Warning: Assigning the return value of new by reference is deprecated in ..../showthread.php(2406) : eval()'d code on line 29
Just how deep does the hell hole go? My guess is we haven't even begun to see. - Page 2
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 21 of 21

Thread: Just how deep does the hell hole go? My guess is we haven't even begun to see.

  1. #16
    Reverse Apache Master
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    Law School
    Posts
    8,170

    Re: Just how deep does the hell hole go? My guess is we haven't even begun to see.

    *4 When you glide your BMW into your underground garage or behind an electric gate, you don't need to worry that somebody might attach a tracking device to it while you sleep. But the Constitution doesn't prefer the rich over the poor; the man who parks his car next to his trailer is entitled to the same privacy and peace of mind as the man whose urban fortress is guarded by the Bel Air Patrol. The panel's breezy opinion is troubling on a number of grounds, not least among them its unselfconscious cultural elitism.

    2. After concluding that entering onto Pineda-Moreno's property and attaching a tracking device to his car required no warrant, probable cause, founded suspicion or by-your-leave from the homeowner, the panel holds that downloading the data from the GPS device, which gave police the precise locus of all of Pineda-Moreno's movements, also was not a search, and so police can do it to anybody, anytime they feel like it. Contra United States v. Maynard, No. 08-3030, slip op. at 19 (D.C.Cir. Aug. 6, 2010). Our panel relies on United States v. Knotts, 460 U.S. 276 (1983), a case from the early 1980s, which involved very different technology.

    The Knotts Court refers to the device used there as a “beeper” and describes it as “a radio transmitter, usually battery operated, which emits periodic signals that can be picked up by a radio receiver.” Id. at 277. The beeper helped police follow a vehicle by emitting a signal that got stronger the closer the police were to it. The Court considered the beeper to be an aid to following a vehicle through traffic: “The governmental surveillance conducted by means of the beeper in this case amounted principally to the following of an automobile on public streets and highways.” Id. at 281. Individuals traveling on streets and highways can be seen by the public, so they have no reasonable expectation that they won't be followed. The beeper helped the police follow the suspect more effectively-the way binoculars enhance the ability to see what is otherwise visible. But the beeper could perform no tracking on its own, nor could it record its location. If no one was close enough to pick up the signal, it was lost forever.

    The electronic tracking devices used by the police in this case have little in common with the primitive devices in Knotts. One of the devices here used GPS satellites to pinpoint the car's location on a continuing basis-much like the electronic maps that are now popular in cars. The other type of device was, essentially, a cell phone that tracked the car's movements by its proximity to particular cell towers.

    Beepers could help police keep vehicles in view when following them, or find them when they lost sight of them, but they still required at least one officer-and usually many more-to follow the suspect. The modern devices used in Pineda-Moreno's case can record the car's movements without human intervention-quietly, invisibly, with uncanny precision. A small law enforcement team can deploy a dozen, a hundred, a thousand such devices and keep track of their various movements by computer, with far less effort than was previously needed to follow a single vehicle. The devices create a permanent electronic record that can be compared, contrasted and coordinated to deduce all manner of private information about individuals. By holding that this kind of surveillance doesn't impair an individual's reasonable expectation of privacy, the panel hands the government the power to track the movements of every one of us, every day of our lives.

    *5 The Supreme Court has recognized that advances in “police technology [can] erode the privacy guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment.” Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27, 34 (2001). To guard against this, courts “must take the long view, from the original meaning of the Fourth Amendment forward.” Id. at 40. Kyllo followed a line of cases going back to United States v. Karo, 468 U.S. 705 (1984), Katz, 389 U.S. at 353, and Silverman v. United States, 365 U.S. 505, 512 (1961), which stemmed the erosion of personal privacy wrought by technological advances.

