• OMG!!! GDPR!! GDPR!!! GDP f***ing R!!!!!!!!!!!111111one!

    Bla, Bla, Bla, updated privacy policy, because "we care about you! "

    ಠ_ಠ

    If you even give a shit, our privacy policy is here.

    Pro-tip: If you have a reasonable, and transparent policy from Day 1, then you don't have to run around like an asshole!

Huge Win for the Constitution!

Josh_R

Registered User
Jan 29, 2005
5,847
458
578
Akron, Ohio
#1
Previous courts had ruled that unless your car is in a garage or gated driveway, a cop can walk up and put on a GPS any time he wants, without evidence or a warrant and the police can basically track you until your do commit a crime.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/nationnow/2012/01/supreme-court-gps-tracking.html

Supreme Court: Police need warrant to use GPS tracking on cars
January 23, 2012 | 8:28 am

21
3
The Supreme Court on Monday put the brakes on the government’s use of high-tech monitoring devices to track motorists, ruling unanimously that police and the FBI violated the 4th Amendment by attaching a GPS device to a Jeep owned by a drug suspect.

The justices all agreed that the government needs a search warrant from a judge before it seeks to track a suspect by secretly installing a device on his car.

They were divided, however, as to what level of tracking would require a search warrant. Justice Antonin Scalia, speaking for a five-member majority, said the police erred because they attached the tiny device to the vehicle. He said the 4th Amendment was intended to protect against government searches on private property.

"We hold that the government’s installation of a GPS device on a target’s vehicle, and its use of that device to monitor the vehicle’s movements, constitutes a ‘search,'" Scalia said. “The government physically occupied private property for the purpose of obtaining information,” he said.

Such a search is unconstitutional unless officers obtained a search warrant from a judge. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Sonia Sotomayor joined Scalia’s opinion.

Meanwhile, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said he would go further and rule that the “long-term monitoring” of the vehicle with a tracking device violated the 4th Amendment regardless of whether the device was attached to a car. He took the view that the government violated a motorist’s right to privacy by tracking his movements for weeks on end.

Under Alito’s approach, police would need a search warrant for any use of a tracking device, whether or not it was attached to the car. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer and Elena Kagan joined his opinion.

None of the justices agreed with the Justice Department’s view that the use of GPS device was a reasonable means of tracking a motorist on a public highway.
 

MagicBob

Registered User
Dec 2, 2010
2,171
15
88
#4
Damn activist judges!!!! :action-sm:action-sm

Under Alito’s approach, police would need a search warrant for any use of a tracking device, whether or not it was attached to the car.
seems to be a poorly written article.. .not quite sure what the fuck they are trying to get across here, there has to be more to the root of this matter... What good is a tracking device, if its not attached to anything?

Cop1 : "Hey, lets looks and see where the tracking device is!"
Cop2 : "Still in the box on my desk, hasnt moved. Bummer"

Under Alito’s approach, police would need a search warrant for any use of a tracking device, whether or not it was attached to the car. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer and Elena Kagan joined his opinion.
unless by "tracking device" they mean following the suspect around in a car of their own... again... poorly written.

anyway, good ruling. Getting the search warrant first would just seem to be good practice as it would wipe away any questions of admissibility later on.
 

Party Rooster

Unleash The Beast
Apr 27, 2005
40,304
7,454
438
The Inland Empire State
#5
Damn activist judges!!!! :action-sm:action-sm



seems to be a poorly written article.. .not quite sure what the fuck they are trying to get across here, there has to be more to the root of this matter... What good is a tracking device, if its not attached to anything?

Cop1 : "Hey, lets looks and see where the tracking device is!"
Cop2 : "Still in the box on my desk, hasnt moved. Bummer"

unless by "tracking device" they mean following the suspect around in a car of their own... again... poorly written.

anyway, good ruling. Getting the search warrant first would just seem to be good practice as it would wipe away any questions of admissibility later on.
I think they mean ANY tracking device, not just a GPS attached to a car. They're small enough where they could disguise one as a pen or something else and slip one in a briefcase or a jacket.
 

