27 Aug 10
Originally posted by sh76A car in a driveway or garage is in the home and part of it. If some drug pusher gets away because the cops can't get a warrant, I am less concerned than that my rights may be violated, and that I may become the victim of those same cops pursuing some overzealous and misguided goals.
A warrant requires probable cause, not just reasonable suspicion. But, aside from that, there are sometimes timing issues that makes getting a warrant impractical, especially when it comes to an automobile. Cars has been much less of a privacy interest than homes in multiple contexts for this reason.
I try to separate the act from the circumstance. To justify on the basis of pragmatism in enforcing drug laws isn't what the Constitutional standard ought to be about. The target of such "searches" may not be someone as universally reviled as a drug dealer. It might be a suspected member of a religious or political group. Precedents have a way of going beyond where they originally went.
27 Aug 10
Originally posted by quackquackRemember what Franklin said about sacrificing liberty for security. You end up with neither.
I would be OK with everyone (including myself) sacrificing the privacy of keeping their location a secret if the police believe it would prevent crime (drugs terrorrism etc) I also personally would rather be followed by GPS then by wire tap, video team or a swat team with guns trying to set uo a road block. It seems less intrusive than the alternatives.
27 Aug 10
Originally posted by sh76I believe there are serious privacy issues with all of the unwarranted photos you mention. As an amatuer free lance photographer in my youth, I learned that celebrities are fair game anytime, but relatively unknowns must sign a "model's waiver" if you photograph them and wish to sell the pictures.
Fair enough. Though it should be pointed out that where you go is already monitored. Toll booths have cameras that snap pics of every car going by. Red light cameras are all over the place in some cities, etc. If the police wanted to know where and when you drove, they could piece it together fairly well. A GPS only does it a bit more efficiently.
The more we just accept such invasions of privacy, the further they will extend. Clearly the technology has outstripped the foresight of the founders, but not their wisdom, so it is even more important to consider their "original intent" in the light of technology, and not just the pragmatism of the moment.
27 Aug 10
Originally posted by normbenignWe sacrifice liberty for security all the time. We have traffic stops, we have airport security, we have border checks. We have plenty of liberty too.
Remember what Franklin said about sacrificing liberty for security. You end up with neither.
27 Aug 10
Originally posted by MelanerpesI would prefer the GPS too police wiring tapping or video taping me or chasing me.
if the police have reasonable suspicions that someone might be committing a crime, they should be able to get a warrant.
suppose you had successfully gotten a speeding ticket overturned - would you feel comfortable if the ticketing officer, angry at being humiliated in court, then put a GPS device on your car?
27 Aug 10
1 edit
Many hypotheticals can come into play here.
We all know of many recent cases where some cops have turned out to be less than scrupulous.
Lets say,he pulls a hot chick over to give her a ticket.Maybe your wife,daughter.
Now he has their address. He shows up late that night places a GPS under her car.
Now he knows where she works where she shops when she leaves the house when she comes home,etc,etc. All this w/out even following her. But stalks her electronically.
From there you can connect the dots.
28 Aug 10
Originally posted by quackquackGlad you mentioned other abridgements of liberty.
We sacrifice liberty for security all the time. We have traffic stops, we have airport security, we have border checks. We have plenty of liberty too.
Random traffic stops, and check lanes have been ruled unConstitutional, and ought to stop. Airport security is why I will never fly. Border checks, a silly joke, when you consider how many people enter the country every day bypassing the silly checks where government agents abuse everyday good citizens.
We still have some liberty, but every passing day that we fail to jealously guard what we have left, more slips away.
28 Aug 10
Originally posted by utherpendragonExactly! Cops should not be able to do anything that John Q Citizen can't, except to arrest someone on the basis of a warrant or a witnessed crime. Come to think of it, John Q. Citizen can make arrests under those conditions as well.
Many hypotheticals can come into play here.
We all know of many recent cases where some cops have turned out to be less than scrupulous.
Lets say,he pulls a hot chick over to give her a ticket.Maybe your wife,daughter.
Now he has their address. He shows late that night places a GPS under her car.
Now he knows where she works where she shops when s ...[text shortened]... s w/out even following her. But stalks her electronically.
From there you can connect the dots.
28 Aug 10
1 edit
Originally posted by normbenign"Random traffic stops, and check lanes have been ruled unConstitutional"-normbenign
Glad you mentioned other abridgements of liberty.
Random traffic stops, and check lanes have been ruled unConstitutional, and ought to stop. Airport security is why I will never fly. Border checks, a silly joke, when you consider how many people enter the country every day bypassing the silly checks where government agents abuse everyday good citizen ...[text shortened]... berty, but every passing day that we fail to jealously guard what we have left, more slips away.
By "check lanes" do you mean DUI check points or "buckle up" check points?
28 Aug 10
Originally posted by utherpendragonYes, any stop made without RAS or Probable cause.
"Random traffic stops, and check lanes have been ruled unConstitutional"-normbenign
By "check lanes" do you mean DUI check points or "click it or ticket" check points?
DUI citations are routinely tossed out on the basis that cops stopped the driver for just being on a particular street or having exited a nightspot.
They are an inconvenience and intrusion to drivers on those streets who have done nothing.
Here they get around that with an observer, out of sight, who radios ahead description of the unclicked driver, or the lane crosser.
Citiy of Shaker Heights, Ohio was cited for forcing everyone on a particular street to stop and take a breathalizer. I don't believe the case was ever appealed and the city stopped the practice.
28 Aug 10
Originally posted by normbenignDUI check points are unconstitutional? I feel they are myself but I thought they were deemed constitutional(which is B.S. IMO). Do you have a link or a source stating this? I did a quick check and found nothing that supports that.
Yes, any stop made without RAS or Probable cause.
DUI citations are routinely tossed out on the basis that cops stopped the driver for just being on a particular street or having exited a nightspot.
They are an inconvenience and intrusion to drivers on those streets who have done nothing.
Here they get around that with an observer, out of sight, ...[text shortened]... a breathalizer. I don't believe the case was ever appealed and the city stopped the practice.
28 Aug 10
Originally posted by utherpendragonI recall a case going to the circuit court in Ohio regarding check lanes in Shaker Heights. As is often the case, there may be another circuit ruling otherwise, so it may not be "settled law".
DUI check points are unconstitutional? I feel they are myself but I thought they were deemed constitutional(which is B.S. IMO). Do you have a link or a source stating this? I did a quick check and found nothing that supports that.
This is clearly another example of pragmatic law, because after all who would sympathize with a drunk who might kill your kids?
We must alway be carefull of what we allow government to do to others, cause we may be next.