    In Kyllo, the Court held that use of a thermal imager to detect the heat emanating from defendant's home was a search for purposes of the Fourth Amendment because the then-new technology enabled police to detect what was going on inside the home-activities the homeowner was entitled to consider private. Any other conclusion, the Court noted, “would leave the homeowner at the mercy of advancing technology-including imaging technology that could discern all human activity in the home.” Kyllo, 533 U.S. at 35-36 (citing Karo, 468 U.S. at 705). “While the technology used in the present case was relatively crude,” the Court continued, “the rule we adopt must take account of more sophisticated systems that are already in use or in development.” Id. at 36. In determining whether the tracking devices used in Pineda-Moreno's case violate the Fourth Amendment's guarantee of personal privacy, we may not shut our eyes to the fact that they are just advance ripples to a tidal wave of technological assaults on our privacy.

    If you have a cell phone in your pocket, then the government can watch you. Michael Isikoff, The Snitch in Your Pocket, Newsweek, Mar. 1, 2010, available at http://www.newsweek.com/id/233916. At the government's request, the phone company will send out a signal to any cell phone connected to its network, and give the police its location. Last year, law enforcement agents pinged users of just one service provider-Sprint-over eight million times. See Christopher Soghoian, 8 Million Reasons for Real Surveillance Oversight, Slight Paranoia (Dec. 1, 2009) http://paranoia/dubfire.net/2009/12/...veillance.html. The volume of requests grew so large that the 110-member electronic surveillance team couldn't keep up, so Sprint automated the process by developing a web interface that gives agents direct access to users' location data. Id. Other cell phone service providers are not as forthcoming about this practice, so we can only guess how many millions of their customers get pinged by the police every year. See Justin Scheck, Stalkers Exploit Cellphone GPS, Wall St. J., Aug. 5, 2010, at A1, A14 (identifying AT & T and Verizon as providing “law-enforcement[ ] easy access to such data”).

    Use LoJack or OnStar? Someone's watching you too. E.g., OnStar Stolen Vehicle Assistance, http://www.onstar.com/us_english/jsp/plans/sva.jsp (last visited July 17, 2010). And it's not just live tracking anymore. Private companies are starting to save location information to build databases that allow for hyper-targeted advertising. E.g., Andrew Heining, What's So Bad About the Google Street View Data Flap?, Christian Sci. Monitor, May 15, 2010, available at http://www.csmonitor.com/USA /2010/0515/What-s-so-bad-about-the-Google-StreetView-data-flap. Companies are amassing huge, ready-made databases of where we've all been. If, as the panel holds, we have no privacy interest in where we go, then the government can mine these databases without a warrant, indeed without any suspicion whatsoever.

    *6 By tracking and recording the movements of millions of individuals the government can use computers to detect patterns and develop suspicions. It can also learn a great deal about us because where we go says much about who we are. Are Winston and Julia's cell phones together near a hotel a bit too often? Was Syme's OnStar near an STD clinic? Were Jones, Aaronson and Rutherford at that protest outside the White House? The FBI need no longer deploy agents to infiltrate groups it considers subversive; it can figure out where the groups hold meetings and ask the phone company for a list of cell phones near those locations.

    The panel holds that the government can obtain this information without implicating the Fourth Amendment because an individual has no reasonable expectation of privacy in his movements through public spaces where he might be observed by an actual or hypothetical observer. But that's quite a leap from what the Supreme Court actually held in Knotts, which is that you have no expectation of privacy as against police who are conducting visual surveillance, albeit “augmenting the sensory faculties bestowed upon them at birth with such enhancements as science and technology afford[s] them.” 460 U.S. at 282.

    You can preserve your anonymity from prying eyes, even in public, by traveling at night, through heavy traffic, in crowds, by using a circuitous route, disguising your appearance, passing in and out of buildings and being careful not to be followed. But there's no hiding from the all-seeing network of GPS satellites that hover overhead, which never sleep, never blink, never get confused and never lose attention. Nor is there respite from the dense network of cell towers that honeycomb the inhabited United States. Acting together these two technologies alone can provide law enforcement with a swift, efficient, silent, invisible and cheap way of tracking the movements of virtually anyone and everyone they choose. See, e.g., GPS Mini Tracker with Cell Phone Assist Tracker, http://www.spyville.com/passive-gps.html (last visited July 17, 2010). Most targets won't know they need to disguise their movements or turn off their cell phones because they'll have no reason to suspect that Big Brother is watching them.
    This is my signature.

