Total Posts:25|Showing Posts:1-25
Jump to topic:

6th US Circuit of Appeals - Boneheads

slo1
Posts: 4,318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2012 10:17:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
6th US circuit of appeals believes it is not a violation of rights if police track your location via cell phone without a warrant.

http://arstechnica.com...

I'm guess people are OK with this because the person who had his 4th amendment right violated was smuggling drugs. They, however, don't understand that once the precedence is set it is up to individual enforcement agencies to define when it can or can't be used. Do you really want that power in the hands of law enforcement?

Thank goodness, if this can get to the supreme court they would strike it down. Get a warrant and stop violating people's rights, a holes.
Chaos88
Posts: 247
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2012 11:22:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
From your description, I agree with the court.

First, it is your decision to have a cell phone.
Second, if you are out in public, you have no right to privacy.
Third, they are tracking a phone, not a person.
Fourth, this is an issue to bring up in trial: just because my phone was at these places, doesn't mean I was.
logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2012 4:46:26 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/5/2012 10:17:48 PM, slo1 wrote:
6th US circuit of appeals believes it is not a violation of rights if police track your location via cell phone without a warrant.

http://arstechnica.com...

I'm guess people are OK with this because the person who had his 4th amendment right violated was smuggling drugs. They, however, don't understand that once the precedence is set it is up to individual enforcement agencies to define when it can or can't be used. Do you really want that power in the hands of law enforcement?

Thank goodness, if this can get to the supreme court they would strike it down. Get a warrant and stop violating people's rights, a holes.

Thank God the Judiciary still respects rights, it may be our last hope. The USSC will not grant Cert.
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2012 7:56:02 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/5/2012 11:22:41 PM, Chaos88 wrote:
From your description, I agree with the court.

First, it is your decision to have a cell phone.
Second, if you are out in public, you have no right to privacy.
Third, they are tracking a phone, not a person.
Fourth, this is an issue to bring up in trial: just because my phone was at these places, doesn't mean I was.

It's your decision to have a house too. Should they bug my house?
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2012 8:49:59 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
A bit of clairification:
1. Privacy is not a delineated right it is a penumbra.
2. Reasonable is the important word and concept. Is it reasonable to presume privacy on a phone that is wireless? No. Want private....use land line.
3. Airwaves are under federal Jurisdiction since the radio became common.
4. If you have insurance you have waived any right to privacy you may have had, read your policies if you can get them.

Progressives and wanna be conservatives like Bush are equally culpable as is everyone who signs anything without reading AND understanding same.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2012 11:41:11 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/6/2012 8:49:59 AM, logicrules wrote:
A bit of clairification:
1. Privacy is not a delineated right it is a penumbra.
2. Reasonable is the important word and concept. Is it reasonable to presume privacy on a phone that is wireless? No. Want private....use land line.
Not true; the means of communication does not effect our right to privacy. It's completely arbitrary to say that landlines are protected by cell phones are not.
3. Airwaves are under federal Jurisdiction since the radio became common.
No they are under federal jurisdiction because they are not limited to one state. The signal goes into space bounces off a satellite, and comes back down to earth. Simply because the federal government has jurisdiction, does not mean they are no longer bound by rule of law.
4. If you have insurance you have waived any right to privacy you may have had, read your policies if you can get them.

Depends on the insurance agency. You are making a very broad statement with no source.
Progressives and wanna be conservatives like Bush are equally culpable as is everyone who signs anything without reading AND understanding same.

I agree, they both are totalitarian.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2012 1:00:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/6/2012 11:41:11 AM, DanT wrote:
At 9/6/2012 8:49:59 AM, logicrules wrote:
A bit of clairification:
1. Privacy is not a delineated right it is a penumbra.
2. Reasonable is the important word and concept. Is it reasonable to presume privacy on a phone that is wireless? No. Want private....use land line.
Not true; the means of communication does not effect our right to privacy. It's completely arbitrary to say that landlines are protected by cell phones are not.
3. Airwaves are under federal Jurisdiction since the radio became common.
No they are under federal jurisdiction because they are not limited to one state. The signal goes into space bounces off a satellite, and comes back down to earth. Simply because the federal government has jurisdiction, does not mean they are no longer bound by rule of law.
4. If you have insurance you have waived any right to privacy you may have had, read your policies if you can get them.

