Why ignore Kavanaugh's disregard for the Constitution?

[RodISHI]

Judge Kavanaugh issued an opinion in a decision to deny plaintiffs' emergency petition for rehearing en banc and determined that the government's "bulk collection of telephony data" is "entirely consistent with the Fourth Amendment."

That does concern me. Particularly because of the lack of technical knowledge or system specifics that any judge or lawyer has in hearing cases like that.

But face it -- there's only 4 or 5 members of Congress that will speak out against the KNOWN abuses and POTENTIAL abuses of the Big Brother NSA Spy Machine. And those 4 or 5 have invested time to UNDERSTAND the technology and the risks. Today it's hacking an opposition political campaign. Tomorrow it will be making a group filthy rich by spying financial transactions.

And hardly ANY POLITICIAN wants to face this system down. The hypocrites in Congress OVERWHELMINGLY RE-AUTHORIZED the 702 Domestic spying just this year at a time when the ENTIRE nation was becoming aware of the FISA court abuses and hijinks. And they did it WITHOUT adding the amendments suggested to add protections for citizens. Some of the same REPUB TARDS investigating the FBI abuses with the 702 system VOTED for re-authorization WITHOUT added safeguards.

AND -- on the EVE of that vote, Trump tweeted out a SCATHING criticism of renewing it without further changes. But what hardly anyone even noticed is -- by NOON of the day of the vote, Trump had backed totally down and retracted most of his opinion.

That's how fishy all this is. Don't tell me who the Civil Libertarian are. There ARE NONE in either Brand Name party anymore save 4 or 6.. And don't tell me about statists.. If you want ANTI-Statists and Civil Libertarians, they are all unaffiliated or Big L or Little l libertarians.

Personally, I think most everyone in D.C. has been comprised by "files and intel". And when it comes to Domestic Spying -- they are just gonna roll over anyways.

As for the jacket unzipping and "party trespassers" --- those have very little damage potential to 4th amendment rights. If you read further -- the "jacket unzipping" was to VERIFY the clothing underneath, because there was a bulletin description of the robber. Could care less either way. Should be some police discretion.

To that point, you cannot get anyone interested in the dangers of Government DOMESTIC SPYING, because most folks say they "have nothing to hide". Well then --- what ya bitchin' about a jacket unzipping then??

That discretion seems to be a problem also as a lot of the Clinton generation teens have none.

 

[Darkwind]

Yep! Right now it’s about sticking it to democrats for their smear campaign! Vote Kavanaugh.

What an idiot you are acting like. Sticking it to liberty is what anyone who supports this guy is what you are doing. Republicans can be as nasty as Democrats when it comes to ignoring our civil rights.

You bet! Next time you want to defeat someone do it honestly. Otherwise fuck you and all democrats!

What an idiot you are acting like. Sticking it to liberty is what anyone who supports this guy is what you are doing. Republicans can be as nasty as Democrats when it comes to ignoring our civil rights.

You bet! Next time you want to defeat someone do it honestly. Otherwise fuck you and all democrats!

Now you are truly showing what a dumb-ass you are. I have been a registered Republican for many years and all my best friends are too. What I am not is so ignorant as to believe that when you start removing Constitutional protections you start becoming a police state. Too bad your brain is stuck on that dog and pony show they all put on for the totally blind fools to follow along with. If you had done your research you would know Kavanaugh was as much Obama's man as he was Bush's for taking away peoples 4th and 5th. Stuff that up your craw and choke on it for awhile.

You’re registered R because you’re too fucking lazy to change parties or you’re currying favor from someone (kissing ass).

Rodishi isn't a Democrat.

Willow, you'd likely recognize her old Avatar... it said something like 'please don't eff the children'

She, like most of us Gunny era posters doesn't post as often as she used to...but I guarantee, she's one of us.

Thank you Missourin but I am afraid I am not like Willow in the aspect of willing to screw everyone for the sake of f'ing over the democrats.

A friend posted this meme a few days ago which covers Patriot Act 'groping' nicely.
View attachment 221459

Your friend is wrong. Utilizing a private business opens you up to their rules.

