Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Think it through a little. You have no right to privacy between the street and your front door when someone (anyone) wants to solicit you. You have to take steps to secure your front door if you wish it to be part of your private space. You can do this by putting a gate in your driveway.
Also if you don't want the police to tag your car without your knowledge, park it in the garage. If you don't have a garage, well that's a choice you made. You also have the right to be secure in your space and that means you can put a camera on your car. Then you'll know if the police did this without your knowledge.
I can tell you with authority that if someone wants to solicit you they have a right to walk through your gate and knock on your front door. That does not give the police the right to walk onto your property and stick a microphone on your house to listen to you.
Not if you clearly post No soliciting signs.
They do.
Just like OnStar does.
Some do, some do not.
Mitch Rapp always takes out the battery!
so what?The Government Can Use GPS to Track Your Moves
I love these delusional assholes who think they're so almighty important that the government wants to track their movements.
Get over yourselves.
I can tell you with authority that if someone wants to solicit you they have a right to walk through your gate and knock on your front door. That does not give the police the right to walk onto your property and stick a microphone on your house to listen to you.
Not if you clearly post No soliciting signs.
That is not what asterim was saying though, his claim was that anyone could solicit you unless you put up a fence.
BTW, the best sign to put up to keep people out of your yard is a Beware of Dog sign, No Soliciting signs do not always have the force of the law behind them, but no one wants to get bitten by a dog.
Not if you clearly post No soliciting signs.
That is not what asterim was saying though, his claim was that anyone could solicit you unless you put up a fence.
BTW, the best sign to put up to keep people out of your yard is a Beware of Dog sign, No Soliciting signs do not always have the force of the law behind them, but no one wants to get bitten by a dog.
I have no trespassing signs up. And a couple that say beware of .45
I still had a couple of kids on 4 wheelers in a pasture a while back.
I held them till the cops came and impounded their 4 wheelers till the parents paid for the damages. Those kids believed that I would shoot them dead, and the belief as proved by palin is all that matters.
I love these delusional assholes who think they're so almighty important that the government wants to track their movements.
Get over yourselves.
The Government Can Use GPS to Track Your Moves
Read more: The Government's New Right to Track Your Every Move With GPS - TIME
ernment agents can sneak onto your property in the middle of the night, put a GPS device on the bottom of your car and keep track of everywhere you go. This doesn't violate your Fourth Amendment rights, because you do not have any reasonable expectation of privacy in your own driveway and no reasonable expectation that the government isn't tracking your movements.
That is the bizarre and scary rule that now applies in California and eight other Western states. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which covers this vast jurisdiction, recently decided the government can monitor you in this way virtually anytime it wants with no need for a search warrant.
It is a dangerous decision one that, as the dissenting judges warned, could turn America into the sort of totalitarian state imagined by George Orwell. It is particularly offensive because the judges added insult to injury with some shocking class bias: the little personal privacy that still exists, the court suggested, should belong mainly to the rich.
--
The judges veered into offensiveness when they explained why Pineda-Moreno's driveway was not private. It was open to strangers, they said, such as delivery people and neighborhood children, who could wander across it uninvited.
Chief Judge Alex Kozinski, who dissented from this month's decision refusing to reconsider the case, pointed out whose homes are not open to strangers: rich people's. The court's ruling, he said, means that people who protect their homes with electric gates, fences and security booths have a large protected zone of privacy around their homes. People who cannot afford such barriers have to put up with the government sneaking around at night.
Umm they can do it with your cell phone too
No sneaking required.
So someone's property may be assumed public access unless it's barricaded?Tremendously bad decision.
I can't agree. There is no expectation of privacy as it pertains to the location of your phone, your car, nor where you use your federally regulated bank account. There actually never has been. This is not a situation where due process was not followed, so I really don't see the issue (as it pertains to law and Constitutionality).
This is just a more efficient way of manually tailing a criminal suspect during a stakeout of his known residence.
The Government Can Use GPS to Track Your Moves
Read more: The Government's New Right to Track Your Every Move With GPS - TIME
ernment agents can sneak onto your property in the middle of the night, put a GPS device on the bottom of your car and keep track of everywhere you go. This doesn't violate your Fourth Amendment rights, because you do not have any reasonable expectation of privacy in your own driveway and no reasonable expectation that the government isn't tracking your movements.
That is the bizarre and scary rule that now applies in California and eight other Western states. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which covers this vast jurisdiction, recently decided the government can monitor you in this way virtually anytime it wants with no need for a search warrant.
It is a dangerous decision one that, as the dissenting judges warned, could turn America into the sort of totalitarian state imagined by George Orwell. It is particularly offensive because the judges added insult to injury with some shocking class bias: the little personal privacy that still exists, the court suggested, should belong mainly to the rich.
--
The judges veered into offensiveness when they explained why Pineda-Moreno's driveway was not private. It was open to strangers, they said, such as delivery people and neighborhood children, who could wander across it uninvited.
Chief Judge Alex Kozinski, who dissented from this month's decision refusing to reconsider the case, pointed out whose homes are not open to strangers: rich people's. The court's ruling, he said, means that people who protect their homes with electric gates, fences and security booths have a large protected zone of privacy around their homes. People who cannot afford such barriers have to put up with the government sneaking around at night.