  2. #17
    Reverse Apache Master
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    Law School
    Posts
    8,170

    Re: Just how deep does the hell hole go? My guess is we haven't even begun to see.

    The Supreme Court in Knotts expressly left open whether “twenty-four hour surveillance of any citizen of this country” by means of “dragnet-type law enforcement practices” violates the Fourth Amendment's guarantee of personal privacy. 460 U.S. at 283-84. When requests for cell phone location information have become so numerous that the telephone company must develop a self-service website so that law enforcement agents can retrieve user data from the comfort of their desks, we can safely say that “such dragnet-type law enforcement practices” are already in use. This is precisely the wrong time for a court covering one-fifth of the country's population to say that the Fourth Amendment has no role to play in mediating the voracious appetites of law enforcement. But see Maynard, slip op. at 19.

    *7 * * *

    I don't think that most people in the United States would agree with the panel that someone who leaves his car parked in his driveway outside the door of his home invites people to crawl under it and attach a device that will track the vehicle's every movement and transmit that information to total strangers. There is something creepy and un-American about such clandestine and underhanded behavior. To those of us who have lived under a totalitarian regime, there is an eerie feeling of déjà vu. This case, if any, deserves the comprehensive, mature and diverse consideration that an en banc panel can provide. We are taking a giant leap into the unknown, and the consequences for ourselves and our children may be dire and irreversible. Some day, soon, we may wake up and find we're living in Oceania.

    REINHARDT, Circuit Judge, dissenting from the denial of rehearing en banc:

    I concur in Chief Judge Kozinski's dissent.

    I have served on this court for nearly three decades. I regret that over that time the courts have gradually but deliberately reduced the protections of the Fourth Amendment to the point at which it scarcely resembles the robust guarantor of our constitutional rights we knew when I joined the bench. See Fisher v. City of San Jose, 558 F.3d 1069, 1089 (9th Cir.2009) (en banc) (Reinhardt, J., dissenting); United States v. Ankeny, 502 F.3d 829, 841 (9th Cir.2007) (Reinhardt, J., dissenting); United States v. Crapser, 472 F.3d 1141, 1149 (9th Cir.2007) (Reinhardt, J., dissenting); United States v. Gourde, 440 F.3d 1065, 1074 (9th Cir.2006) (en banc) (Reinhardt, J., dissenting); United States v. Kincade, 379 F.3d 813, 842 (9th Cir.2004) (en banc) (Reinhardt, J ., dissenting); United States v. Hudson, 100 F.3d 1409, 1421 (9th Cir.1996) (Reinhardt, J., dissenting); Acton v. Vernonia Sch. Dist. 47J, 66 F.3d 217, 218 (9th Cir.1995) (Reinhardt, J., dissenting); United States v. Barona, 56 F.3d 1087, 1098 (9th Cir.1995) (Reinhardt, J., dissenting); United States v. Kelley, 953 F.2d 562, 566 (9th Cir.1992) (Reinhardt, J., dissenting); United States v. Alvarez, 899 F.2d 833, 840 (9th Cir.1990) (Reinhardt, J., dissenting); United States v. Flores, 679 F.2d 173, 178 (9th Cir.1982) (Reinhardt, J., dissenting).

    These decisions have curtailed the “right of the people to be secure ... against unreasonable searches and seizures” not only in our homes and surrounding curtilage, but also in our vehicles, computers, telephones, and bodies-all the way down to our bodily fluids and DNA.

    Today's decision is but one more step down the gloomy path the current Judiciary has chosen to follow with regard to the liberties protected by the Fourth Amendment. Sadly, I predict that there will be many more such decisions to come.

    I dissent.
    This is my signature.

