Should the police be able to stick GPS on your vehicle without a warrant?

SouthernDemocrat said:

My point is that "strict constructionists" has become a catch all term for social conservatives where if a right is not very explicitly stated in the constitution, you don't have it. Many of these "strict constructionists" have said as much. Well this is what you get, judges that don't recognize the right to privacy of an individual because its not absolutely, positively, explicitly stated in the constitution.

Personally, I prefer judges that see the constitution as a document that limits the powers of government, not a document that grants rights to individuals on U.S. soil.

Click to expand...

It does limit the powers of the federal gov't very strictly, that is what strict constructionism is about. It then does though allow the states quite a broad scope but that is a matter for the states and their people and court systems, it is not to be solved by allowing the feds to loosely define and reinterpret the constitution and law and gain a lot of power at the expense of the states.

SouthernDemocrat said:

Scalia, Thomas, and the ill fated Bork nominee, believe that you do not have a right to privacy because its not explicitly stated in the constitution. In fact, Scalia believes the whole notion of a right to privacy has been "cooked up".

Basically, these supposed "strict constructionists" believe the government more or less gives you rights. If you want a right to privacy, amend the constitution in their view.

Its why these litmus tests for "originalists" by the hard core right is a joke in terms of protecting liberty.

Click to expand...

This has little to do with strict constructionism then or originalism.

Strict constructionism reserves all none directly granted powers to the states or individuals. The only way it would be strict constructionism is if the the power to invade privacy was directly granted by the federal constitution and nothing was set up to guard against this in the document.

That is not strict constructionism's fault however, it is the documents, and not helped by allowing the judiciary to redefine the constitution willy-nilly and turn it into mere guidelines.

SouthernDemocrat said:

Scalia, no Thomas, no the ill fated Bork nominee, believe that you have a right to privacy because its not explicitly stated in the constitution. In fact, Scalia believes the whole notion of a right to privacy has been "cooked up".

Basically, these supposed "strict constructionists" believe the government more or less gives you rights. If you want a right to privacy, amend the constitution in their view.

Click to expand...

You mean, (gasp!) those judges don't make things up and claim they found it in the Constitution? Amazing! Can we get more of those wonderful people appointed to the courts?


Here's some issues that have to be discussed on this thread:

What is the difference between tailing a person, and sticking a gadget on his car to do the same? As was pointed out, how is this different than sticking a bug on his coat?

Is it legal for the police to trail a person constantly, day and night, tracking his every move on the public thoroughfares?

Since no warrants were issued, how does the police stalking of this individual differ from the presumed stalking he was doing of his alleged object of attention?

Alternately, a court order is required to tap a person's telephone. (We're going to ignore terrorist related activity for this one, people) How is "tapping" his car different?

I"m going to take the slippery slope argument and say that if the cops feel it's a good thing to track one person without a warrant, they'll have orgasms at the thought of tracking everyone, and yes, it is possible to get enough computer power to do it, too. This is related to all the goon states that want to tax car mileage, since some have proposed using GPS to that effect.

I'm also going to argue that a man has every expectation that his movements should be as free of intrusive surveillance as his telephone and computer use.

No, it's not legal for the police to personal tail a citizen without probable cause, it's called harassment. Thus arguing that since the cops could tail him directly, therefore they can stick a bug on his car to do it remotely, doesn't fly.

SouthernDemocrat said:

I don't know about that. A lot of them think that the only rights you have are those that are explicitly stated in the Bill of Rights.

Click to expand...

no such strict constructionist actually exists.

Harry Guerrilla said:

Yea you can buy police radio scanners.

You will often find old people listening to them, why I have no clue.
Its a requirement for some old people.

Click to expand...

I didn't know you could buy them? A friend of mine has one and he acts like it's a sacred piece of equipment only the men in blue have....sheesh.....

Lita456 said:

I didn't know you could buy them? A friend of mine has one and he acts like it's a sacred piece of equipment only the men in blue have....sheesh.....

Click to expand...

Yea they are pretty cheap from what I remember.

