The GPS would still be tracking me 10 acres away from the road. Am I not correct in assuming that I can expect privacy on my own land?

That’s a very good argument and seems to be what the NY court was saying though not quite sure if they felt it was a “privacy” issue as much as just an unreasonabel search.

re: illegal activity by the police, what i said was that *just* because something is obtained by means of a *criminal* act does not *by itself* make that evidence suppressible. Indeed many criminal acts by police will also violate 4th Amendment principles like if the police break into your home, but again, just because it’s a crime dos not make it 4th Amendment bait.

#98
““is a tracker that they have secretly placed in your car still their property?”

Yes. There is no contract giving it to you.”"

There is no contract needed for a gift! If a cop sets 30 lbs of pot on your doorstep does that mean that it is now yours so they can kick your door in? The cops considered that pot to belong to Mayor Calvo at that point.

If Dell sends you a laptop through the mail that you did not order, it is yours as a gift.

If a mechanic reupholsters your car without permission when you take it in for a tuneup, the upholstery is yours as a gift.

But they are too busy hating gays and immigrants.

And if they don’t take that position then we are ALL in for a whole new world of government surveillance in our lives. I remember reading a book by former DEA agent Mike Levine where he mentioned that they were using technology in the 80′s that allowed them to watch suspects through the TV they had set up in a house. You can imagine where all that could lead to if we accept that its ok for the government to watch us 24/7.

Line by line:

“is a tracker that they have secretly placed in your car still their property?”

Yes. There is no contract giving it to you.

“I would think you certainly have a right to remove it and if you have to damage it to do so, then so be it.”

By any rational person’s view? Yes. By the view of a Prosecutor looking to boost their career by appearing pro-law enforcement? No. Who decides which cases get tried? Rational person or the prosecutor? Hmm.

“Surely it is in the same legal category as any other bug that anyone places on you.”

Anyone NOT A COP, yes. We all know cops get special treatment in these matters.

If I found one of these in my car? I would put on gloves, remove it, take out the batteries and toss the whole deal into a storm drain…. then never mention any of that to anyone. Eventually… I would be embroiled in an investigation. That’s when I would start the civil suit. Since a Civil suit does not have the burden of proof a criminal trial does, I would only have to show I was harassed to cash in. The investigation into the lost device alone would provide that.

Keep in mind in this case the victim of this police abuse was trying to keep the evidence out of his criminal trial. Saying the evidence was obtained by commission of a crime is no argument. Eg even if a robber breaks into your home and then finds the corpses you have stashed in your attic, he can testify at your criminal trial as to what he saw and you can’t stop him. Thats why the court rule dhow it did, even though it cautioned against this being a problematic practice.

Wait. Are you sure that is true even if the police did something illegal and unauthorized by warrant (or suborned same), the evidence obtained by that illegal act (whose purpose was primarily to gather the evidence; the evidence was not obtained incidentally)? That seems like extraordinarily nasty standard for police work admissible to a court. Then again, that’s pretty much what happened in the Ryan Frederick case…

I might agree that it isn’t clear this violates the 4th Amendment. But, I disagree with the standard that information that could have been obtained by less technological means (e.g. direct visual surveillance) – even if those means are utterly impractical to use in the real world – means that it is fine without a warrant.

In addition, that thinking is effectively based on “expectation of piecewise privacy”. That is, it ignores the practical reality that citizens reasonably expect that they might be seen from time to time in their public doings, but that the comprehensive totality of their travels is private because – until recently – there has been no practical means for the state to know all of it. Even though each bit of transit takes place publicly and the target can’t expect not to be seen or followed on an individual errand, he can very reasonably expect that the government isn’t tracking him 24-7 by the use of effectively invisible technology. Technology that his property has (unwillingly and without compensation) been employed to ferry around…

The full extent of one’s comment on the location, condition, or final fate of such a device is represented by something akin to, “I have no statement to make on the matter. If you insist on further questions, I will require the presence of an attorney to represent me. Am I free to go?”

Some bright young person needs to develop a low cost device that alerts you to the fact that there is a GPS transmitter attached to your car. The thing to do then is detach it and leave it somewhere where the person who placed it can pick it up.

Just send it back to them. Unfortunately, it would probably be unwise to attach a note saying, “The next time I give this back, it will benefit you to have some lube handy.”

“One question that hasn’t been asked:

If someone finds a GPS tracker that has been planted on his vehicle or person and destroys it, could he be charged with “damaging public property”?

[Just my paranoia gene kicking in here.]”

The simple answer would be “Plausible deniability”. If it suddenly wound up, with battery cover broken off (And thus sans batteries) in a storm drain…. there would be no way to prove you had anything to do with it. Assuming, of course… you were smart and clammed up. ” I dunno! Maybe it fell off?”

On the other hand, if you pulled a GPS out of your car with “Property of teh coppers” written on it… and then destroyed it in a way that could be tracked back to you…. you would be guilty of destruction of Police property. The destruction of the device would be prosecuted on an entirely different path than the fourth amendment issue of placing it to begin with.

If someone finds a GPS tracker that has been planted on his vehicle or person and destroys it, could he be charged with “damaging public property”?

[Just my paranoia gene kicking in here.]

Further, I’m unclear where the police get any authority to do *anything* to a person’s vehicle without the person’s consent outside of some specific official functions (e.g. placing a parking ticket on the windshield, or towing it when justified). Thus, attachment of the GPS device could be construed as vandalism; the owner of the vehicle, if he discovers the device, should be free to regard it as abandoned property and dispose of it as he sees fit.

There’s something else that is deeply disturbing that had not occurred to me before: a cop following you 24/7 is quite possibly the subject of a harassment action by the citizen; the beeper is far, far likely to stand as such a cause of action. The beeper is thus a police surveillance action which becomes de facto immune from restraint… which is probably one the reason they love it sooooooo much.

“82

My understanding was that they just went up to the vehicle and stuck this thing on. If they removed it and brought it somewhere to have the item installed then that is a seizure for sure.

But if they just slapped it on then no, and I assumed those to be the facts in my earlier posts.”

That was my understanding as well, but the flaw is that the vehicle is private property, and as such, should need some sort of warrant to be messed with. Any manipulation of your private property should be considered a ‘search’.

My understanding was that they just went up to the vehicle and stuck this thing on. If they removed it and brought it somewhere to have the item installed then that is a seizure for sure.

But if they just slapped it on then no, and I assumed those to be the facts in my earlier posts.

Brilliant post as usual!

Sounds like the governing philosophy of both parties now.