Umm they can do it with your cell phone too
No sneaking required.
I checked my cell phone...it's says I'm about 2 miles from where I am.....if they're using my cell phone to track me, they'll never find me.....
Tremendously bad decision.
I can't agree. There is no expectation of privacy as it pertains to the location of your phone, your car, nor where you use your federally regulated bank account. There actually never has been. This is not a situation where due process was not followed, so I really don't see the issue (as it pertains to law and Constitutionality).
This is just a more efficient way of manually tailing a criminal suspect during a stakeout of his known residence.
How do you figure that?
An interesting note here is that SCOTUS is going to have to rule on this issue, because the 4th ruled exactly the opposite in a similar case.
Repeated visits to a church, a gym, a bar, or a bookie tell a story not told by any single visit, as does ones not visiting any of these places over the course of a month. The sequence of a persons movements can reveal still more; a single trip to a gynecologists office tells little about a woman, but that trip followed a few weeks later by a visit to a baby supply store tells a different story.*
Having tracked Joness movements for a month, the Government used the resulting pattern not just the location of a particular ―stash house or Joness movements on any one trip or even day as evidence of Joness involvement in the cocaine trafficking business. The pattern the Government would document with the GPS data was central to its presentation of the case.
Appeals Court Rules Against Secret Police GPS Tracking | Threat Level | Wired.com
The continuous snooping over a period of time amounts to an invasion of privacy because it can be used to determine information that is private in nature. It is also impossible to actually track anyone like this without a GPS device, despite what you see in movies.
this case is disturbing....it effectively allows the state to trespass onto your property (curtilage as the majority calls it) and attach a tracking device. now, there are other cases that allow tracking devices if the device was place on the vehicle while the vehicle is in a public place. however, a dc circuit just struck that down. so now there is a split in the courts and i believe this will go to the scotus.
this case and its trespassing is simply unbelievable and dangerous. the dissent (rehearing dissent so you had the full panel which explains why there are more judges) absolutely rips the majority a new asshole. that doesn't happen very happen.
http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/page....fco20100812145
a good read
Think it through a little. You have no right to privacy between the street and your front door when someone (anyone) wants to solicit you. You have to take steps to secure your front door if you wish it to be part of your private space. You can do this by putting a gate in your driveway.
Also if you don't want the police to tag your car without your knowledge, park it in the garage. If you don't have a garage, well that's a choice you made. You also have the right to be secure in your space and that means you can put a camera on your car. Then you'll know if the police did this without your knowledge.
I can tell you with authority that if someone wants to solicit you they have a right to walk through your gate and knock on your front door. That does not give the police the right to walk onto your property and stick a microphone on your house to listen to you.
So someone's property may be assumed public access unless it's barricaded?Tremendously bad decision.
I can't agree. There is no expectation of privacy as it pertains to the location of your phone, your car, nor where you use your federally regulated bank account. There actually never has been. This is not a situation where due process was not followed, so I really don't see the issue (as it pertains to law and Constitutionality).
This is just a more efficient way of manually tailing a criminal suspect during a stakeout of his known residence.
I can't go along with that.
Due process was followed.
I guess time will tell. However, it is very easy to tail someone manually. This just automates that lawful practice.
Think it through a little. You have no right to privacy between the street and your front door when someone (anyone) wants to solicit you. You have to take steps to secure your front door if you wish it to be part of your private space. You can do this by putting a gate in your driveway.
Also if you don't want the police to tag your car without your knowledge, park it in the garage. If you don't have a garage, well that's a choice you made. You also have the right to be secure in your space and that means you can put a camera on your car. Then you'll know if the police did this without your knowledge.
I can tell you with authority that if someone wants to solicit you they have a right to walk through your gate and knock on your front door. That does not give the police the right to walk onto your property and stick a microphone on your house to listen to you.
What is the authority?
So someone's property may be assumed public access unless it's barricaded?I can't agree. There is no expectation of privacy as it pertains to the location of your phone, your car, nor where you use your federally regulated bank account. There actually never has been. This is not a situation where due process was not followed, so I really don't see the issue (as it pertains to law and Constitutionality).
This is just a more efficient way of manually tailing a criminal suspect during a stakeout of his known residence.
I can't go along with that.
I don't think it's right, but it is the law. That's how news crews can camp out on peoples' lawns. They are on the "public easement." It's why the Police can walk up and knock on my door but can't go around back to the shed if he doesn't have a warrant.
"Good fences make good neighbors."So someone's property may be assumed public access unless it's barricaded?I can't agree. There is no expectation of privacy as it pertains to the location of your phone, your car, nor where you use your federally regulated bank account. There actually never has been. This is not a situation where due process was not followed, so I really don't see the issue (as it pertains to law and Constitutionality).
This is just a more efficient way of manually tailing a criminal suspect during a stakeout of his known residence.
I can't go along with that.
I don't think it's right, but it is the law. That's how news crews can camp out on peoples' lawns. They are on the "public easement." It's why the Police can walk up and knock on my door but can't go around back to the shed if he doesn't have a warrant.