Josh_R

Registered User
Jan 29, 2005
5,847
458
578
Akron, Ohio
#6
Damn activist judges!!!! :action-sm:action-sm



seems to be a poorly written article.. .not quite sure what the fuck they are trying to get across here, there has to be more to the root of this matter... What good is a tracking device, if its not attached to anything?

Cop1 : "Hey, lets looks and see where the tracking device is!"
Cop2 : "Still in the box on my desk, hasnt moved. Bummer"



unless by "tracking device" they mean following the suspect around in a car of their own... again... poorly written.

anyway, good ruling. Getting the search warrant first would just seem to be good practice as it would wipe away any questions of admissibility later on.
Here is a little back story on this issue (not necessarily this particular case).

FBI Gets Caught Tracking Man’s Car, Wants Its GPS Device Back
Remember that strange GPS tracking device found by young man under his car? Turns out that the FBI rushed half a dozen agents to retrieve it after photos started appearing online.

A California student got a visit from the FBI this week after he found a secret GPS tracking device on his car, and a friend posted photos of it online. The post prompted wide speculation about whether the device was real, whether the young Arab-American was being targeted in a terrorism investigation and what the authorities would do.

It took just 24 hours to find out: The device was real, the student was being secretly tracked and the FBI wanted their expensive device back, the student told Wired.com in an interview Wednesday.

The answer came when half-a-dozen FBI agents and police officers appeared at Yasir Afifi's apartment complex in Santa Clara, California, on Tuesday demanding he return the device.

Afifi, a 20-year-old U.S.-born citizen, cooperated willingly and said he'd done nothing to merit attention from authorities. Comments the agents made during their visit suggested he'd been under FBI surveillance for three to six months.

An FBI spokesman wouldn't acknowledge that the device belonged to the agency or that agents appeared at Afifi's house.

"I can't really tell you much about it, because it's still an ongoing investigation," said spokesman Pete Lee, who works in the agency's San Francisco headquarters.

Afifi, the son of an Islamic-American community leader who died a year ago in Egypt, is one of only a few people known to have found a government-tracking device on their vehicle.

His discovery comes in the wake of a recent ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals saying it's legal for law enforcement to secretly place a tracking device on a suspect's car without getting a warrant, even if the car is parked in a private driveway.

Brian Alseth from the American Civil Liberties Union in Washington state contacted Afifi after seeing pictures of the tracking device posted online and told him the ACLU had been waiting for a case like this to challenge the ruling.

"This is the kind of thing we like to throw lawyers at," Afifi said Alseth told him.

"It seems very frightening that the FBI have placed a surveillance-tracking device on the car of a 20-year-old American citizen who has done nothing more than being half-Egyptian," Alseth told Wired.com

Afifi, a business marketing student at Mission College in Santa Clara, discovered the device last Sunday when he took his car to a local garage for an oil change. When a mechanic at Ali's Auto Care raised his Ford Lincoln LS on hydraulic lifts, Afifi saw a wire sticking out near the right rear wheel and exhaust.

Garage owner Mazher Khan confirmed for Wired.com that he also saw it. A closer inspection showed it connected to a battery pack and transmitter, which were attached to the car with a magnet. Khan asked Afifi if he wanted the device removed and when Afifi said yes, Khan pulled it easily from the car's chassis.

"I wouldn't have noticed it if there wasn't a wire sticking out," Afifi said.

(spoiler for length)
On Monday, a friend of Afifi's named Khaled posted pictures of the device at Reddit asking if anyone knew what it was and if it mean the FBI "is after us." (Reddit is owned by CondeNast Digital, which also owns Wired.com).

