82 replies to this topic

[Shotgun Willy]

gotta love technicalities and loopholes

[Charles Stuart]

I cannot find this story on Fox news!!!!!! Why not?

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

The crux of this thread relies on this paragraph:

Agents installed these devices on the underside of Pineda-Moreno's Jeep on seven different occasions. ? On four of these occasions, the vehicle was parked on a public street in front of Pineda-Moreno's home. ? On one occasion, it was located in a public parking lot. ? On the other two occasions, the Jeep was parked in Pineda-Moreno's driveway, a few feet from the side of his trailer. ? The driveway leading up to the trailer was open; ?agents did not observe any fence, gate, or “No Trespassing” signs indicating that they were not to enter the property. ? The agents entered Pineda-Moreno's driveway between 4:00 and 5:00 a.m. and attached the tracking devices to the Jeep. Once in place, the tracking devices recorded and logged the precise movements of the vehicle. ? Some of these devices permitted agents to access the information remotely, while others required them to remove the device from the vehicle and download the information directly.

So it appears that on five of the seven occasions, Pineda-Moreno's vehicle was parked on a public right of way, and the other two in his driveway.

I'm calling shenanigans on that. First of all, you shouldn't have to erect a fence, gate or "No Trespassing" sign in order to keep people from violating your property. That reminds me of the guy who steals your lunch from the refrigerator in the break room, and when confronted says, "Well it didn't have your name on it." It shouldn't have to -- you don't need to know who's it is, you just need to know it's not yours. Private property should be assumed to be off-limits unless you specifically know otherwise.

And second, even if your car is parked in a public place, the police still shouldn't be able to attach a tracking device to it without a court order.

[Invicta]

On the first, I believe the doctrine developed due to a variety of things, such as not always knowing that land is private, or having people buy huge tracks of land used for hunting by large groups of people, who assume they can still hunt there unless its posted. Standard rule across the board in US is fair warning. You just need to make it clear that you don't want people on your property at all, otherwise there are all kinds of "common" things that could be done, such as taking a shortcut through it, hunting on it, turning around in your driveway, etc. etc.

[Dan2680]

I'm calling shenanigans on that. First of all, you shouldn't have to erect a fence, gate or "No Trespassing" sign in order to keep people from violating your property. That reminds me of the guy who steals your lunch from the refrigerator in the break room, and when confronted says, "Well it didn't have your name on it." It shouldn't have to -- you don't need to know who's it is, you just need to know it's not yours. Private property should be assumed to be off-limits unless you specifically know otherwise.

And second, even if your car is parked in a public place, the police still shouldn't be able to attach a tracking device to it without a court order.

I agree, if its not yours you should know well enough not to use it or take it. The only case I think would be the exception would be if it wasnt private in the first place, or you were allowed on the land and the ownership changed all without your knowledge and then you werent allowed on (first offence would be excusable in my mind).

But yeah, without a warrant I believe the police force to be no different than anyone else. If I went and put a tracking device on someone's car right now I would get charged with a multitude of things more than likely (invasion of privacy, etc etc). But if I presumed him to be doing drug deals that makes it ok?

What I dont understand is... if they had all that time to monitor the car wouldnt it of only taken a day to get a warrant from a judge to do this? I know I sure would, considering my job would be on the line.

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

On the first, I believe the doctrine developed due to a variety of things, such as not always knowing that land is private, or having people buy huge tracks of land used for hunting by large groups of people, who assume they can still hunt there unless its posted. Standard rule across the board in US is fair warning. You just need to make it clear that you don't want people on your property at all, otherwise there are all kinds of "common" things that could be done, such as taking a shortcut through it, hunting on it, turning around in your driveway, etc. etc.

To me there's a difference between vast tracts of open land and the areas immediately surrounding a dwelling. It should be obvious to any reasonable person that people's front lawns, for example, are private property. In the case in question the individual's car was parked in his driveway, which is clearly private property.

[Invicta]

You're also making the mistake of believing that property rights are absolute, which has NEVER been the case in the history of the American or British legal systems. Nobody has an absolute right to anything they "own", there are multitudes of ways, ancient as hell, that the government can interfere with people's personal property with or without a warrent. I have no problem with this.

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

To be honest, the tracking-device-without-a-warrant bothers me a little more than the fact that the car was in his driveway. It also bothers me that if he had a fence or barrier erected, then they couldn't have done it. By that rationale the rich guy with an eight-foot stone wall around his property has more right to privacy than I do, and that's not fair.

My understanding of the English system is that if you own large parcels of land, you must allow the public access to it. But that does not apply to the area immediately surrounding the house. I'm not sure how far that "zone of privacy" extends, but I'm sure it would encompass the driveway next to the house!

[atlashill]

Well, if the ninth circuit court of appeal's rationale for public access to my land is because I didn't tell them they couldn't, then I would suggest our weed-growing Oregonian challenge them to a trial by battle to settle this.

Based upon precedent from British law, this still exists in the US because we haven't explicitly outlawed it. Since the UK outlawed it after the Revolution, we can't claim a parallel precedent. Thus, if the circuit court of appeals say that the Feds can go up to my car when it's parked next to the freakin' garage of my house, because I haven't painted my mailbox purple (which does means "no trespassing" in the State of Missouri) or built a fence in the city's right of way, then by that logic the ability to invoke trial by battle still exists, because it hasn't been explicitly banned.