One of my family members has it on even while they are watching tv.
It borders on moon bat crazy to me.

jamesrage said:

A simple yes or no question.

I say no, its not the government or police's damn business where you travel in the US. These judges should be removed.

Wisconsin court upholds GPS tracking by police -- chicagotribune.com

Wisconsin court upholds GPS tracking by police

MADISON, Wis. - Wisconsin police can attach GPS to cars to secretly track anybody's movements without obtaining search warrants, an appeals court ruled Thursday.

However, the District 4 Court of Appeals said it was "more than a little troubled" by that conclusion and asked Wisconsin lawmakers to regulate GPS use to protect against abuse by police and private individuals.

As the law currently stands, the court said police can mount GPS on cars to track people without violating their constitutional rights -- even if the drivers aren't suspects.

Officers do not need to get warrants beforehand because GPS tracking does not involve a search or a seizure, Judge Paul Lundsten wrote for the unanimous three-judge panel based in Madison.

Click to expand...

Hell f'n no! No reason why the police should be able to track any of us without warrant. It is search, you are searching their patterns of behavior and destination to try to gather information. Some of that may be able to be done with good ol' fashioned stake out which maybe doesn't need warrant, but I say make them do a good ol' fashioned stake out then.

Soon the identification chip will be injected into you when you are born anyway.
Who gives a crap about your car. They know where you are anyway.
Quite disturbing.

Implanting ID tags raises Orwellian fears


Under-the-skin ID chips move toward U.S. hospitals

Scarecrow Akhbar said:

You mean, (gasp!) those judges don't make things up and claim they found it in the Constitution? Amazing! Can we get more of those wonderful people appointed to the courts?

Click to expand...

No, we mean judges who choose to ignore an entire Amendment because it clashes with their BS social agenda. The Ninth Amendment is the most marginalized and misinterpreted Amendment EVER in the history of America. The Bill of Rights is not exhaustive, and unenumerated rights are EXPLICITLY affirmed in the Constitution. Privacy is not reserved to the government, hence it is an unenumerated right.

Does this imply I somehow agree with Roe v Wade? Hell no. I'm pro-life now and forever, but I despise the judges and legal "experts" who have effectively rendered the Ninth Amendment impotent.

The issue is really that they are attaching a device to your property. Where do the police think they get the right to add/modify your personal property at all?

That is the real issue. They don’t need a warrant to tail you around all day in public. They don’t need a warrant to take photos of you out and about in public. But they should never have the authority to plant a bug/gps tracking product to my private property with or without a warrant.

The strict constructionist stuff was a bunch of bull**** though. A constructionist realizes the constitution was pretty much universally meant as a limitation on the federal government, not on the states and this is why they don’t pretend to find privacy rights in the text.

Ethereal said:

No, we mean judges who choose to ignore an entire Amendment because it clashes with their BS social agenda.

Click to expand...

yeah, I've never liked liberal activist fiction-writing judges either.

ARealConservative said:

The strict constructionist stuff was a bunch of bull**** though. A constructionist realizes the constitution was pretty much universally meant as a limitation on the federal government, not on the states and this is why they don’t pretend to find privacy rights in the text.

Click to expand...

Yeah, that was just a red herring SD planted because it's a bunch of liberals in Wisconsin doing this.

What I want to see is a case where strict constructionist interpretation of the Constitution limited someone's rights or freedoms.

No, women do not have the right to murder children, so no, strict interpretation that correctly defends the unborn is not such a situation.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:

yeah, I've never liked liberal activist fiction-writing judges either.

Click to expand...

Divining rights from the Ninth Amendment and the penumbras of other Amendments is only incorrect when such a practice does not coincide with the letter of the law and the spirit of the Constitution. The idea that privacy is not a right is beyond ridiculous. The argument shouldn't be whether or not such a right exists - it does - the argument should be what said right encompasses. Does the right to privacy encompass abortion? I will state unequivocally that it does not, but I won't allow the misapplication of a right to threaten the right itself.

If they don't need a warrant to stick a broomstick up your ass why would they need a warrant to stick a GPS on your vehicle?