Depends on the insurance agency. You are making a very broad statement with no source.
Progressives and wanna be conservatives like Bush are equally culpable as is everyone who signs anything without reading AND understanding same.

I agree, they both are totalitarian.

. The means of communication is the basis of determination of privacy. If you communicate through the news paper...no privacy. The internet....no privacy.....yelling down the street....no privacy. Privacy is held with your personal papers and possessions only to a reasonable expectation.

As to insurance again you spout nonsense....the forms ALL come from the government and all the company does is put um in a package.
Chaos88
Posts: 247
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2012 4:13:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/6/2012 7:56:02 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 9/5/2012 11:22:41 PM, Chaos88 wrote:
From your description, I agree with the court.

First, it is your decision to have a cell phone.
Second, if you are out in public, you have no right to privacy.
Third, they are tracking a phone, not a person.
Fourth, this is an issue to bring up in trial: just because my phone was at these places, doesn't mean I was.

It's your decision to have a house too. Should they bug my house?

You need to compare apples to apples, here 16K. They did not bug the phone, they tracked it. They did not listen on phone calls, merely followed where the phone was.

Using a house as an example, the police can know where my house is without a warrant, and can sit outside on a public road without a warrant, and if my house is mobile, they could follow me to my next location (or at least know where it is).

They cannot bug my house without a warrant, nor can they bug my cell phone without one.

I am assuming if they bugged the phone, they wouldn't have followed the phone, they would have had any evidence they needed via the bug.
Chaos88
Posts: 247
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2012 4:17:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/6/2012 1:00:47 PM, logicrules wrote:
At 9/6/2012 11:41:11 AM, DanT wrote:
At 9/6/2012 8:49:59 AM, logicrules wrote:
A bit of clairification:
1. Privacy is not a delineated right it is a penumbra.
2. Reasonable is the important word and concept. Is it reasonable to presume privacy on a phone that is wireless? No. Want private....use land line.
Not true; the means of communication does not effect our right to privacy. It's completely arbitrary to say that landlines are protected by cell phones are not.
3. Airwaves are under federal Jurisdiction since the radio became common.
No they are under federal jurisdiction because they are not limited to one state. The signal goes into space bounces off a satellite, and comes back down to earth. Simply because the federal government has jurisdiction, does not mean they are no longer bound by rule of law.
4. If you have insurance you have waived any right to privacy you may have had, read your policies if you can get them.

Depends on the insurance agency. You are making a very broad statement with no source.
Progressives and wanna be conservatives like Bush are equally culpable as is everyone who signs anything without reading AND understanding same.

I agree, they both are totalitarian.

. The means of communication is the basis of determination of privacy. If you communicate through the news paper...no privacy. The internet....no privacy.....yelling down the street....no privacy. Privacy is held with your personal papers and possessions only to a reasonable expectation.

As to insurance again you spout nonsense....the forms ALL come from the government and all the company does is put um in a package.

Both of you are missing the issue at hand. It is not communication being private, it is tracking someone using a third party without a warrant. I am assuming that the communication was still private and the police did not have access to voice mails, texts, or anything that was spoken.

The issue is: can they use your personal property to track your property (i.e. you) without a warrant.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2012 6:26:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/6/2012 1:00:47 PM, logicrules wrote:
At 9/6/2012 11:41:11 AM, DanT wrote:
At 9/6/2012 8:49:59 AM, logicrules wrote:
A bit of clairification:
1. Privacy is not a delineated right it is a penumbra.
2. Reasonable is the important word and concept. Is it reasonable to presume privacy on a phone that is wireless? No. Want private....use land line.
Not true; the means of communication does not effect our right to privacy. It's completely arbitrary to say that landlines are protected by cell phones are not.
3. Airwaves are under federal Jurisdiction since the radio became common.
No they are under federal jurisdiction because they are not limited to one state. The signal goes into space bounces off a satellite, and comes back down to earth. Simply because the federal government has jurisdiction, does not mean they are no longer bound by rule of law.
4. If you have insurance you have waived any right to privacy you may have had, read your policies if you can get them.

