The Glade 4.0

I think of myself as being an ordinary, average citizen. And I say, if you want to put GPS devices on cars, get a warrant. If you don't want to, that action in and of itself is enough to raise suspicion, and I'd be willing to bet there are far more ordinary, average citizens out here who would agree with me. If you don't care, that's on you.

I don't understand why anyone who is not doing anything wrong would perceive this as a violation of their privacy? We are talking about what is readily apparent in public.

_________________

I don't believe I've tried to make that argument. My argument centers around police-public relations and public perception of police conduct. If there is one group of people who should be bending over backwards to keep a good image with the public, it's police officers. IMO, at least. Obviously some police supporters do not care.

It's simple from where I sit. Just because something may be legal does not make it the right thing to do. I do not consider putting GPS devices on cars without having obtained a warrant to be the right thing to do.

No. You posted your opinion, which is erroneous when it comes to both the concept of not in public view and the protections afforded under the Constitution in regards to person and property. You did not "point out" why I was wrong, except possibly in your own mind where there is no one that actually understands what is written.

You, as a police officer, cannot enter my house looking for/observing me if you cannot see me from the public way, without a warrant. Likewise, you cannot enter my property and search for/observe me if you cannot see me from the public way, without a warrant. Placing a GPS on my person, or on my car, is tantamount to searching for/observing me, or the argument that it is equivalent to having a police officer follow me fails. If tailing me is only legal and not an unconstitutional search because I am in public view, then when I remove myself from public view, it is no longer a constitutional activity.


Pot, Kettle.


Phenomenally stupid comment.


Try again. Perhaps reading would be of benefit to you, since my comment came directly after you stated it should be banned. It wasn't until later you said you didn't actually think it was a good idea.... actually, it wasn't until after both of my comments in response to your first suggested position that you backtracked.

What's more, despite your claim, you made no such comment in the other thread about whether or not it should be illegal to video tap police in the performance of their duty. You made direct statements about the applicability of the law in question and whether the ruling was actually valid based upon current law, but at no point was there any discussion about the suitability of such laws. That didn't arise until this thread.


Irrelevant.


Ahh, so now you are telling what I think... wait, where did I just read someone getting their panties in a wad with that statement...


Quite the opposite. Good cops do a job you couldn't pay me to do, and their services are appreciated. Other cops are too stupid be scared of, except that they carry an authority for which they don't understand, not appreciate the seriousness of that trust.

However, by the same token some want to erode the rights of good citizens because the bad can't be trusted, we can't trust eroding those rights to make tools for the good cops, because the bad cops get them too.

It would also be a PR-Friendly move to disarm cops but it would make them ineffective or barring that to require them to get authorization before unholstering their weapons. When the very execution of your duties makes you unpopular to, at the very least, whomever is the target of enforcement, arguing that "people won't like it" seems more than suspect.

_________________

Except it doesn't even begin in public.
The premise of the whole situation is that they tamper with private property to accomplish a 24/7 surveillance in public and in private. They follow you when you're in plain sight, in public view; on private property, but still viewable from public property, and even when you're on private property not viewable from public.

Coupled with the decision that only reasonable suspicion on the part of the officer is required, the notion that everyone breaks multiple laws/ordinances every day makes it apparent that this device could being attached to anyone's vehicle makes it even more egregious.

edit:
I'd just like to add that it's sad that the personal attacks/loaded phrases have to come out at resistance to an argument. Doing that makes the people who throw out incendiary phrases look like fringe lunatics looking to "stick it to the man", and they've picked DE as "the man". I couldn't disagree with DE's position more strongly, but it'll do absolutely no good to presuppose his motivations. You're not going to just shout him down, neither he nor the rest of us will allow that.

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

That's precisely why it's an invasion of privacy. They aren't doing anything wrong. Furthermore, even if they are doing something wrong, unless that fact has been proven in a court of law, they aren't doing anything wrong.

This type of information isn't readily apparent in public, at least not without tracking down and talking to dozens, and perhaps hundreds of witnesses. The only way it would be readily apparent in public is if someone were following you all day - we call that stalking, and we have laws against it.

_________________
Buckle your pants or they might fall down.

This is a joke, right?

