appeal. There were 7 tracking devices used. 5 of the tracking devices were placed on the vehicle in public spaces, not his "curtilage". In my opinion I think this was one of those situations where the judges felt if not for those two questionable surveillance tactics, the man was guilty as sin. So, this appears to me to be one of those situations where they felt compelled to squash the appeal. Unfortunately, their logic in their decision is flawed. Cie la vie.

No.?08-30385. - UNITED STATES v. PINEDA MORENO - US 9th Circuit
"After learning where Pineda-Moreno lived, agents escalated their investigation.   Over a four-month period, agents repeatedly monitored Pineda-Moreno's Jeep using various types of mobile tracking devices.   Each device was about the size of a bar of soap and had a magnet affixed to its side, allowing it to be attached to the underside of a car.

Agents installed these devices on the underside of Pineda-Moreno's Jeep on seven different occasions.   On four of these occasions, the vehicle was parked on a public street in front of Pineda-Moreno's home.   On one occasion, it was located in a public parking lot.   On the other two occasions, the Jeep was parked in Pineda-Moreno's driveway, a few feet from the side of his trailer.   The driveway leading up to the trailer was open;  agents did not observe any fence, gate, or “No Trespassing” signs indicating that they were not to enter the property.   The agents entered Pineda-Moreno's driveway between 4:00 and 5:00 a.m. and attached the tracking devices to the Jeep. Once in place, the tracking devices recorded and logged the precise movements of the vehicle.   Some of these devices permitted agents to access the information remotely, while others required them to remove the device from the vehicle and download the information directly.

On September 12, 2007, information from a mobile tracking device alerted agents that Pineda-Moreno's vehicle was leaving a suspected marijuana grow site.   Agents followed the Jeep, pulled it over, and smelled the odor of marijuana emanating from a passenger in the backseat of the vehicle.   The agents contacted immigration authorities, who arrested all three individuals in the vehicle for violations of immigration laws.   Pineda-Moreno subsequently consented to a search of his vehicle and home.   In Pineda-Moreno's trailer, agents found two large garbage bags full of marijuana.

II

Pineda-Moreno first argues that by attaching mobile tracking devices to the undercarriage of his Jeep, agents invaded an area in which he possesses a reasonable expectation of privacy, thereby violating his Fourth Amendment rights.   The agents attached these devices both while his vehicle was parked in his driveway and while it was parked in public areas, such as a street and a public parking lot.   We consider each of these circumstances separately.

A

Pineda-Moreno argues that the agents violated his Fourth Amendment rights by entering his driveway between 4:00 and 5:00 a.m. and attaching the tracking devices to the underside of his Jeep. We rejected a similar argument in United States v. McIver, 186 F.3d 1119 (1999).   There, agents suspected that McIver was growing marijuana.  Id. At 1122-23.   As part of their investigation, the agents entered McIver's driveway at 3:30 a.m. and attached a mobile tracking device to the underside of his vehicle, which was parked in front of his garage outside the curtilage of his home.  Id. At 1123.   By monitoring the signal from the tracking device, the agents learned that the car was in the vicinity of a known marijuana grow site, evidence that later proved critical at McIver's trial for drug charges.  Id.

McIver moved to suppress this evidence, arguing that the act of placing the tracking devices on the underside of his Jeep constituted an unreasonable “search” in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights.  Id. At 1126.   We rejected that argument.   First, we held that because the agents did not enter the curtilage of McIver's home to attach the tracking device, he could not claim that they invaded an area in which he had a reasonable expectation of privacy.  Id. Second, we concluded that attaching the tracking device to McIver's vehicle did not constitute a “search” cognizable under the Fourth Amendment because “[t]he undercarriage is part of the car's exterior, and as such, is not afforded a reasonable expectation of privacy.”  Id. At 1127 (quoting United States v. Rascon-Ortiz, 994 F.2d 749, 754 (10th Cir.1993)).

 Pineda-Moreno's case differs from McIver in only one respect.   Whereas McIver conceded that his car was not parked within the curtilage of his home when the agents attached the tracking device, id. At 1126, the government here concedes that Pineda-Moreno's Jeep was parked within the curtilage of his home when the agents attached the tracking device.   We need not decide, however, whether Pineda-Moreno's vehicle was parked within the curtilage of his home.   Even assuming it was, it was parked in his driveway, which “is only a semi-private area.”  United States v. Magana, 512 F.2d 1169, 1171 (9th Cir.1975). "

[tomder55]

The agents attached these devices both while his vehicle was parked in his driveway and while it was parked in public areas, such as a street and a public parking lot.   We consider each of these circumstances separately.