Regarding the large tracts of land allowing access: unlike the US, in the UK there are miles upon miles of walking trails (aka footpaths) that are maintained by volunteers with the aide of county councils. These cut through swaths of fields and follows centuries of old roadways. Additionally, I personally see the concept of land ownership as different in the US than the UK. In the UK, as a kingdom, in one form or another you're renting land from the crown. If the Duke of Edinburgh wanted to knock down a forest to put up a distillery for his personal stash of whisky, he could pull it off with little legal resistance. He'd catch a lot of flack and negative PR about the move, but there's nothing legally binding to my knowledge that's keeping the crown from doing so. Just centuries of benign deferral to commoner bodies. In the US, there's no crown or higher being that is a default titleholder of the country's land. If you bought it, it's yours. You can fight tooth and nail to prevent foreclosure and eminent domain proceedings, drag things out for years.

[Invicta]

I would think it would specifically not include the driveway unless otherwise posted due to the commonality of people using driveways as turn-arounds and all that sort of thing.

[Charles Stuart]

Yet another reason Canada is better than that horrible country on it's southern border.

[atlashill]

Yet another reason Canada is better than that horrible country on it's southern border.

Yes, we're so horrible our deplorable grammar skills have rubbed off on you.

[Haflinger]

There's a difference between the curbside and your driveway. The curbside is at the edge of the street, part of the public right of way. Whenever a utility company or municipal service needs to dig something up, they can encroach on your property without requiring your permission so long as it's within the public right of way. Once you get past the sidewalk and the three dotted lines on the city planner's plat maps, your driveway is past the right of way.

This is the result of a misconception about property law.

If there is a right of way over your property, you cannot bar people from using your property. They have to be allowed access, you can't fence them off and if you do they can sue to have the fence destroyed.

People are allowed to use your property, though, legally, as long as you don't bar them. You can wander over vacant lots, you're not trespassing. Same for driveways.

[Charles Stuart]

Yet another reason Canada is better than that horrible country on it's southern border.

Yes, we're so horrible our deplorable grammar skills have rubbed off on you.

this too. Damn yanks

[atlashill]

There's a difference between the curbside and your driveway. The curbside is at the edge of the street, part of the public right of way. Whenever a utility company or municipal service needs to dig something up, they can encroach on your property without requiring your permission so long as it's within the public right of way. Once you get past the sidewalk and the three dotted lines on the city planner's plat maps, your driveway is past the right of way.

This is the result of a misconception about property law.

If there is a right of way over your property, you cannot bar people from using your property. They have to be allowed access, you can't fence them off and if you do they can sue to have the fence destroyed.

People are allowed to use your property, though, legally, as long as you don't bar them. You can wander over vacant lots, you're not trespassing. Same for driveways.

We call that the sidewalk. And you don't need my whole freakin' driveway to pull in, realise you've gone down the wrong road, pull out & turn around.

[Dan2680]

There's a difference between the curbside and your driveway. The curbside is at the edge of the street, part of the public right of way. Whenever a utility company or municipal service needs to dig something up, they can encroach on your property without requiring your permission so long as it's within the public right of way. Once you get past the sidewalk and the three dotted lines on the city planner's plat maps, your driveway is past the right of way.

This is the result of a misconception about property law.

If there is a right of way over your property, you cannot bar people from using your property. They have to be allowed access, you can't fence them off and if you do they can sue to have the fence destroyed.

People are allowed to use your property, though, legally, as long as you don't bar them. You can wander over vacant lots, you're not trespassing. Same for driveways.

We call that the sidewalk. And you don't need my whole freakin' driveway to pull in, realise you've gone down the wrong road, pull out & turn around.

^ this

The boulevard and the sidewalk are not your property (albeit, you still are required to keep them clean and safe), and thus people may freely pull in or walk on the sidewalk. Pulling all the way into the driveway is different. I would consider my driveway private property. A place where I would expect people not to snoop around, or place GPS tracking bugs.

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

I don't expect to have tracking devices placed on my vehicle no matter where it's parked. That kind of thing should require a judge's order.

And what about the placing of the device itself? Would it be legal for me to put a bumper sticker on your car?

[Invicta]

Again, the legal rules are rarely, if ever, the same for police during an investigation. Not that I know what they are. Haf may be able to enlighten us, but you can't just put the same rules on them as the general citizenry.

Also a tracking device is easily removable, so it wouldn't be considered vandalism in the same way as a bumper sticker probably would.

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

Well, you could put a sticker on a window, which would be easily removable and not cause any damage to the paint, etc.

Back in the 80s, when car alarms first became popular, the devices were so sensitive that the slightest touch would set them off. So there was a constant din in parking lots of car alarms. I remember a friend's dad telling us to be careful because it was illegal even to touch someone else's car. I remember thinking that didn't sound right.

[Shotgun Willy]

heh, I remember some of those alarms. One of my teachers in middle school had a car with a really sensitive alarm, and it would be accidentally set off pretty often. I did it myself once or twice, lol.

Anyway, fact is is that as long as you don't say "no tresspassing" or something of the sort, then anything that can be accessed without breaking a lock or something like that is publically accessible and doesn't fall under the domain of the 4th amendment. At least, that's how it is for now. I'm not entirely sure that I like the idea of police messing with the outside of my car in any way, but, regardless, I'll take safety over freedom (to an extent) any day. I've got nothing to hide.