Another Agitator fan sent me a link to a story regarding a recent Ohio court ruling that upholds warrantless GPS tracking of people in their cars.
[Judge] Holbrook wrote that “a reasonable expectation of privacy” does not exist for those parking and traveling on public roads.
This topic has been in the news for some time and the practice apparently dates back for some years. I first heard about it when an American born Muslim student discovered a GPS tracker on his car and the FBI demanded it back. That student has since filed a lawsuit against the FBI for violating his right to privacy. According to this recent article in WIRED, federal district courts have been inconsistent, but Obama, being no more of a champion of privacy than his moronic predecessor, is trying to get the issue before the Supreme Court so they can dispense with that silly warrant nonsense once and for all.
If it is legal for a cop to follow you when you’re driving, then I believe SCOTUS will rule that GPS tracking constitutes the same thing and is therefore Constitutional.
The person who sent me the link asks this: If the courts ultimately rule that it’s okay for cops to attach one of these to a car without a warrant, would it not then be perfectly legal for ordinary citizens to do it back to the cops?
My answer would be, no. There are two kinds of people in this world: the rulers and the ruled. If there is anything we know from watching our government in action, the rules (made by the rulers) apply only to the ruled. But, using the “reasonable expectation of privacy” angle, it would be hard (not impossible) to argue that cops have an expectation of privacy that citizens don’t have. We’ve seen Radley make this argument with regard to citizens recording cops, and vice versa.
Anyone else care to weigh in on the question?
[Posted by Dave Krueger]