"My plan was to just put the device on another car or in a lake," Khaled wrote, "but when you come home to 2 stoned off their asses people who are hearing things in the device and convinced its a bomb you just gotta be sure."

A reader quickly identified it as an Orion Guardian ST820 tracking device made by an electronics company called Cobham, which sells the device only to law enforcement.

No one was available at Cobham to answer Wired.com's questions, but a former FBI agent who looked at the pictures confirmed it was a tracking device.

The former agent, who asked not to be named, said the device was an older model of tracking equipment that had long ago been replaced by devices that don't require batteries. Batteries die and need to be replaced if surveillance is ongoing so newer devices are placed in the engine compartment and hardwired to the car's battery so they don't run out of juice. He was surprised this one was so easily found.

"It has to be able to be removed but also stay in place and not be seen," he said. "There's always the possibility that the car will end up at a body shop or auto mechanic, so it has to be hidden well. It's very rare when the guys find them."

He said he was certain that agents who installed it would have obtained a 30-day warrant for its use.

Afifi considered selling the device on Craigslist before the FBI showed up. He was in his apartment Tuesday afternoon when a roommate told him "two sneaky-looking people" were near his car. Afifi, already heading out for an appointment, encountered a man and woman looking his vehicle outside. The man asked if Afifi knew his registration tag was expired. When Afifi asked if it bothered him, the man just smiled. Afifi got into his car and headed for the parking lot exit when two SUVs pulled up with flashing lights carrying four police officers in bullet-proof vests.

The agent who initially spoke with Afifi identified himself then as Vincent and told Afifi, "We're here to recover the device you found on your vehicle. It's federal property. It's an expensive piece, and we need it right now."

Afifi asked, "Are you the guys that put it there?" and the agent replied, "Yeah, I put it there." He told Afifi, "We're going to make this much more difficult for you if you don't cooperate."

Afifi retrieved the device from his apartment and handed it over, at which point the agents asked a series of questions – did he know anyone who traveled to Yemen or was affiliated with overseas training? One of the agents produced a printout of a blog post that Afifi's friend Khaled allegedly wrote a couple of months ago. It had "something to do with a mall or a bomb," Afifi said. He hadn't seen it before and doesn't know the details of what it said. He found it hard to believe Khaled meant anything threatening by the post.

"He's a smart kid and is not affiliated with anything extreme and never says anything stupid like that," Afifi said. "I've known that guy my whole life. "

The agents told Afifi they had other agents outside Khaled's house.

"If you want us to call them off and not talk to him we can do that," Afifi said they told him. "That was weird. [...] I didn't really believe anything they were saying."

When he later asked Khaled about the post, his friend recalled "writing something stupid," but said he wasn't involved in any wrongdoing. Khaled declined to discuss the issue with Wired.com.

The female agent, who handed Afifi a card, identified herself as Jennifer Kanaan and said she was Lebanese. She spoke some Arabic to Afifi and through the course of her comments indicated she knew what restaurants he and his girlfriend frequented. She also congratulated him on his new job. Afifi got laid off from his job a couple of days ago, but on the same day was hired as an international sales manager of laptops and computers for Cal Micro in San Jose.

The agents also knew he was planning a short business trip to Dubai in a few weeks. Afifi said he often travels for business and has two teenage brothers in Egypt whom he supports financially. They live with an aunt. His U.S.-born mother, who divorced his father five years ago, lives in Arizona.

Afifi's father, Aladdin Afifi, was a U.S. citizen and former president of the Muslim Community Association here, before his family moved to Egypt in 2003. Afifi returned to the U.S. alone in 2008 to further his education he said. He knows he's on a federal watchlist and is regularly taken aside at airports for secondary screening.

Six months ago, a former roommate of his was visited by FBI agents who said they wanted to speak with Afifi. Afifi contacted one agent and was told the agency received an anonymous tip from someone saying he might be a threat to national security. Afifi told the agent he was willing to answer questions if his lawyer approved. But after Afifi's lawyer contacted the agency, he never heard from the feds again until he found their tracking device.