  3. #18
    Reverse Apache Master
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    Law School
    Posts
    8,170

    Re: Just how deep does the hell hole go? My guess is we haven't even begun to see.

    The original decision:

    591 F.3d 1212, 10 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 359, 2010 Daily Journal D.A.R. 475

    United States Court of Appeals,
    Ninth Circuit.
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
    v.
    Juan PINEDA-MORENO, Defendant-Appellant.

    No. 08-30385.
    Argued and Submitted Oct. 5, 2009.
    Decided Jan. 11, 2010.

    Background: Defendant who had been charged with conspiracy to manufacture marijuana and manufacturing marijuana moved to suppress evidence obtained from mobile tracking device police attached to underside of his vehicle. The United States District Court for the District of Oregon, Owen M. Panner, J., denied motion. Defendant appealed.


    Holdings: The Court of Appeals, O'Scannlain, Circuit Judge, held that:
    (1) defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy to driveway or curtilage of residence;
    (2) defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy to undercarriage of vehicle;
    (3) defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy when parking vehicle on street or in parking lot; and
    (4) use of tracking device was not a search.

    Affirmed.
    This is my signature.

  4. #19
    Assrapey Sharkman PETA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    42,667

    Re: Just how deep does the hell hole go? My guess is we haven't even begun to see.

    beat me to it..... that's the denial of motion for rehearing en banc Adam?


    here's the opinion: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1497005.html

    court relied heavily on United States v. McIver, 186 F.3d 1119 (1999)

    1) That one sounded a bit goofy to me
    2) ditto
    3) that made sense
    4) this makes sense too but its about as far as I think they should be able to push that
    Read: ObtuseObserver dammit

  5. #20
    Tree-Thugger zymote's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    ATX
    Posts
    7,972

    Re: Just how deep does the hell hole go? My guess is we haven't even begun to see.

    Quote Originally Posted by PETA View Post
    beat me to it..... that's the denial of motion for rehearing en banc Adam?


    here's the opinion: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1497005.html

    court relied heavily on United States v. McIver, 186 F.3d 1119 (1999)

    1) That one sounded a bit goofy to me
    2) ditto
    3) that made sense
    4) this makes sense too but its about as far as I think they should be able to push that
    Yeah, I think it makes sense within the framework of the law. I just think it's a shitty law, and you should have some form of judicial review, but that's another debate entirely.
    Quote Originally Posted by John Vella
    why i could just kiss you, Tommy Zymote!!!
    Quote Originally Posted by Blake View Post
    zymote told me he would fuck you up if you don't shut your mouth.
    Quote Originally Posted by universol View Post
    zymote is a hot dog wearing fewl, that is just too damn witty for me to even fuck with! He is the pwnd masta, Ass grabba, ruler of useless blabba! No one, and I say no one wears a hot dog suit like that without emulating the perception of just being one big dick! Don't ever trust a man that wears the weiner and the buns ever!

  6. #21
    Assrapey Sharkman PETA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    42,667

    Re: Just how deep does the hell hole go? My guess is we haven't even begun to see.

    Quote Originally Posted by zymote View Post
    Yeah, I think it makes sense within the framework of the law. I just think it's a shitty law, and you should have some form of judicial review, but that's another debate entirely.
    Did you not see those walls of text posted up by Adam?

    That was your judicial review.
    Read: ObtuseObserver dammit

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Similar Threads

  1. Attention everyone everywhere...the end of the world has begun
    By djredeye in forum Music / DJ / Producer Talk
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 02-15-10, 06:58 PM
  2. Finally... it has begun.
    By Ender in forum Useless Blabber
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 04-23-09, 04:18 PM
  3. Demo of Seven has begun
    By 2505 in forum Events
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 04-10-07, 11:34 AM
  4. deep dish?? how the hell was it:)
    By junglisticDaze in forum Party Reviews
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 10-29-05, 08:12 PM
  5. Deep Dish - Heaven and Hell in the same night
    By Gator in forum Party Reviews
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 12-23-02, 05:35 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16