Depends on the insurance agency. You are making a very broad statement with no source.
Progressives and wanna be conservatives like Bush are equally culpable as is everyone who signs anything without reading AND understanding same.

I agree, they both are totalitarian.

. The means of communication is the basis of determination of privacy. If you communicate through the news paper...no privacy. The internet....no privacy.....yelling down the street....no privacy.
None of those are forms of 1 on 1 communication, they are forms of mass communication. If someone yells "Ice-cream truck", they are communicating with who ever is in ear shot of their vocalization. If someone publishes an article, they are communicating with who ever reads the newspaper. If someone posts a thread on a forum, they are communicating with everyone on the forum. If someone calls someone up on their cell phone, they are communicating with who ever they are calling.

Privacy is held with your personal papers and possessions only to a reasonable expectation.

So you don't mind if I arbitrarily bug your phone?
As to insurance again you spout nonsense....the forms ALL come from the government and all the company does is put um in a package.

Not true, each insurance company has their own contract. Just because a contract is legally binding, does not mean the government wrote it.

" We value you as a customer and respect your right to privacy. We know that you purchase our products and services because you trust that we stand behind our promises. We pledge our commitment to treat your information responsibly, and we created this privacy policy to show you that we are working hard to protect your privacy.

Confidentiality and security
We use physical and technical safeguards to protect your information. We restrict access to your information to those who need it to perform their jobs. Third-party business partners are bound by law to use the information only for our purposes. They may not disclose it or use it in any other way. We comply with all data security laws...
Information sharing and opt out
We do not sell your personal information to anyone for any reason. We do not share it, except to service your product. These reasons are described in more detail above and are permitted by federal and state law. Therefore, there is no need for you to opt out. If we change our sharing policy, we will tell you and give you a chance to opt out before we share your information.

Please note: If you also purchased a different financial or insurance product, we may share your information for marketing purposes. If so, you will receive another privacy statement with instructions about how to opt out of information sharing."
https://www.scottsdaleins.com...

Of course, like always, you will probably bash by source, irrationally, without providing a single source of your own.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2012 6:30:25 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
.

Both of you are missing the issue at hand. It is not communication being private, it is tracking someone using a third party without a warrant. I am assuming that the communication was still private and the police did not have access to voice mails, texts, or anything that was spoken.

The issue is: can they use your personal property to track your property (i.e. you) without a warrant.

Tracking never needed a warrant....I can follow anyone I want, and so can the government. If you make stuff up you will always think you are correct. As to the third party stuff....that door closed years ago....see all state laws re a) car insurance, b) License plate sales(tax), c) All retail taxes.

The GPS in your phone may be your personal property but the satellite isn't.

The Constitution applys ONLY to the government.
logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2012 6:36:47 AM
Posted: 4 years ago

Confidentiality and security
We use physical and technical safeguards to protect your information. We restrict access to your information to those who need it to perform their jobs. Third-party business partners are bound by law to use the information only for our purposes. They may not disclose it or use it in any other way. We comply with all data security laws...
Information sharing and opt out
We do not sell your personal information to anyone for any reason. We do not share it, except to service your product. These reasons are described in more detail above and are permitted by federal and state law. Therefore, there is no need for you to opt out. If we change our sharing policy, we will tell you and give you a chance to opt out before we share your information.

Please note: If you also purchased a different financial or insurance product, we may share your information for marketing purposes. If so, you will receive another privacy statement with instructions about how to opt out of information sharing."
https://www.scottsdaleins.com...

Of course, like always, you will probably bash by source, irrationally, without providing a single source of your own.

LOL Every State has an Insurance Department and they produce the forms used in that state by everyone. FYI....only 2 insurance companies...ell Point for all Health and AIG for everything else. How do I know....Court Ordered Discovery. (see to big to fail)
As to communication, written or oral doesn't matter, still hinges on expectation, The real question is, Does a reasonable expectation even exist any more? The answer is NO. It is NOW UNREASONABLE to expect privacy.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2012 7:40:07 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/6/2012 7:56:02 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 9/5/2012 11:22:41 PM, Chaos88 wrote:
From your description, I agree with the court.