 

[PredFan]

I have not seen anyone in the know among those who claim to be conservative patriots talking about this except Judge Andrew Napolitano.

Kavanaugh's disregard for our rights to privacy; and everyone that I had any respect for in their reporting on conservative issues are ignoring that and instead they are reporting on the dog and pony show in D.C.. What a disgrace for him to be called a Constitutionalist by anyone.

"The Nominee and Privacy
The Fourth Amendment
Judge Kavanaugh has authored a number of Fourth Amendment opinions which have consistently favored law enforcement and government surveillance over the privacy of individuals.

In Klayman v. Obama, Judge Kavanaugh went out of his way to set out theories to defend the suspicionless surveillance of the American public that surprised even conservative legal scholars. The case challenged the constitutionality of the National Security Agency's bulk collection of telephone metadata collection program, a program that collected call records of millions of Americans. Judge Kavanaugh issued an opinion in a decision to deny plaintiffs' emergency petition for rehearing en banc and determined that the government's "bulk collection of telephony data" is "entirely consistent with the Fourth Amendment." He set out two justifications: (1) the third-party doctrine, and (2) national security. The opinion was surprising because the denial of a petition for a rehearing en banc is a procedural matter, and rarely calls for an opinion by one of the panel members. In issuing an opinion as Judge Kavanaugh did, he not only broke with tradition but also set out views in defense of post 9-11 surveillance that no judge had previously stated. Judge Kavanaugh's tendency to elevate national security over individual privacy, in this case and broadly, may jeopardize important privacy protections established by the Supreme Court's Fourth Amendment precedents.

Judge Kavanaugh dissented in United States v. Maynard, a case that was later appealed to the Supreme Court under the name United States v. Jones. In Maynard, the D.C. Circuit majority held that the government's warrantless use of a global positioning system ("GPS") device to track the public movements of an appellant's vehicle for approximately four weeks was an unreasonable search in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Judge Kavanaugh, dissenting from the court, noted that the police's initial installation of the GPS device on the appellant's car without a warrant raised an important question over whether that installation was an "unauthorized physical encroachment within a constitutionally protected area." He found this to be an "important question [that] deserves careful consideration" while dismissing the panel opinion's reliance on the amount of information obtained by the police as a "novel aggregation approach to Fourth Amendment analysis." Without regard to the vast stores of private data collected on users these days, however, serious privacy violations might happen with no Fourth Amendment redress.

In Wesby v. District of Columbia, Judge Kavanaugh dissented from a decision denying a petition for rehearing en banc and found that the police had probable cause to arrest a group of party-goers for trespassing when the police had no evidence about their state of mind. Writing for the majority in United States v. Burnett, Judge Kavanaugh determined that the police had probable cause to search a rental car for heroin based on defendants' travel activity. In United States v. Washington, he held that police officers had a reasonable fear for their safety during a traffic stop when defendants ran the stop sign, and that their search of defendants' car thus does not violate the Fourth Amendment.

Writing for the majority in a panel opinion in United States v. Askew, and dissenting from a rehearing en banc of the same case , Judge Kavanaugh found it reasonable for the police to unzip the jacket of a suspected armed robber to facilitate a show-up even though the unzipping would neither establish nor negate his identification as the robber. In United States v. Spencer, he ruled for the police and held that their search of defendant's house was permissible under the Fourth Amendment.

In all his authored Fourth Amendment opinions, Judge Kavanaugh has sided with government surveillance and police search without any exception, even when serious privacy violations exist. This disregard for Americans' privacy is a threat to our democracy and treasured civil liberties. It could also jeopardize the important privacy protections established by the Supreme Court's Fourth Amendment precedents.
...." more at link EPIC - Brett M. Kavanaugh and Privacy




FOX News lost any credibility along with their lackey speaker Representative Ronald Dion DeSantis.

You understand that there are other judges on the scotus right? You understand that there are others on the scotus that are no where near being a constitutionalist right? You understand that you won’t get a judge you agree on everything with right?