"I don't think they were surprised that I found it," he told Threat Level. "I'm sure they knew when I found it. [...] One of the first questions they asked me was if I was at a mechanics shop last Sunday. I said yes, that's where I found this stupid device under my car."

Afifi's attorney, who works for the civil liberties-focused Council on American Islamic Relations, said this kind of tracking is more egregious than the kind her office usually sees.

"The idea that it escalates to this level is unusual," said Zahra Billoo. "We take about one new case each week relating to FBI or law enforcement visits [to clients]. Generally they come to the individual's house or workplace, and there are issues that arise from that."

However, she said that after learning about Afifi's experience, other lawyers in her organization told her they knew of two people in Ohio who also recently discovered tracking devices on their vehicles.

Afifi's encounter with the FBI ended with the agents telling him not to worry.

"We have all the information we needed," they told him. "You don't need to call your lawyer. Don't worry, you're boring."

They shook his hand and left.
http://gizmodo.com/5658661/fbi-gets-caught-tracking-mans-car-wants-its-gps-device-back


The Government Can Use GPS to Track Your Moves
By ADAM COHEN Wednesday, Aug. 25, 2010

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.

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. There is a major battle under way in the federal and state courts over this issue, and the stakes are high. After all, if government agents can track people with secretly planted GPS devices virtually anytime they want, without having to go to a court for a warrant, we are one step closer to a classic police state — with technology taking on the role of the KGB or the East German Stasi.
Fortunately, other courts are coming to a different conclusion from the Ninth Circuit's — including the influential U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. That court ruled, also this month, that tracking for an extended period of time with GPS is an invasion of privacy that requires a warrant. The issue is likely to end up in the Supreme Court.
In these highly partisan times, GPS monitoring is a subject that has both conservatives and liberals worried. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit's pro-privacy ruling was unanimous — decided by judges appointed by Presidents Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush and Bill Clinton.
Plenty of liberals have objected to this kind of spying, but it is the conservative Chief Judge Kozinski who has done so most passionately. "1984 may have come a bit later than predicted, but it's here at last," he lamented in his dissent. And invoking Orwell's totalitarian dystopia where privacy is essentially nonexistent, he warned: "Some day, soon, we may wake up and find we're living in Oceania."


Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2015765,00.html#ixzz1kKUBPs5E
 

MagicBob

Registered User
Dec 2, 2010
2,171
15
88
#7
I think they mean ANY tracking device, not just a GPS attached to a car. They're small enough where they could disguise one as a pen or something else and slip one in a briefcase or a jacket.
I see what you are saying, the article was just poorly worded.
 

Motor Head

HIGHWAY TRASH REMOVAL
Jan 23, 2006
10,385
419
243
Land of hicks and rubes.
#8
Interesting. The local news did a story on it, and one of the best lawyers in town carted out almost a dozen of the units that had been placed on his cars, and those of his clients. The devices were about the size of a TV remote and cost between $2000-$3000 bucks. Of course no agency has stepped forward to claim their property. The attorney plans to turn them into the local cops as lost property.

I figure it's the feds going on fishing expeditions hoping to stumble on to something. Who knows. It could be the Diaz Brothers, looking to get somebody.
 

Party Rooster

Unleash The Beast
Apr 27, 2005
40,304
7,454
438
The Inland Empire State
#11
The funny thing about this (and totally expected) is that the en banc Ninth Circuit approved of these police state tactics.
I was waiting for some party hack to try and play the "biased librul court" card. You know the uber-liberal ACLU types also have a problem with this type of shit, just as the very libertarian conservative ones do. The three judges that originally ruled on this were: Diarmuid F. O’Scannlain, N. Randy Smith, and Charles R. Wolle. Two were appointed by Reagan and the other was appointed by George W. Bush. Nice try. :action-sm
 

Motor Head

HIGHWAY TRASH REMOVAL
Jan 23, 2006
10,385
419
243
Land of hicks and rubes.
#12
I was waiting for some party hack to try and play the "biased librul court" card. You know the uber-liberal ACLU types also have a problem with this type of shit, just as the very libertarian conservative ones do. The three judges that originally ruled on this were: Diarmuid F. O’Scannlain, N. Randy Smith, and Charles R. Wolle. Two were appointed by Reagan and the other was appointed by George W. Bush. Nice try. :action-sm
Oh shit, Don got Omega197'd and shit.
 