First, it is your decision to have a cell phone.
Second, if you are out in public, you have no right to privacy.
Third, they are tracking a phone, not a person.
Fourth, this is an issue to bring up in trial: just because my phone was at these places, doesn't mean I was.

It's your decision to have a house too. Should they bug my house?

Yes
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2012 8:05:42 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/6/2012 4:13:23 PM, Chaos88 wrote:
At 9/6/2012 7:56:02 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 9/5/2012 11:22:41 PM, Chaos88 wrote:
From your description, I agree with the court.

First, it is your decision to have a cell phone.
Second, if you are out in public, you have no right to privacy.
Third, they are tracking a phone, not a person.
Fourth, this is an issue to bring up in trial: just because my phone was at these places, doesn't mean I was.

It's your decision to have a house too. Should they bug my house?

You need to compare apples to apples, here 16K. They did not bug the phone, they tracked it. They did not listen on phone calls, merely followed where the phone was.

Using a house as an example, the police can know where my house is without a warrant, and can sit outside on a public road without a warrant, and if my house is mobile, they could follow me to my next location (or at least know where it is).

They cannot bug my house without a warrant, nor can they bug my cell phone without one.

I am assuming if they bugged the phone, they wouldn't have followed the phone, they would have had any evidence they needed via the bug.

Tracking cars is unconstitutional, why not phones?
http://www.scotusblog.com...
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
slo1
Posts: 4,318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2012 8:12:17 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/5/2012 11:22:41 PM, Chaos88 wrote:
From your description, I agree with the court.

First, it is your decision to have a cell phone.
Second, if you are out in public, you have no right to privacy.
Third, they are tracking a phone, not a person.
Fourth, this is an issue to bring up in trial: just because my phone was at these places, doesn't mean I was.

My choice to own something has absolutely no bearing on my right to be free of unreasonable search and seizure.

I am in public, and that is fine to have police tail and watch me. They do not have a right to turn on electronics on my personal phone to determine where I am without court oversight in the form of a warrant.

The phone is my personal property. you have just justified police placing a tracker on your clothes and anything else you owned without a warrant with #3. That is scary.

Lastly, they arrested the guy after they found him by turning on the GPS signal on his phone. It would be impossible to argue he was not there.
TheAsylum
Posts: 772
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2012 8:27:18 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
It amazes me that people can not put 5 & 5 together and get 10, They add it up to some off the wall number and deny that their government is trying to control every single thing you say, buy, sell, hear and read. This ulitmately leaves you as a surf or slave.
slo1
Posts: 4,318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2012 8:28:55 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/6/2012 8:49:59 AM, logicrules wrote:
A bit of clairification:
1. Privacy is not a delineated right it is a penumbra.
2. Reasonable is the important word and concept. Is it reasonable to presume privacy on a phone that is wireless? No. Want private....use land line.

It could be reasonable to assume privacy if phone companies used encryption on the signals. Just like the word "reasonable" can change over time as society continues to define what is reasonable or not. We could as a society create an unreasonable expectation with our carriers and gov when it comes to cell phone privacy, but first people need to care.
3. Airwaves are under federal Jurisdiction since the radio became common.

Yes, however, they are not just monitoring airwaves. The requested a 3rd party activate electronics in a persons cell phone without a warrant. Roads are also under gov jurisdiction. It is one thing to monitor road usage, it is another thing to activate electronics in your car to give you a ticket whenever you speed.

4. If you have insurance you have waived any right to privacy you may have had, read your policies if you can get them.

I'm not entirely certain, what a contract with a private entity has to do with gov illegal search and seizure. All public and private companies work with law enforcement when they ask for information. Companies like google publish an annual report of those types of requests and indicate the number that they refuse versus aid law enforcement. It is up to the company to vet out whether it is the right thing to do or not, which clearly ought to be driven whether there is a warrant or not.

Of course we have Bonehead Bush #2 and his republican cronies to thank for making it impossible to sue phone companies when they make wrong decisions to share information like Sprint did in this case. We need to reverse that law, so companies have a vested interest to ensure they are doing the right thing.