But, whatever. Do what you think is right. Just don't go crying about how hard it is to do your job, and how much certain segments of the population view you with suspicion and distrust. Your wounds are self-inflicted, and in this case easily avoided. Get a warrant.

I read an interesting take on this at the Cato blog a while ago regarding the DC Circuit ruling on GPS tracking that went the other way. The Cato author calls it the "mosaic theory" of privacy:


Bold is mine.

You are absolutely correct, and it is unfortunate that DE started to dismiss points with single word responses, lacking actual rebuttal, such as "Irrelevant", or loaded language like "phenomenally stupid". Things went markedly downhill from there.

Except that it is not tantamount to a search, and the courts agreed. You may personally feel this way, but you're wrong.



Bullshit. You're the one who thinks my personal background is a legitimate argument/



By you? Yes, since you did it right in public for everyone to see.



That's because my point was simply to point out why people are so up in amrs over videos of the polcie, and it has zero to do with fairness. It has to do with people thinking the video camera is a weapon by which they can distract attention from what they are doing by taking a video, then posting it on the internet and claiming some wrongdoing was occured based on nothing more than their own emotional assertion.



Yes I did. You're lying:



Quit making up bullshit to score points.



Very relevant, since it was your idiotic assertion that single point of view video is somehow just as much of a problem for citizens as police.



Pointing out that you're angry is an observation, not telling you what you think. Neither is pointing out your appeal to motive fallacies.



Too bad there's no eroding going on here. There's people inventing rights to privacy far beyond anything reasonable and trying to claim they're fact.

This idea that observing you is somehow a search just because you "removed yourself from public view" is bullshit. It's like forgetting that people can see your silhouette through a curtain with the light on and then claiming an illegal search when someone sees you beating your wife.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Ahh, so pointing out that something is irrelevant (which is a form of fallacy) is somehow using loaded language? Bullshit. The fact of the matter is that you wanted to claim that video is just as much a problem for citizens as cops without a shred of evidence of how that might be so, which has absolutely zero to do with the GPS issue. I don't need to rebut utterly unsupported arguments.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

No, it's like using a thermal imaging camera that can see through walls when it's attached directly against the wall; then claiming it's public view and not obtained by tampering with private property.

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

So no, in point of fact Khross doesn't know what the **** he's talking about

1. The courts have the authority to decide these questions; they are not decided as a matter of science. Therefore it is not fllacious to point out that the law works the way thoe courts say it works.
2. All you're really saying is that it's OK for Stathol to define reasonable suspicion however he wants, but it's magically not ok for me to.. even though MY definition is the accepted legal definition. "Hell, jsut read the rest of the post" is begging the question at its finest.
3. Yes it has. I've responded to almost every post in this thread.




Maybe you should stop inventing fake arguments. I never said the 4th ammendment doesn't say anything; I said what it says doesn't mean what you claim.

1. It DOES NOT MATTER what a "basic textual examination" says because A) the courts decide, and B) that textual examination is utterly subjective.
2. You DO have to give certain types of information, such as your identity, which is not incriminating in any way. Your continued assertion that the Constitution means whatever you want it to mean based on nothing more than yourt personal desire for an absurd level of privacy and rights you have should not and do not have above and beyond what it grants is 90% of the problem in every thread of this kind.

.I excerpt this particularly poignant part of the 5th because the phrase "without due process of law" qualifies both procedural clauses in it. And since the Fourth Amendment establishes a warrant under "probable clause" as the qualifier of due process; please, enlighten me to as to how people are asserting the Constitution says things it does not? Any standard short of a "warrant" and "probable cause" is insufficient with regard to the Constitution for police information gathering. Any ruling that says otherwise is fundamentally and factually wrong. So, let me know when you can address the fact that you are upholding Constitutionally contradictory standards ...[/quote]

Because information gathering DOES NOT in any way compromise your security in your self, home, effects, etc. More to the point, if no information can be gathered without probable cause, then probable cause can never be established, and you have created a catch-22 whereby no one can ever be prosecuted.

The standard of a warrant applies only to seaches (physical intrusion) and arrest (removal of physical liberty). Period. It does not apply to any other form of "information gathering" or anything else no matter what any tectual analysis says, no matter how you think it ought to be. Period. That is the way it is.

