Court allows agents to secretly put GPS trackers on cars

[pauldun170]

Court allows agents to secretly put GPS trackers on carsBy Dugald McConnell, CNN
August 27, 2010 9:26 a.m. EDT
GPS tracking: A question of privacySTORY HIGHLIGHTS
Appeals court upholds conviction based on GPS tracking
Dissenting federal judge says agents' tactics were "creepy"
The ruling is the opposite of one by another federal court

RELATED TOPICS
GPS Devices
Police
U.S. Courts
(CNN) -- Law enforcement officers may secretly place a GPS device on a person's car without seeking a warrant from a judge, according to a recent federal appeals court ruling in California.

Drug Enforcement Administration agents in Oregon in 2007 surreptitiously attached a GPS to the silver Jeep owned by Juan Pineda-Moreno, whom they suspected of growing marijuana, according to court papers.

When Pineda-Moreno was arrested and charged, one piece of evidence was the GPS data, including the longitude and latitude of where the Jeep was driven, and how long it stayed. Prosecutors asserted the Jeep had been driven several times to remote rural locations where agents discovered marijuana being grown, court documents show.

Pineda-Moreno eventually pleaded guilty to conspiracy to grow marijuana, and is serving a 51-month sentence, according to his lawyer.

But he appealed on the grounds that sneaking onto a person's driveway and secretly tracking their car violates a person's reasonable expectation of privacy.

"They went onto the property several times in the middle of the night without his knowledge and without his permission," said his lawyer, Harrison Latto.

The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the appeal twice -- in January of this year by a three-judge panel, and then again by the full court earlier this month. The judges who affirmed Pineda-Moreno's conviction did so without comment.

Latto says the Ninth Circuit decision means law enforcement can place trackers on cars, without seeking a court's permission, in the nine western states the California-based circuit covers.

The ruling likely won't be the end of the matter. A federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., arrived at a different conclusion in similar case, saying officers who attached a GPS to the car of a suspected drug dealer should have sought a warrant.

Experts say the issue could eventually reach the U.S. Supreme Court.

One of the dissenting judges in Pineda-Moreno's case, Chief Judge Alex Kozinski, said the defendant's driveway was private and that the decision would allow police to use tactics he called "creepy" and "underhanded."

"The vast majority of the 60 million people living in the Ninth Circuit will see their privacy materially diminished by the panel's ruling," Kozinksi wrote in his dissent.

"I think it is Orwellian," said Marc Rotenberg, executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, which advocates for privacy rights.

"If the courts allow the police to gather up this information without a warrant," he said, "the police could place a tracking device on any individual's car -- without having to ever justify the reason they did that."

But supporters of the decision see the GPS trackers as a law enforcement tool that is no more intrusive than other means of surveillance, such as visually following a person, that do not require a court's approval.

"You left place A, at this time, you went to place B, you took this street -- that information can be gleaned in a variety of ways," said David Rivkin, a former Justice Department attorney. "It can be old surveillance, by tailing you unbeknownst to you; it could be a GPS."

He says that a person cannot automatically expect privacy just because something is on private property.

"You have to take measures -- to build a fence, to put the car in the garage" or post a no-trespassing sign, he said. "If you don't do that, you're not going to get the privacy."

CNN's Lea Iadarola contributed to this article.

[CasterTroy]

But they can do that thru cell phones now

[shmike]

Not good.

[smileyman]

I suppose with the right warrant they could potentially track you thru your own sat nav GPS or thru your phone. Maybe even using tracking as evidence in high speed violations...Take hi res sat photos of you whenever they please. Fortunately for me I do nothing that warrants scrutiny.
hope my wife never gets this ability tho...

[shmike]

Originally Posted by smileyman

I suppose with the right warrant they could potentially track you thru your own sat nav GPS or thru your phone. Maybe even using tracking as evidence in high speed violations...Take hi res sat photos of you whenever they please. Fortunately for me I do nothing that warrants scrutiny.
hope my wife never gets this ability tho...

The problem is that they are doing this WITHOUT a warrant.

[smileyman]

Well I think the way things are headed they will be able to do it all without warrant eventually. Passive surveillance if you will. You have to know the NSA already does...

[KSGregman]

We already live in a surveillance state...not quite to the extent of the UK...but definitely headed in that direction.

"Traffic" cameras.....wiretaps....data collection at nearly EVERY turn...it's scary. Scarier still that no one really even notices or complains about it much. It's become pervasive...the new "normal."

I'm sure that Patrick Henry and Samuel Adams are rolling in their graves.

[Apoc]

Wow. Unbelievable. The worst part is, people let this shit happen.

Once upon a time, this stuff would have meant an open revolt/civil war. Now people dont care, because they dont think it affects them. They dont know how wrong they are.

[shmike]

Originally Posted by Apoc

Wow. Unbelievable. The worst part is, people let this shit happen.

Once upon a time, this stuff would have meant an open revolt/civil war. Now people dont care, because they dont think it affects them. They dont know how wrong they are.

This is something I have to take issue with.

When was this "once upon a time"? What decade do you think people would have revolted over an encroaching government?

1950's? 1920's? 1900's? 1800's? 1775?

All these cries of "people today are sooo apathetic" have been around since about 1784.

[Avatard]

Well, Shmike, he has a bit of a point. I mean, at some point people took shit like this seriously enough to leave Europe for here, surviving great sea voyages, and then striking out across vast plains, enduring attacks from natives, in order to have some freedom from this kinda shit.

Now it's just "Hey honey, look what they've done now", as they put the paper down on the breakfast table. Off to work...

As the population rises, we each feel less powerful as individuals.

When it was an original 13 colonies, and your town might have 150 people in it, it may have seemed that your voice might mean something.

Today, even your vote means essentially nothing. For starters, we need to make each vote count, and abolish the Electoral College. This, though it may seem nearly insignificant, will at least restore SOME feeling of power to the American voter.

Everyone now feels almost completely powerless, down to the fact that their individual vote even means shit. Perhaps if we restored just this little bit of true participation in government, people might feel ever so slightly more involved, and less apathetic.

Maybe we need to put it on TV more, and make it so you can vote with text messages.

It works for IDOL.