I don't like going with random thoughts on anything, but you just contradicted yourself right there, sir.
"just like the first amendment doesn't protect your right to incite a riot, the fourth doesn't give you the right to privacy when you're deliberately making an ass of yourself to anyone within viewing distance." You go on to then say :"i don't see why it's such a stretch to consider your property line an extension of your privacy rights. or are you saying i should send the cops over to put a tracker on your car since you don't mind giving up your personal freedom so easily?" Well, dude, what do you mean? If something is in plain viewing distance, its no longer private, by your own admission. Thats why you can't just take a dump on your own lawn where anyone can see. Therefore, without signs prohibiting your actions, if it can be seen, its not considered private. Therefore your right to privacy has not been invaded. Further, even if there are signs prohibiting things such as trespassing, if you leave it open to the world then your privacy still hasn't been violated, but someone may have trespassed.
Now searching said car without a warrant would still be trespassing, but attaching a device that monitors where the car goes while its not in private mode (i.e. not in plain sight) isn't invading privacy by any means. How could it? How could you expect privacy in such a situation?
my point was that there are certain instances where the first amendment doesn't apply and taking a dump on your lawn is an instance where the fourth amendment doesn't apply. again, i'm not against the fact that criminals are being tagged with tracking devices, but the fourth amendment clearly states that a warrant shall be issued with probable cause. can you honestly tell me that having a blanket green light for any tracking device on the excuse that your car will be on public land eventually so therefore it's a public place is a good idea? it's very simple: want to track me? get a warrant first.
Its really no different from them just following you around. I would rather them do it more efficiently with a GPS than waste man hours and gas and what not on someone following these guys. Same principle.
Your mom. That's right. The cat is out of the bag. Your mom.
My mind isn't always in the gutter, it just has VIP access
secret GPS tracking upheld as legal practice
- 16/05/2011 02:37:14 PM
975 Views
How do they expect honest criminals to make a living with rules like this?
- 16/05/2011 06:24:45 PM
564 Views
sure this example is about convicted robbers
- 16/05/2011 06:42:51 PM
529 Views
I will have a problem when I see innocent people being targeted for no reason
- 16/05/2011 09:17:22 PM
540 Views
so get a warrant if these guys are such threats to society
- 17/05/2011 12:57:51 AM
525 Views
once again privacy takes place in private not in public. That is sorta where the word comes from
- 17/05/2011 02:23:05 PM
534 Views
the constitution guarantees the right of privacy to all, not just law abiding citizens
- 16/05/2011 09:14:24 PM
530 Views
where does it say that? It should be real easy to point to since it is in the constiution
- 16/05/2011 09:21:19 PM
582 Views
4th amendment
- 17/05/2011 12:55:00 AM
567 Views
Re: 4th amendment
- 17/05/2011 03:13:13 AM
529 Views
Re: 4th amendment
- 17/05/2011 03:28:36 AM
556 Views
Re: 4th amendment
- 17/05/2011 03:58:49 AM
530 Views
try reading it again it doesn't have the word privacy in it
- 17/05/2011 02:42:44 PM
541 Views
how is surveillance not a type of search? *NM*
- 17/05/2011 09:25:27 PM
264 Views
*NM*
how is different if it is done by GPS or tailing them in a car? *NM*
- 17/05/2011 10:00:53 PM
219 Views
it's not different -- if they get a warrant first
- 18/05/2011 01:50:13 AM
539 Views
*NM*