Progressives and wanna be conservatives like Bush are equally culpable as is everyone who signs anything without reading AND understanding same.

yes, as a result of 911 we have a steady stream of rights that we have lost as a people. It scares me what the gov can now do without any judicial oversight, one of which is drop a bomb on you in another country if the administration labels you as a terrorist. People don't truly understand the level of faith they are putting in future administrations that they will label their terrorists correctly.
logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2012 9:17:25 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/7/2012 8:05:42 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 9/6/2012 4:13:23 PM, Chaos88 wrote:
At 9/6/2012 7:56:02 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 9/5/2012 11:22:41 PM, Chaos88 wrote:
From your description, I agree with the court.

First, it is your decision to have a cell phone.
Second, if you are out in public, you have no right to privacy.
Third, they are tracking a phone, not a person.
Fourth, this is an issue to bring up in trial: just because my phone was at these places, doesn't mean I was.

It's your decision to have a house too. Should they bug my house?

You need to compare apples to apples, here 16K. They did not bug the phone, they tracked it. They did not listen on phone calls, merely followed where the phone was.

Using a house as an example, the police can know where my house is without a warrant, and can sit outside on a public road without a warrant, and if my house is mobile, they could follow me to my next location (or at least know where it is).

They cannot bug my house without a warrant, nor can they bug my cell phone without one.

I am assuming if they bugged the phone, they wouldn't have followed the phone, they would have had any evidence they needed via the bug.

Tracking cars is unconstitutional, why not phones?
http://www.scotusblog.com...

Wrong....Tracking cars is constitutional, the tracking is limited by "government interests". FYI there is a FICA court with the same aithority as the USSC and FICA opinions are sealed. Thanks Dick Nixon
slo1
Posts: 4,318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2012 2:08:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/7/2012 9:17:25 AM, logicrules wrote:
At 9/7/2012 8:05:42 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 9/6/2012 4:13:23 PM, Chaos88 wrote:
At 9/6/2012 7:56:02 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 9/5/2012 11:22:41 PM, Chaos88 wrote:
From your description, I agree with the court.

First, it is your decision to have a cell phone.
Second, if you are out in public, you have no right to privacy.
Third, they are tracking a phone, not a person.
Fourth, this is an issue to bring up in trial: just because my phone was at these places, doesn't mean I was.

It's your decision to have a house too. Should they bug my house?

You need to compare apples to apples, here 16K. They did not bug the phone, they tracked it. They did not listen on phone calls, merely followed where the phone was.

Using a house as an example, the police can know where my house is without a warrant, and can sit outside on a public road without a warrant, and if my house is mobile, they could follow me to my next location (or at least know where it is).

They cannot bug my house without a warrant, nor can they bug my cell phone without one.

I am assuming if they bugged the phone, they wouldn't have followed the phone, they would have had any evidence they needed via the bug.

Tracking cars is unconstitutional, why not phones?
http://www.scotusblog.com...

Wrong....Tracking cars is constitutional, the tracking is limited by "government interests". FYI there is a FICA court with the same aithority as the USSC and FICA opinions are sealed. Thanks Dick Nixon

I think you are thinking of FISC (foreign intelligence surveillance court). That does not pertain to us citizens who are wholly conducting themselves on american soil.
Chaos88
Posts: 247
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2012 3:14:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/7/2012 8:12:17 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 9/5/2012 11:22:41 PM, Chaos88 wrote:
From your description, I agree with the court.

First, it is your decision to have a cell phone.
Second, if you are out in public, you have no right to privacy.
Third, they are tracking a phone, not a person.
Fourth, this is an issue to bring up in trial: just because my phone was at these places, doesn't mean I was.

My choice to own something has absolutely no bearing on my right to be free of unreasonable search and seizure.

Tell me, do you have a landline? If you make a prank call, and all the police have is your phone number, can the police call up your service provider to ask your address without a warrant?

I am in public, and that is fine to have police tail and watch me. They do not have a right to turn on electronics on my personal phone to determine where I am without court oversight in the form of a warrant.

What is the difference? They can tail you so they know where you are, but they can't use a function of a phone that is already in place, and ask the cell phone provider for this information. Why not?

If I am in public, they do not have a right to listen in on my phone calls or look at my texts. But to figure my position is not an issue of search or seizure.

