21 ms·
Read the whole case and consider these salient points: -The cops did in fact get a warrant to place a GPS device on the subjects car, but did so outside the te
by Nrsolis 15y ago
Read the whole case and consider these salient points:
-The cops did in fact get a warrant to place a GPS device on the subjects car, but did so outside the terms of the warrant.
-The argument that the actual installation and tracking didn't constitute a search was rejected.
The point I'm trying to make is that there are lots of congruent mechanisms that make this information available to third parties that aren't necessarily going to be encumbered by the need to install a "tracking device" on a subject vehicle. Lots of information is already collected in the normal and proper operation of things like cellphones (for E911 -or- Facebook). There is VERY little case-law on this specific subject but I think my point (which we were originally arguing) that there is a "reasonable expectation of privacy" is enshrined in law.
The fact that you are driving a car on a public road isn't necessarily private, but I think it would be reasonable to suggest that the exact movements of a person over a period of a year (for example), to include who they might be co-located with in a specific property, or other pertinent meta-data DOES constitute something we would reasonably expect to be private.
To your other point:
"What a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection."
There are MANY MANY instances where personal data is exported and stored without the knowledge of an individual that create all sorts of legal minefields for you. For example, I might be fully aware that my car is not invisible and can be seen by people on my street. I might be completely unaware that my cellphone is regularly broadcasting my location to Verizon or ATT even when I'm not using it.
There is a HUGE gap in public understanding of the practical effects of this technology use and the repercussions of that use. This "reasonable expectation of privacy" bit is going to collide with technology in a big big way IMHO.
- tptacek 15y agoDoesn't every criminal who is followed by a surreptitious police tail then get to claim the same reasonable expectation that nobody should have known about his specific transit from a drug corner to the stash house? Everybody wants privacy in every situation. The whole point of there being a notion of a "reasonable expectation" to it is that a line has to be drawn somewhere. Without it, there'd be no law enforcement at all.
- Nrsolis 15y agoAren't you being a little disingenuous here? The whole point of getting a warrant is to justify to a competent legal authority (judge) that the specific right (reasonable expectation of privacy) is outweighed by the states interest (upholding the law). NOBODY here is claiming that this right is absolute. More to the point: if the cops had simply done their job and obtained the warrant, executed it properly, and stayed within the confines of that warrant, there is no case for the SCOTUS to hear.
- tptacek 15y agoWe're talking about the margins of warrant requirements and the expectation to privacy. Nobody's being disingenuous. The territory here simply isn't clear. Again: the FBI lost this case because they physically tampered with someone else's effects. They did not lose because SCOTUS determined that people have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their public movements. Which is unsurprising, because SCOTUS has explicitly said people don't reasonably have that expectation. So, no. Not being disingenuous. Again: under your reasoning, couldn't the drug dealer fall back on their reasonable expectation of not having someone tail them as they transited from the drug corner to the stash house? Because the police can obviously do that without a warrant.
- Nrsolis 15y agoAnd again, I go back to REASONABLE. Cops following the guy is fine. Reasonable. But your argument falls apart if the cops can go to Verizon or AT&T and pull your cached GPS data without a warrant. I certainly feel like that would be an unreasonable search. I think most people would agree with me. I think that's where the law will ultimately take us too.
- tptacek 15y agoIs the line maybe at "real-time"? Maybe the concern is best expressed as, "we don't feel it's OK for the police to RETROACTIVELY pull information about our location history; perhaps it's not reasonable for us to feel private about standing on a street corner or driving down an interstate, but we certainly feel private about the totality of everywhere we've been for the past month". Maybe we feel it's more reasonable for the police to tail us because they're collecting the information actively and in real-time.