So, let me know when you can stop inventing Constitutional standards that don't exist. It does not matter what you think should exist; you don't get to decide and thankfully we are not int he habit of allowing people with your opinions into positions where you might be able to.



As a matter of fact I do. I realize you think yourself an authority on this (but then you think yourself an authority on everything that comes up here) but the fact of the matter is that you think your own personal analysis is somehow authoritative when in fact you have not been put in a position to decide these questions according to the same document you claim to be so concerned about.

If you were really concerned about Constitutional integrity you'd accept Court decisions as authoritative. The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the land and the Courts have the judicial power, which is the power to decide questions of law.

That's what this basically comes down to. You want to ignore the Courts, despite their Constitutional origins, in determining what the ammendments actually mean, in favor of your own ideas of what they should mean. All you're doing is cherry-picking what parts you like.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

I'm not seeing how you can assert this. The fact that your car is in a garage is easily known just by seeing you pull in. There's no obligation to forget this fact just because you shut the garage door. A thermal camera reveals things that couldn't be observed by watching you go into your garage or house and shut the door and regardless of whether you clsoe the curtains or not. It's completely different.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Yes, it's completely different, just like the light and curtains scenario.

However, the GPS tracks you when there is no possibility of a public observer knowing where you went after you left his view.

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

It is a search, and has been established as such by the ruling of other, equal level courts. That for some reason this district court has ruled differently than other federal districts is the point of the point of the OP. At best, you could claim it is undecided, since now its up to the Supreme Court, should appeals go that high. Fact remains other courts of similiar statue have ruled in line with my opinion.


To the contrary, I am merely taking the same position that you espouse on multiple subjects... that your direct personal knowledge and training have a bearing on the subject that goes beyond anecdotal comments. In that manner, your position and background, and how they influence your position is directly relevant to the topic, and rebutting your opinion. Its exactly as I stated in my response to Farther.

Other than that... I see you would like to reserve the right state something as wrong, or irrelevent, because you say so... then dismiss people turning it around on you. I got it. That's a DE only ability.


I'm glad to see the irony was completely lost on you.


<---------------- The goal post is over there. You claimed the comments you quoted from me came after you said you didn't actually think it should illegal to video tape cops. Clearly not the case, so there is no point to this comment, except to try and shift the argument.


I covered the implications of that comment in the bolded. You stated nothing related to whether or not taping police should be illegal, only commented that the judge misinterpreted existing laws, that it was good those laws only existed in a few states. It could be arguable that the "thankful" comment was related to the ability of the public to tape police encounters, as opposed to being thankful only a handful of states have such badly written laws, but that would be irrelevant given you directly countermanded that statement with the one to which I was responded, made after that previous thread. You can't claim you didn't mean something you directly stated because several months ago you vaguely claimed something else.

Stop shifting goal posts to score points.


Again, irrelevant. The difference in degree to which something might or might not impact a group does not change the fact it works both ways. Resorting to arguing degrees of the problem doesn't make your comment correct, nor invalidate mine. Besides, I made no such claim that it is "just as much a problem"... I suggested it worked both ways.

I believe the correct response here, based upon your history, is to tell you to stop lying to score points.


Except that I am not angry. This topic, nor you for that matter, merits enough emotional response to cause any such reaction. Disappointed that someone that carries/used to carry a badge holds your opinions perhaps, but that's about as far as it gets.


Other federal district rulings state otherwise. Continue your appeal to authority if you wish, but other authority with as much rank disagrees with you.

Hopwin:

Let's look at something more fundamental here: at its core, what does a warrant do?

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

What you're saying is tantamount to "the courts are always right, and you shouldn't question them." Or at the very least, "your opinion is wrong because it's not the opinion of the court".

I think I'm beginning to see the problem, here...

But if you really do believe that textual examinations are utterly subjective, then on what basis do your apparently infallible courts make their decisions? You're goring your own bull.

_________________
Sail forth! steer for the deep waters only!
Reckless, O soul, exploring, I with thee, and thou with me;
For we are bound where mariner has not yet dared to go,
And we will risk the ship, ourselves and all.