The phone is my personal property. you have just justified police placing a tracker on your clothes and anything else you owned without a warrant with #3. That is scary.

Wrong. Your phone is your personal property, but to use it, you use others' property (airwaves, towers, satallites). My clothes affect no one once purchased, so the analogy is poor. It is more akin to police searching my apartment, which consent can be given by my landlord without my permission or a warrant (I am not sure if they can go through my dresser drawers, though).

Lastly, they arrested the guy after they found him by turning on the GPS signal on his phone.
The police can turn on a GPS? Or was it his service provider?
It would be impossible to argue he was not there.
Unless he wasn't. The phone could have been in a trash bin.
logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2012 3:23:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/7/2012 2:08:23 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 9/7/2012 9:17:25 AM, logicrules wrote:
At 9/7/2012 8:05:42 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 9/6/2012 4:13:23 PM, Chaos88 wrote:
At 9/6/2012 7:56:02 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 9/5/2012 11:22:41 PM, Chaos88 wrote:
From your description, I agree with the court.

First, it is your decision to have a cell phone.
Second, if you are out in public, you have no right to privacy.
Third, they are tracking a phone, not a person.
Fourth, this is an issue to bring up in trial: just because my phone was at these places, doesn't mean I was.

It's your decision to have a house too. Should they bug my house?

You need to compare apples to apples, here 16K. They did not bug the phone, they tracked it. They did not listen on phone calls, merely followed where the phone was.

Using a house as an example, the police can know where my house is without a warrant, and can sit outside on a public road without a warrant, and if my house is mobile, they could follow me to my next location (or at least know where it is).

They cannot bug my house without a warrant, nor can they bug my cell phone without one.

I am assuming if they bugged the phone, they wouldn't have followed the phone, they would have had any evidence they needed via the bug.

Tracking cars is unconstitutional, why not phones?
http://www.scotusblog.com...

Wrong....Tracking cars is constitutional, the tracking is limited by "government interests". FYI there is a FICA court with the same aithority as the USSC and FICA opinions are sealed. Thanks Dick Nixon

I think you are thinking of FISC (foreign intelligence surveillance court). That does not pertain to us citizens who are wholly conducting themselves on american soil.

Oh yes it does....it's authority is absolute provided classified info is involved....
Chaos88
Posts: 247
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2012 3:23:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/7/2012 8:05:42 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 9/6/2012 4:13:23 PM, Chaos88 wrote:
At 9/6/2012 7:56:02 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 9/5/2012 11:22:41 PM, Chaos88 wrote:
From your description, I agree with the court.

First, it is your decision to have a cell phone.
Second, if you are out in public, you have no right to privacy.
Third, they are tracking a phone, not a person.
Fourth, this is an issue to bring up in trial: just because my phone was at these places, doesn't mean I was.

It's your decision to have a house too. Should they bug my house?

You need to compare apples to apples, here 16K. They did not bug the phone, they tracked it. They did not listen on phone calls, merely followed where the phone was.

Using a house as an example, the police can know where my house is without a warrant, and can sit outside on a public road without a warrant, and if my house is mobile, they could follow me to my next location (or at least know where it is).

They cannot bug my house without a warrant, nor can they bug my cell phone without one.

I am assuming if they bugged the phone, they wouldn't have followed the phone, they would have had any evidence they needed via the bug.

Tracking cars is unconstitutional, why not phones?
http://www.scotusblog.com...

Tracking cars in not unconstitutional, installing GPS tracking systems without a warrant is, though. That is the issue in this case. The police can follow me all they want on public roads in my car.

The key difference is a cell phone's location is already identifiable (either by triangulation when in use or GPS). Either way the location is identified, it uses property that the cell phone's user does not own, therefore there is no expectation of privacy. The property's owner can give the police the info they desire, or refuse.

A car's location is not identifiable (unless they have On-Star). The police, in the case you cited, installed a way to track it.
logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2012 3:48:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/7/2012 3:23:59 PM, Chaos88 wrote:
At 9/7/2012 8:05:42 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 9/6/2012 4:13:23 PM, Chaos88 wrote:
At 9/6/2012 7:56:02 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 9/5/2012 11:22:41 PM, Chaos88 wrote:
From your description, I agree with the court.