 

[WillowTree]

Yep! Right now it’s about sticking it to democrats for their smear campaign! Vote Kavanaugh.

What an idiot you are acting like. Sticking it to liberty is what anyone who supports this guy is what you are doing. Republicans can be as nasty as Democrats when it comes to ignoring our civil rights.

You bet! Next time you want to defeat someone do it honestly. Otherwise fuck you and all democrats!

What an idiot you are acting like. Sticking it to liberty is what anyone who supports this guy is what you are doing. Republicans can be as nasty as Democrats when it comes to ignoring our civil rights.

You bet! Next time you want to defeat someone do it honestly. Otherwise fuck you and all democrats!

Now you are truly showing what a dumb-ass you are. I have been a registered Republican for many years and all my best friends are too. What I am not is so ignorant as to believe that when you start removing Constitutional protections you start becoming a police state. Too bad your brain is stuck on that dog and pony show they all put on for the totally blind fools to follow along with. If you had done your research you would know Kavanaugh was as much Obama's man as he was Bush's for taking away peoples 4th and 5th. Stuff that up your craw and choke on it for awhile.

You’re registered R because you’re too fucking lazy to change parties or you’re currying favor from someone (kissing ass).

Rodishi isn't a Democrat.

Willow, you'd likely recognize her old Avatar... it said something like 'please don't eff the children'

She, like most of us Gunny era posters doesn't post as often as she used to...but I guarantee, she's one of us.

Thank you Missourin but I am afraid I am not like Willow in the aspect of willing to screw everyone for the sake of f'ing over the democrats.

A friend posted this meme a few days ago which covers Patriot Act 'groping' nicely.
View attachment 221459

Do you have a brain? Are you aware of what the DemonRats did to this man? And you are going to make them some tea? Just go register demonRat. That’s what you are. You are no Republican.

 

[RodISHI]

Yep! Right now it’s about sticking it to democrats for their smear campaign! Vote Kavanaugh.

What an idiot you are acting like. Sticking it to liberty is what anyone who supports this guy is what you are doing. Republicans can be as nasty as Democrats when it comes to ignoring our civil rights.

You bet! Next time you want to defeat someone do it honestly. Otherwise fuck you and all democrats!

You bet! Next time you want to defeat someone do it honestly. Otherwise fuck you and all democrats!

Now you are truly showing what a dumb-ass you are. I have been a registered Republican for many years and all my best friends are too. What I am not is so ignorant as to believe that when you start removing Constitutional protections you start becoming a police state. Too bad your brain is stuck on that dog and pony show they all put on for the totally blind fools to follow along with. If you had done your research you would know Kavanaugh was as much Obama's man as he was Bush's for taking away peoples 4th and 5th. Stuff that up your craw and choke on it for awhile.

You’re registered R because you’re too fucking lazy to change parties or you’re currying favor from someone (kissing ass).

Rodishi isn't a Democrat.

Willow, you'd likely recognize her old Avatar... it said something like 'please don't eff the children'

She, like most of us Gunny era posters doesn't post as often as she used to...but I guarantee, she's one of us.

Thank you Missourin but I am afraid I am not like Willow in the aspect of willing to screw everyone for the sake of f'ing over the democrats.

A friend posted this meme a few days ago which covers Patriot Act 'groping' nicely.
View attachment 221459

Your friend is wrong. Utilizing a private business opens you up to their rules.

She is wrong in your view.

Since when did the airlines start paying all the bills for TSA? oh that's right they don't.

I have no problem with a business setting the rules by which they will operate by as long as they foot the bills for their entire operation, are not endangering others and do not ask for any type of handouts.

 

[RodISHI]

Yep! Right now it’s about sticking it to democrats for their smear campaign! Vote Kavanaugh.

What an idiot you are acting like. Sticking it to liberty is what anyone who supports this guy is what you are doing. Republicans can be as nasty as Democrats when it comes to ignoring our civil rights.

You bet! Next time you want to defeat someone do it honestly. Otherwise fuck you and all democrats!

You bet! Next time you want to defeat someone do it honestly. Otherwise fuck you and all democrats!

