An Issue Of Constitutionality (Page 2)
"You pretty much answered your own question, SITS. It is unconstitutional"
Actually, I haven't, and the courts certainly haven't ... not yet, anyway.
spankd, although he's an Aussie, hit the nail on the head as to why this is a tough question. As he points out, in Australia, authorities can take certain measures for following an auto "because it is only surveillance. It's not a search.
Anyone who's read the famous book "The French Connection" might remember that the two New York City cops are tailing mob heroin importers all over the city, something very tricky in the traffic of NYC, and at one point, they employ a little trick of breaking the tail light on one of the cars they're following to make it easier to tail in the busy nighttime traffic. This is a variation on that. It's not a search, but it's definitely an intrusion. (I can't remember if they show that in the movie or not.)
Granted, pretty much every one reading this seems to be in agreement that it's an intrusion of some sort, and the idea of it just seems WRONG to most of us, but as to whether it actually violates the 4th Amendment ... I just don't know.
Law is law, and the courts aren't supposed to rule depending on whether or not an act is "wrong," or if we don't like it, but rather, whether or not it violates the law.
Sarcastic Dots: I don't know, I just assumed everyone knew about this;
Remove the space.
Sure, it's not directly linked but it certainly is comparable. That was what I was thinking about when I made that comment.
(Edited by Sarcastic Dots)
dvustimmer: I can only say under the constitution in my opinion that absolutely it would be unconstitutional. I do not see anywhere in constitution it says .....the amendments unless congress or the courts or the particular state deem otherwise......
Fair enough if you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide, so no harm no foul. But to accomplish this and the use of tracking devices without consent of suspect and due process, something has to be radified to constitution.
I don't believe you can abidge the bill of rights with the general welfare clause.
Short and sweet, the amendments to the constitution are suppose to trump all braches of Government. I think that's what they taught me back in civics. That was a long time ago, I still call it civics.
ewarner1: How about we take a twist on this? The court may very well decide it is reasonable, but US citizens do not. Congress can pass a law making it unexceptable, like they did with the Financial Right to Privacy Act when the Supremes decided we don't have rights to privacy in banking.
The courts go only so far, and for a reason. I think giving the government that much ability to track is scary, regardless of whether it passes muster in the courts.
dvustimmer: ewarner, in the most simple form which I stated I would think it's a pretty solid statement of fact. However, I do conceed to you, in reality it's alittle more complicated than that. I think you pretty well stated a good example of it's hard to figure what the "correct" answer really is.
"How about we take a twist on this? The court may very well decide it is reasonable"
The Supreme Court doesn't decide what is "reasonable" or not. It decides what is constitutional or not.
ewarner1: I believe the court uses a reasonable standard when determining issues of search and seizure, at least thats what I remember.
ewarner1: Its an interesting idea that "constitutional" and a good idea are two different things. If the Supreme Court determines that the madatory insurance provision of Obamacare is constitutional, they may or may not, the American people get to decide if its a good idea or not.
That is why, even if the Supremes decide this issues of tracking is constitutional I think it is a bridge too far, too much control to uncle sam.
You apparently misunderstand the premise.
The device was placed on the car surreptitiously. If it was put on your car, you wouldn't know it was there. It's not something for which there would be an "inspection."
BlackMagicNights: you dont think people work on their own cars? fixing things, customizing things, changing parts and chips.
Of course some people do. However, most people don't work on their own cars in such a way that they would find a hidden tracking device. Only a very few "customize things," etc. Actually, most people probably don't work on their cars AT ALL. They take their cars to mechanics. And certainly, a tracking device wouldn't be placed in such a way as to be easily spotted, would it?
But you were talking about "put[ting] it back in whenever [you] had an inspection.
Explain that, please.
(Edited by StuckInTheSixties)
BlackMagicNights: well I though we were supposed to have that tracking device in (if it ever happened), and if we did find it the government would put a law saying we can't remove it under penalty... Its like when people remove a restrictor to either make the car faster and such. I though they would have to put it back in when they had their cars inspected. If not then I didn't know. That's just what I thought people who customize their cars do.
"well I though we were supposed to have that tracking device in (if it ever happened), and if we did find it the government would put a law saying we can't remove it under penalty... "
As I said, you apparently misunderstood the premise.
(Edited by StuckInTheSixties)
xapim: i think the constitution was a bunch of guys who dont get along and wrote in english hirglyphics rules.....kinda like the pres. and congress. it seems in todays world its who can do what about it more then the constitution, crime rules constitution drools, not even the lone ranger can compete with masked men these days. lifes a party, just dont get caught unless you can do somethin about it........
salisburycin: 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?
All tracking devices, as far as I am concerned, are against our rights. So are those TSA/Homeland security check points that are in a "constitution free zone". Our (us) gov't has gone wild and does whatever they want. It doen't seem to matter who gets voted into office. The voting counts may be b/s and a waste of time as far as I know. Remember Flordia?
franklin1950: there is the often used argument .....
" if you aren't doing anything wrong or illegel what are you afraid of ? "
Yeah, it's common. And it's stupid.
The fact that arguments like that are common is the main reason why we have the Bill of Rights.