First, it is your decision to have a cell phone.
Second, if you are out in public, you have no right to privacy.
Third, they are tracking a phone, not a person.
Fourth, this is an issue to bring up in trial: just because my phone was at these places, doesn't mean I was.

It's your decision to have a house too. Should they bug my house?

You need to compare apples to apples, here 16K. They did not bug the phone, they tracked it. They did not listen on phone calls, merely followed where the phone was.

Using a house as an example, the police can know where my house is without a warrant, and can sit outside on a public road without a warrant, and if my house is mobile, they could follow me to my next location (or at least know where it is).

They cannot bug my house without a warrant, nor can they bug my cell phone without one.

I am assuming if they bugged the phone, they wouldn't have followed the phone, they would have had any evidence they needed via the bug.

Tracking cars is unconstitutional, why not phones?
http://www.scotusblog.com...

Tracking cars in not unconstitutional, installing GPS tracking systems without a warrant is, though. That is the issue in this case. The police can follow me all they want on public roads in my car.

The key difference is a cell phone's location is already identifiable (either by triangulation when in use or GPS). Either way the location is identified, it uses property that the cell phone's user does not own, therefore there is no expectation of privacy. The property's owner can give the police the info they desire, or refuse.

A car's location is not identifiable (unless they have On-Star). The police, in the case you cited, installed a way to track it.

Clarification...the police can do it, they just cant use it in court...right?
History....Prior to Nixon warrants had to be specific. If they were looking for Pistols and found Machine guns....to bad.
Chaos88
Posts: 247
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2012 4:35:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/7/2012 3:48:42 PM, logicrules wrote:
At 9/7/2012 3:23:59 PM, Chaos88 wrote:
At 9/7/2012 8:05:42 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 9/6/2012 4:13:23 PM, Chaos88 wrote:
At 9/6/2012 7:56:02 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 9/5/2012 11:22:41 PM, Chaos88 wrote:
From your description, I agree with the court.

First, it is your decision to have a cell phone.
Second, if you are out in public, you have no right to privacy.
Third, they are tracking a phone, not a person.
Fourth, this is an issue to bring up in trial: just because my phone was at these places, doesn't mean I was.

It's your decision to have a house too. Should they bug my house?

You need to compare apples to apples, here 16K. They did not bug the phone, they tracked it. They did not listen on phone calls, merely followed where the phone was.

Using a house as an example, the police can know where my house is without a warrant, and can sit outside on a public road without a warrant, and if my house is mobile, they could follow me to my next location (or at least know where it is).

They cannot bug my house without a warrant, nor can they bug my cell phone without one.

I am assuming if they bugged the phone, they wouldn't have followed the phone, they would have had any evidence they needed via the bug.

Tracking cars is unconstitutional, why not phones?
http://www.scotusblog.com...

Tracking cars in not unconstitutional, installing GPS tracking systems without a warrant is, though. That is the issue in this case. The police can follow me all they want on public roads in my car.

The key difference is a cell phone's location is already identifiable (either by triangulation when in use or GPS). Either way the location is identified, it uses property that the cell phone's user does not own, therefore there is no expectation of privacy. The property's owner can give the police the info they desire, or refuse.

A car's location is not identifiable (unless they have On-Star). The police, in the case you cited, installed a way to track it.

Clarification...the police can do it, they just cant use it in court...right?
History....Prior to Nixon warrants had to be specific. If they were looking for Pistols and found Machine guns....to bad.

There is little point to the police doing anything in an investigation if it is not to be used in court. The arrest warrant needs to have facts, and those facts need to be held up in a court of law. There is no point in getting an arrest with "dirty" evidence, when in court, you can't use it.

I can't speak about the specificity factor, but technically, the police could do anything as long as they don't use it in court. The problem is, you have to substantiate an arrest with "good" evidence. You could use tainted evidence to hone in on a suspect, but to arrest, you need clean evidence that can be used in court.

In the case of GPS-ing a car, I suppose the police could do it, to make sure this is their guy. But if they were to find any evidence by illegally tracking this car, and it could be reasonably argued that the police would never have obtained said evidence had they not GPS-ed the car (like a gun thrown in a dumpster), it would be "fruit from the poisonous tree" and not admissible.