Don the Radio Guy

G-Bb-A-D
Donator
Mar 30, 2006
69,628
5,081
568
Wyoming
#14
I was waiting for some party hack to try and play the "biased librul court" card. You know the uber-liberal ACLU types also have a problem with this type of shit, just as the very libertarian conservative ones do. The three judges that originally ruled on this were: Diarmuid F. O’Scannlain, N. Randy Smith, and Charles R. Wolle. Two were appointed by Reagan and the other was appointed by George W. Bush. Nice try. :action-sm
Reagan and Bush appointed plenty of liberal activist judges. And you should probably Google the term "en banc" before you go spewing your Huffington talking points.
 

Party Rooster

Unleash The Beast
Apr 27, 2005
40,304
7,454
438
The Inland Empire State
#15
Reagan and Bush appointed plenty of liberal activist judges. And you should probably Google the term "en banc" before you go spewing your Huffington talking points.
Perhaps you should google the term "liberal." Because are you referring to the "liberal" Justice O'Scannlain who sided in favor of Don't Ask Don't Tell when an actual activist judge tried overstepping her authority and nulled DADT? According to Wiki he also once hob-nobbed at flaming "liberal" William F. Buckley's estate and ran as a Republican for Congress. That "liberal" Justice O'Scannlain who upheld in favor of religious liberty in the World Vision case? The same judge who also upheld the rights of students to include prayer at their graduation ceremony?

Or are we talking about L. Randy Smith? The "liberal" Mormon graduate from BYU who was head of the Republican party of Idaho?

Nah, you must be talking about Charles Wolle. I've heard him described as a flaming liberal. :icon_cool

And yes, I know what en banc means, but we're talking about those three justices who DENIED that rehearing. There was never an en banc hearing on this, it was denied by those guys. So you were wrong about that too. But yes, your favorite conservative on the 9th Circuit wrote an excellent dissent about that decision, but he was also joined by the top lib on that bench as well.

Although rehearing was denied, five judges dissented from the denial by published opinion, available here. The lead dissent was written by Chief Judge Kozinski, a leading conservative, and joined by, inter alia, Judge Reinhardt, widely viewed as the Ninth Circuit’s most influential liberal.
And to be accused of spewing talking points by the Talking Point Keeed, I don't know if I should be pissed or honored. But please show me where you think I ripped that from a HuffPo webpage. I'll even give you a head start on that:
https://www.google.com/search?hl=en...4l0l2008551l14l14l0l1l0l0l250l1755l3.9.1l13l0

:wavy:
 

Don the Radio Guy

G-Bb-A-D
Donator
Mar 30, 2006
69,628
5,081
568
Wyoming
#16
There was no en banc hearing?

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.
Sounds like en banc to me. Unless the story is incorrect.
 

Party Rooster

Unleash The Beast
Apr 27, 2005
40,304
7,454
438
The Inland Empire State
#17
There was no en banc hearing?

Sounds like en banc to me. Unless the story is incorrect.
It was only 5 of them in the August 2010 decision not to rehear the case, not even close to a majority of the dozens of judges on the 9th Circuit. "Larger group" of judges doesn't always equal en banc.

Besides, that's all well and good, but how do you explain the fact that you thought the judges that ruled on this were all "liberal activist judges," when they actually have pretty strong conservative credentials?
 
Top Bottom