First, we held that because the agents did not enter the curtilage of McIver's home to attach the tracking device, he could not claim that they invaded an area in which he had a reasonable expectation of privacy.  Id. Second, we concluded that attaching the tracking device to McIver's vehicle did not constitute a “search” cognizable under the Fourth Amendment because “[t]he undercarriage is part of the car's exterior, and as such, is not afforded a reasonable expectation of privacy.”

Why ? The car is still property .

[speechlesstx]

"The driveway leading up to the trailer was open;  agents did not observe any fence, gate, or “No Trespassing” signs indicating that they were not to enter the property."

So that gives them carte blanche to do whatever the wish to his car, which is his property ON his property? How are these judges going to feel about someone exercising their 2nd amendment rights when they catch some cop trying to stick a GPS device on their car on their property?

[Just_Another_Lemming]

LOL! I am not saying I think they are right. I stated I think their logic is flawed. I was just curious and wanted to see if there was something that might explain why they came to the decision they did. I pulled out what I saw as part of their explanation.

Tom, the car may be considered property but maybe there are enough case law precedents in which this tactic, when used in public places (on the street in front of his home, in a public parking lot) has been used and allowed? I honestly don't know and don't have the time to research it.

I did look for the specific case of McIver that they cite. If it is the one I found, that case existed 2 years prior to The Patriot Act's passing. Since they don't mention the Patriot Act in their decision we can't assume that it had a direct impact on the case. However, I am left wondering if it might not have had an indirect impact when it came to making their decision. :confused:

The bottom line In my opinion is that this was a stinker of a decision.

[excon]

Hello again,

I'm glad we can all agree that cops SUCK!

excon

[tomder55]

The Patriot Act is a catch all battle cry by people who did not read it.

I did some additional research .

GPS and other 21st century technologies presents unique challenges because there isn't a lot of case law to reference.
But it is similar to a tracking devices the cops have used for some time now... the bird dog beeper .

There is case law for the bird dog;
'United States v. Knotts '.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...=460&invol=276
In the Knotts case the court decided in 1983 that "nothing in the Fourth Amendment prohibited the police from augmenting the sensory faculties bestowed upon them at birth with such enhancement as science and technology afforded them in this case."

In other words the court ruled that installation and monitoring of the device in a public place was not a violation of the defendant's rights.

[excon]

The Patriot Act is a catch all battle cry by people who did not read it

Hello again, tom:

It's true. I have a short attention span. This headline is as much as I can absorb in one sitting. Quoting The Washington Post, “Every day, collection systems at the National Security Agency intercept and store 1.7 billion e-mails, phone calls and other types of communications.”

Let me see... That wasn't happening BEFORE the Patriot Act... Hmmm... I wonder... Of course, you'll blame Clintoon for that, wontcha?

excon

PS> Instead of worrying about some piddly GPS device, I'm concerned more with them spying on EVERYBODY... You?? Not so much.

[tomder55]

The case I cited was in 1983 .Long before the Patriot Act.

So let me get this straight... The technology advanced faster than the law. So the President and Congress got together and updated the laws. The court has also had it's say ,throwing some of it out and affirming the bulk of the law.

So ;where exactly has the system gone wrong ? The branches of the government,and the checks and balances worked exactly as the Founders envisioned it when they wrote the Constitution.

If you think the Constitution is deficient in dealing with the capablilities of the technology then perhaps an amendment is needed.

[speechlesstx]

"In a public place." Nuff said. My home is my castle and I will defend it as such. Unless they're just dropping by to knock on my door and say hello, the instant they set foot on my property they'd better have a warrant.

[excon]

the instant they set foot on my property they'd better have a warrant.

Hello steve:

Dude! You sound like ME. What happened to the right wing mantra of "if you have NOTHING to hide, you shouldn't mind the government tromping through your stuff"??

I know what happened to it. You threw it in the dumpster where it belongs, cause it AIN'T true. What you said in your post, is true.

excon

[speechlesstx]

Dude! You sound like ME. What happened to the right wing mantra of "if you have NOTHING to hide, you shouldn't mind the government tromping through your stuff"???

I know what happened to it. You threw it in the dumpster where it belongs, cause it AIN'T true. What you said in your post, is true.

I've always defended my castle rights.

[cdad]

I've always defended my castle rights.

And those are the grounds that the judge skipped over completely. As exy likes to harp on the 2nd amendment then how about this. In the writings of the castle doctorine it does cover your property (real estate) and the rights you have pertaining to it. So therefore your privacy extends to the property line. They missed that one in this decision.