A more clear cut example is a suspect in custody demands a lawyer, the police ignore the demand and continue questioning, then the suspect confesses. Since the continued questioning was unconstitutional, the confession is out because they only obtained it through illegal means. On the bright side, the police know they got the right guy. On the bad side, he will probably go free.

Regarding specificity, I think if I have a warrant for guns, and I enter your place and "in plain view" there are drugs, you can be arrested for possession of drugs. However, if I am searching through duffel bags and hollowed out books, and I find drugs there, since they are not in plain view, you are safe. Of course, the police now know you have drugs, so watch out.
logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2012 8:13:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/7/2012 4:35:24 PM, Chaos88 wrote:
At 9/7/2012 3:48:42 PM, logicrules wrote:
At 9/7/2012 3:23:59 PM, Chaos88 wrote:
At 9/7/2012 8:05:42 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 9/6/2012 4:13:23 PM, Chaos88 wrote:
At 9/6/2012 7:56:02 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 9/5/2012 11:22:41 PM, Chaos88 wrote:
From your description, I agree with the court.

First, it is your decision to have a cell phone.
Second, if you are out in public, you have no right to privacy.
Third, they are tracking a phone, not a person.
Fourth, this is an issue to bring up in trial: just because my phone was at these places, doesn't mean I was.

It's your decision to have a house too. Should they bug my house?

You need to compare apples to apples, here 16K. They did not bug the phone, they tracked it. They did not listen on phone calls, merely followed where the phone was.

Using a house as an example, the police can know where my house is without a warrant, and can sit outside on a public road without a warrant, and if my house is mobile, they could follow me to my next location (or at least know where it is).

They cannot bug my house without a warrant, nor can they bug my cell phone without one.

I am assuming if they bugged the phone, they wouldn't have followed the phone, they would have had any evidence they needed via the bug.

Tracking cars is unconstitutional, why not phones?
http://www.scotusblog.com...

Tracking cars in not unconstitutional, installing GPS tracking systems without a warrant is, though. That is the issue in this case. The police can follow me all they want on public roads in my car.

The key difference is a cell phone's location is already identifiable (either by triangulation when in use or GPS). Either way the location is identified, it uses property that the cell phone's user does not own, therefore there is no expectation of privacy. The property's owner can give the police the info they desire, or refuse.

A car's location is not identifiable (unless they have On-Star). The police, in the case you cited, installed a way to track it.

Clarification...the police can do it, they just cant use it in court...right?
History....Prior to Nixon warrants had to be specific. If they were looking for Pistols and found Machine guns....to bad.

There is little point to the police doing anything in an investigation if it is not to be used in court. The arrest warrant needs to have facts, and those facts need to be held up in a court of law. There is no point in getting an arrest with "dirty" evidence, when in court, you can't use it.

I can't speak about the specificity factor, but technically, the police could do anything as long as they don't use it in court. The problem is, you have to substantiate an arrest with "good" evidence. You could use tainted evidence to hone in on a suspect, but to arrest, you need clean evidence that can be used in court.

In the case of GPS-ing a car, I suppose the police could do it, to make sure this is their guy. But if they were to find any evidence by illegally tracking this car, and it could be reasonably argued that the police would never have obtained said evidence had they not GPS-ed the car (like a gun thrown in a dumpster), it would be "fruit from the poisonous tree" and not admissible.

A more clear cut example is a suspect in custody demands a lawyer, the police ignore the demand and continue questioning, then the suspect confesses. Since the continued questioning was unconstitutional, the confession is out because they only obtained it through illegal means. On the bright side, the police know they got the right guy. On the bad side, he will probably go free.

Regarding specificity, I think if I have a warrant for guns, and I enter your place and "in plain view" there are drugs, you can be arrested for possession of drugs. However, if I am searching through duffel bags and hollowed out books, and I find drugs there, since they are not in plain view, you are safe. Of course, the police now know you have drugs, so watch out.

Wow...I wonder why you aren't head of the FBI so intelligent on knowledgeable. If only the government still needed probable cause, huh?