Now you are truly showing what a dumb-ass you are. I have been a registered Republican for many years and all my best friends are too. What I am not is so ignorant as to believe that when you start removing Constitutional protections you start becoming a police state. Too bad your brain is stuck on that dog and pony show they all put on for the totally blind fools to follow along with. If you had done your research you would know Kavanaugh was as much Obama's man as he was Bush's for taking away peoples 4th and 5th. Stuff that up your craw and choke on it for awhile.

You’re registered R because you’re too fucking lazy to change parties or you’re currying favor from someone (kissing ass).

Rodishi isn't a Democrat.

Willow, you'd likely recognize her old Avatar... it said something like 'please don't eff the children'

She, like most of us Gunny era posters doesn't post as often as she used to...but I guarantee, she's one of us.

Thank you Missourin but I am afraid I am not like Willow in the aspect of willing to screw everyone for the sake of f'ing over the democrats.

A friend posted this meme a few days ago which covers Patriot Act 'groping' nicely.
View attachment 221459

Do you have a brain? Are you aware of what the DemonRats did to this man? And you are going to make them some tea? Just go register demonRat. That’s what you are. You are no Republican.

What the f' does that have to do with 'why is no one talking about the Patriot act'? Not a damn thing. Go sit in the corner and twittle your toes while you think up a way you can personally screw over the "Demonrats" all by yourself without requiring everyone else to be subjected in whatever it is you decide to do. Its like this, you are free to have a shitload of cats in your house but you are not free to demand that I keep them in mine.

 

[RodISHI]

I have not seen anyone in the know among those who claim to be conservative patriots talking about this except Judge Andrew Napolitano.

Kavanaugh's disregard for our rights to privacy; and everyone that I had any respect for in their reporting on conservative issues are ignoring that and instead they are reporting on the dog and pony show in D.C.. What a disgrace for him to be called a Constitutionalist by anyone.

"The Nominee and Privacy
The Fourth Amendment
Judge Kavanaugh has authored a number of Fourth Amendment opinions which have consistently favored law enforcement and government surveillance over the privacy of individuals.

In Klayman v. Obama, Judge Kavanaugh went out of his way to set out theories to defend the suspicionless surveillance of the American public that surprised even conservative legal scholars. The case challenged the constitutionality of the National Security Agency's bulk collection of telephone metadata collection program, a program that collected call records of millions of Americans. Judge Kavanaugh issued an opinion in a decision to deny plaintiffs' emergency petition for rehearing en banc and determined that the government's "bulk collection of telephony data" is "entirely consistent with the Fourth Amendment." He set out two justifications: (1) the third-party doctrine, and (2) national security. The opinion was surprising because the denial of a petition for a rehearing en banc is a procedural matter, and rarely calls for an opinion by one of the panel members. In issuing an opinion as Judge Kavanaugh did, he not only broke with tradition but also set out views in defense of post 9-11 surveillance that no judge had previously stated. Judge Kavanaugh's tendency to elevate national security over individual privacy, in this case and broadly, may jeopardize important privacy protections established by the Supreme Court's Fourth Amendment precedents.

Judge Kavanaugh dissented in United States v. Maynard, a case that was later appealed to the Supreme Court under the name United States v. Jones. In Maynard, the D.C. Circuit majority held that the government's warrantless use of a global positioning system ("GPS") device to track the public movements of an appellant's vehicle for approximately four weeks was an unreasonable search in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Judge Kavanaugh, dissenting from the court, noted that the police's initial installation of the GPS device on the appellant's car without a warrant raised an important question over whether that installation was an "unauthorized physical encroachment within a constitutionally protected area." He found this to be an "important question [that] deserves careful consideration" while dismissing the panel opinion's reliance on the amount of information obtained by the police as a "novel aggregation approach to Fourth Amendment analysis." Without regard to the vast stores of private data collected on users these days, however, serious privacy violations might happen with no Fourth Amendment redress.