Actually, I'd like for you to substantiate the provision in the Constitution that provides the Court this power. Whether or not Judicial Review exists as a matter of stare decisis and earlier Courts is entirely different matter from the Constitution itself. You seem, as indicated by your responses to my post, to think that reading the document is inherently subjective. That said, I've asked you several questions which you've refused to answer. Instead, you've told me simply looking at the text of the Constitution is 1) subjective and 2) irrelevant because the Courts disagree. You have not, however, provided links to case law or rulings that substantiate your claims. Rather, you're assuming that the position of the Courts is common knowledge. This may or may not be the case. Consequently, you are once again dismissing arguments without substantiating your own. That's rather "summary".
You have not provided the "accepted legal definition" at any point in this thread. Rather, you have asserted your definition and the "accepted legal definition" are synonymous. When your actions have your credibility on the subject suspect, the burden lies on you to source such claims. Failure to do so is, once again, summarily dismissing arguments or positions that challenge yours. More to the point, the Constitutional requirement for issuing a warrant is "probable cause".Responding to the posts does not mean your responses are substantive or valid. People respond to things all the time, even if they're dismissive of what's being said.I've claimed nothing about the Fourth Amendment except what is patently obvious from reading the article itself. So, we'll try this again:Where does the Fourth Amendment say you can conduct a search without a warrant? Where does the Fourth Amendment exempt vehicles, offices, and your person from the exclusions you (that is Diamondeye) reserve for home? Where does the Fourth Amendment privilege the "home" over the other three explicit categories of property: "persons", "papers", and "effects"?Really? My reading is subjective? How so? Because I question where you derive your position in regard to it?

Again, how does the Fourth Amendment provide for varying levels of "security" against "search and seizure"? Where is this grand, obvious distinction on which your argument fundamentally relies?

More to the point, wherein do the Courts derive an authority greater than the Constitution itself?
Hmmms, let me see ...

There exists no Federal Law requiring me to identify myself to a police officer. There are only a handful of states which such laws on the books. Indeed, Terry v. Ohio, ironically enough, indicates that the Federal Standard is that you MUST have "reasonable and articulable suspicion" to stop me for questioning at all. And, even in Ohio, Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, and Kansas, you may only "demand" their identity in the course of an arrest. So, I'm curious as to how or why you think you can demand my identity when the law clearly indicates otherwise.And how does a GPS device limit itself to "information gathering"? Since you cannot reasonably exercise that "information gathering" yourself?
Case source? Because, as it stands, your position is a bare assertion. More to the point, you're shifting the goalposts and making an obvious reductio absurdum. How is placing a digital tracking device on my property NOT an intrusion? Likewise, where is your source that searches and arrests are the only things covered by "due process" and the Fourth and Fifth Amendments?

The text of those amendments provide for none of the interpretive positions you take. So, please, kindly start documenting the sources of your position.I haven't invented any standards. I asked you to legitimate yours, because looking at the "Supreme Law of the Land" indicates a glaring contradiction. And, since Terry v. Ohio requires an arrest to force identification, I'm trying to figure out how you place that under "information gathering".

That said, as to issues of my authority on anything, I think you're glaringly mistaken. I have an opinion on these subjects. I have questions about other opinions on these subjects. As to what I am authority on, that's an entirely different matter. I have, that said, challenged your authority on this subject because it is at odds with everything I have read and know about the subject.

_________________

As an aside, the ACLU seems to think that unless you live in on the states I mentioned ...

http://www.aclu.org/drug-law-reform-imm ... o-if-you#2

You should neither identity yourself to cops or say anything other than, "I choose to remain silent."

_________________

Cops and ex-cops don't like any train of thought that might lead to the eventual conclusion that they are actually pigs rather than police officers.

_________________
Buckle your pants or they might fall down.

Worthless. Anti-productive. Juvenile.
That could be said about anyone.

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

BTW, for those interested, here is a ruling from the district court for Western PA.

It currently being reviewed by the 3rd Circuit Federal court.

While not directly the same, as in GPS attached to cars, it is about the requirement to obtain a warrant to get and use location data generated by the GPS built into your phone.