An Issue Of Constitutionality

StuckInTheSixties: Is the placement of a tracking device upon a vehicle (without a court approved warrant) a violation of the US Constitution, specifically, the Fourth Amendment?

On one hand, it could be argued that it is no more instrusive than physically following the tracked vehicle.

But on the other hand, it could be argued that the actual physical placement of a device is fundamentally different than following someone without any actual physical contact, and that it is more akin to something like the tapping a phone or placing a video camera upon someone's private property, both of which have been ruled unconstitutional.

I'm not asking if this offends your sensibilities, but rather, if you think it's a violation of rights guaranteed American citizens in the constitution.

Tink: I think it is if it is placed there without the owners consent.

Sables: well I think big brother doesn't give much of a rats bum about our constitutional rights......

StuckInTheSixties: Well, consider if it's done in something that's probably not what you might call a "Big Brother" situation. I'll make up a situation:

A child has been kidnapped, and police THINK they know who the kidnapper is, but they haven't the proper evidence to obtain search warrants, etc. They are hoping he'll lead them to the victim, the body, etc.

Now that I've tugged on your heartstrings, remember ...

I'm not asking if this offends your sensibilities, but rather, if you think it's a violation of rights guaranteed American citizens in the constitution. I'm asking a question of law, rather than morality.

Here's the text of the Fourth Amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Sables: lol you do know which buttons to push don't you

I think that in a case like that it is acceptable, I would understand if they had done it to me and it proved my innocence....


in reality if you had nothing to hide it shouldn't be a problem

StuckInTheSixties: Ahh, but that's the rub.

"in reality if you had nothing to hide it shouldn't be a problem"

That basically says that police should be able to search anyone, anything, any time ... because if you have nothing to hide, it shouldn't be a problem. You really want that?

The whole nature of law is that the law is the law. If you start making "exceptions" because your heartstrings are being tugged, the law becomes worthless.

That's the nature of law. Because life is filled with an infinite number of circumstances, there are always cases where law can cut both ways, such as this, as you've demonstrated ('cause you're a sweetie and have normal sensibilities). On one hand, there is something sinister about the idea of police being able to track the movements of someone's car, with no judicial oversight, just because they wish to do so. A circumstance like that absolutely BEGS for abuse. It also would probably mean that private citizens would be able to do that without legal recourse, as well. Nice guy that I am, you still probably wouldn't want me to be tracking your car, right?

But on the other hand ... well, there's the hypothetical kidnapped child described above.

It's a tough call. That's why I posed the question.

Sables: you are so right and in reality they need to show probable cause, but int the case of a kidnapped child time is of the essence

StuckInTheSixties: True. But we're sliding away from the question again, which is a question of LAW, rather than circumstance.

Sables: the world would be a perfect place if it were in black and white and we didn't have any grey areas, it is a tough call, but I do think if they can prove just cause...

StuckInTheSixties: That's what a warrant is for. The police present that "just cause" to a judge, who assesses it, and grants the warrant if, in his opinion, that cause is, legally, just cause.

But remember, my question is bases on the use of a tracking device WITHOUT a warrant. I compared it to the act of simply following the vehicle. That requires no warrant.

Sables: picky picky geez

unfortunately there has to be exceptions to the rule, I think in the case you speak of it is justified

StuckInTheSixties: In reality, there are exceptions. There shouldn't be, but there are. People, including people in the justice system, aren't perfect.

That's what appeals courts are for.

Outbackjack: It has been recently revealed that Apple deliberately inserted some kind of application/Software that tracks all Iphone users movements.

Its amazing how very few people are outraged about this.

In an internet age we seem to be becoming more passive about invasive techniques which breach our privacy.

Are we becoming more stupid or just dont care or both?

StuckInTheSixties: Let's at least make an attempt to stick with the topic, if you please ...

For whatever it's worth, you can obviously avoid that by not having an Iphone.

Karma: It's unreasonable search. Seems pretty clear to me. If there were probable cause they could get an order from a judge quickly. Or follow the car until such an order is given.

StuckInTheSixties: A case such as I described for this thread is headed for the US Supreme Court next year. Given the makeup of the court, it'll probably be a 5/4 decision, but I'm not sure which way.

Outbackjack: Come on 60s old pal you dont have to be anal about this.I believe that the Iphone issue is indeed a much bigger issue and directy linked to the topic.

As for an Iphone.

I have enough problems operating a normal mobile phone without complicating things more.

Anne aka Mags: I agree SITS that Jack's comments were within the context of the topic, just a variant.

As far as tracking is concerned, it is becoming more and more common for cars to be equipped with low-j%$&x&* often linked with gps systems. With court authority, what's to stop application by the police to access this?

Anyway, that's my thought!

Karma: Well, that's the difference - "with the court's authority." If law enforcement go to a judge and say we have a reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed, and reasonable belief that having access might solve that crime, a judge can issue an order.

SITS' question is about doing without getting it vetted by a court.

Anne aka Mags: I just don't see why it should be necessary to do it without court approval. That is my point. As far as constitutional, a line must be drawn and we must work within the system.

davidk14: .

Is the placement of a tracking device upon a vehicle (without a court approved warrant) a violation of the US Constitution, specifically, the Fourth Amendment?

I think so. (Edit...As using a wiretap on a phone without a court approved warrant)

There is a discussion on whether a “black box” should be installed on all automobiles and trucks like on airplanes. This would not be in violation of the US Constitution in my opinion.

.

Sables: this does bother me as it is an invasion of our rights, but I feel I need to set those feelings aside for the safety of others like abducted children

BlueOlive2: I understand how it can help in some situations but the thing is it doesn't stop there..I think it is new cars anyway whether or not people know it..be in your yard next..in your house..the phones..it won't stop..and think of the people that have been in trouble only from guilt by associations and the aggravations people have been thru to prove innocents...there really is no privacy anymore anyway..citizens really have no say..I suppose if you doing no wrong one would not worry,as I don't worry..but it is the principal of it all..open the door to it and all rights are lost

Sarcastic Dots: You pretty much answered your own question, SITS. It is unconstitutional, but that doesn't matter. There are plenty of ways the government have violated the forth amendment, this is just another thing to add.

sebtheanimal: Unless there is a warrant this would constitute a violation of our rights and impede the prosecution or any evidence gained thereoff become inadmissable in court. That does not mean it is not done as are other means of electronic surveillance. If the suspect has not broken any laws, there is nothing to worry about. There is just too many government pinheads to try to shake off.

spankdmonkey: Iam not in America so dont know their laws .But here in Australia they don"t need a warrant to put a tracking device on your car, they dont need a warrant to put invisible paint on your car and follow it by helicopter ..Because it is only surveilence ..No different then following you .
If the tracking device involved a listening or media device film ,then they are suppose to have a warrant .

Now if they did not have a warrant then the listening device is inadmissable in court as it was obtained illegaly .not that it stops them from doing it

. lets say they have a listening device and heard you saying something like where the stolen money is hidden .They would then kick your door in and obtain the money and then that would be evidence .but they could not use the listening device as evidence but they can use the stolen money as evidence even though they got the evidence through illegaly tapping your phone .

They tap phones here in Australia illegaly everyday .just for inteligence alone .They would be doing it in America also especialy since at war against terrorism