In Wesby v. District of Columbia, Judge Kavanaugh dissented from a decision denying a petition for rehearing en banc and found that the police had probable cause to arrest a group of party-goers for trespassing when the police had no evidence about their state of mind. Writing for the majority in United States v. Burnett, Judge Kavanaugh determined that the police had probable cause to search a rental car for heroin based on defendants' travel activity. In United States v. Washington, he held that police officers had a reasonable fear for their safety during a traffic stop when defendants ran the stop sign, and that their search of defendants' car thus does not violate the Fourth Amendment.

Writing for the majority in a panel opinion in United States v. Askew, and dissenting from a rehearing en banc of the same case , Judge Kavanaugh found it reasonable for the police to unzip the jacket of a suspected armed robber to facilitate a show-up even though the unzipping would neither establish nor negate his identification as the robber. In United States v. Spencer, he ruled for the police and held that their search of defendant's house was permissible under the Fourth Amendment.

In all his authored Fourth Amendment opinions, Judge Kavanaugh has sided with government surveillance and police search without any exception, even when serious privacy violations exist. This disregard for Americans' privacy is a threat to our democracy and treasured civil liberties. It could also jeopardize the important privacy protections established by the Supreme Court's Fourth Amendment precedents.
...." more at link EPIC - Brett M. Kavanaugh and Privacy




FOX News lost any credibility along with their lackey speaker Representative Ronald Dion DeSantis.

You understand that there are other judges on the scotus right? You understand that there are others on the scotus that are no where near being a constitutionalist right? You understand that you won’t get a judge you agree on everything with right?

I wasn't addressing "everything". Nor addressing the rest of scotus and what they are doing. Only one thing, "The Patriot Act", our fourth and fifth amendment rights and who helped author it.

 

[WillowTree]

What an idiot you are acting like. Sticking it to liberty is what anyone who supports this guy is what you are doing. Republicans can be as nasty as Democrats when it comes to ignoring our civil rights.

You bet! Next time you want to defeat someone do it honestly. Otherwise fuck you and all democrats!

Now you are truly showing what a dumb-ass you are. I have been a registered Republican for many years and all my best friends are too. What I am not is so ignorant as to believe that when you start removing Constitutional protections you start becoming a police state. Too bad your brain is stuck on that dog and pony show they all put on for the totally blind fools to follow along with. If you had done your research you would know Kavanaugh was as much Obama's man as he was Bush's for taking away peoples 4th and 5th. Stuff that up your craw and choke on it for awhile.

You’re registered R because you’re too fucking lazy to change parties or you’re currying favor from someone (kissing ass).

Rodishi isn't a Democrat.

Willow, you'd likely recognize her old Avatar... it said something like 'please don't eff the children'

She, like most of us Gunny era posters doesn't post as often as she used to...but I guarantee, she's one of us.

Thank you Missourin but I am afraid I am not like Willow in the aspect of willing to screw everyone for the sake of f'ing over the democrats.

A friend posted this meme a few days ago which covers Patriot Act 'groping' nicely.
View attachment 221459

Do you have a brain? Are you aware of what the DemonRats did to this man? And you are going to make them some tea? Just go register demonRat. That’s what you are. You are no Republican.

What the f' does that have to do with 'why is no one talking about the Patriot act'? Not a damn thing. Go sit in the corner and twittle your toes while you think up a way you can personally screw over the "Demonrats" all by yourself without requiring everyone else to be subjected in whatever it is you decide to do. Its like this, you are free to have a shitload of cats in your house but you are not free to demand that I keep them in mine.

Yes well, poor ewe! I love cats and hate DemonRats. Deal with it. We won the election and you DemonRats lost. Deal with that too.

 

[RodISHI]

You bet! Next time you want to defeat someone do it honestly. Otherwise fuck you and all democrats!

You’re registered R because you’re too fucking lazy to change parties or you’re currying favor from someone (kissing ass).

Rodishi isn't a Democrat.

Willow, you'd likely recognize her old Avatar... it said something like 'please don't eff the children'

She, like most of us Gunny era posters doesn't post as often as she used to...but I guarantee, she's one of us.

Thank you Missourin but I am afraid I am not like Willow in the aspect of willing to screw everyone for the sake of f'ing over the democrats.

A friend posted this meme a few days ago which covers Patriot Act 'groping' nicely.
View attachment 221459

Do you have a brain? Are you aware of what the DemonRats did to this man? And you are going to make them some tea? Just go register demonRat. That’s what you are. You are no Republican.

What the f' does that have to do with 'why is no one talking about the Patriot act'? Not a damn thing. Go sit in the corner and twittle your toes while you think up a way you can personally screw over the "Demonrats" all by yourself without requiring everyone else to be subjected in whatever it is you decide to do. Its like this, you are free to have a shitload of cats in your house but you are not free to demand that I keep them in mine.

Yes well, poor ewe! I love cats and hate DemonRats. Deal with it.

I don't have to deal with it as its a personal problem you have.

 

[WillowTree]

Rodishi isn't a Democrat.

Willow, you'd likely recognize her old Avatar... it said something like 'please don't eff the children'

She, like most of us Gunny era posters doesn't post as often as she used to...but I guarantee, she's one of us.

Thank you Missourin but I am afraid I am not like Willow in the aspect of willing to screw everyone for the sake of f'ing over the democrats.

A friend posted this meme a few days ago which covers Patriot Act 'groping' nicely.
View attachment 221459

Do you have a brain? Are you aware of what the DemonRats did to this man? And you are going to make them some tea? Just go register demonRat. That’s what you are. You are no Republican.

What the f' does that have to do with 'why is no one talking about the Patriot act'? Not a damn thing. Go sit in the corner and twittle your toes while you think up a way you can personally screw over the "Demonrats" all by yourself without requiring everyone else to be subjected in whatever it is you decide to do. Its like this, you are free to have a shitload of cats in your house but you are not free to demand that I keep them in mine.

Yes well, poor ewe! I love cats and hate DemonRats. Deal with it.

I don't have to deal with it as its a personal problem you have.

I know. You are so much better than I ewe will make them tea! Good for you. Dummie.

 

[Skull Pilot]

So the cops put a GPS on a car

How is that different than assigning a cop to follow a person everywhere he goes?

Does anyone have an expectation of privacy when they travel on public roadways?

If a city had a network of traffic cameras they could have been used to track the guy as well

Are either of these examples a violation of the 4th?

 

[RodISHI]

So the cops put a GPS on a car

How is that different than assigning a cop to follow a person everywhere he goes?

Does anyone have an expectation of privacy when they travel on public roadways?

If a city had a network of traffic cameras they could have been used to track the guy as well

Are either of these examples a violation of the 4th?

That is a good question. Almost all cars are now traceable. From what I read about SMART readers and the recent ruling if you accept having one installed you accept the invasion of privacy. As far as travel goes if you apply that theory you basically lined out why wouldn't that give any law enforcement agent a right to search your car also? Why do you expect a right to privacy inside of your car? (heck maybe you don't just a thought)

 

[Skull Pilot]

So the cops put a GPS on a car

How is that different than assigning a cop to follow a person everywhere he goes?

Does anyone have an expectation of privacy when they travel on public roadways?

If a city had a network of traffic cameras they could have been used to track the guy as well

Are either of these examples a violation of the 4th?

That is a good question. Almost all cars are now traceable. From what I read about SMART readers and the recent ruling if you accept having one installed you accept the invasion of privacy. As far as travel goes if you apply that theory you basically lined out why wouldn't that give any law enforcement agent a right to search your car also? Why do you expect a right to privacy inside of your car? (heck maybe you don't just a thought)

Searching your car is not quite the same as tracking its movements.

While you car is on a public road its location is not private but your space inside the car is akin to the space inside your home as the location of your home is public record but its contents are private

 

[RodISHI]

So the cops put a GPS on a car

How is that different than assigning a cop to follow a person everywhere he goes?

Does anyone have an expectation of privacy when they travel on public roadways?

If a city had a network of traffic cameras they could have been used to track the guy as well

Are either of these examples a violation of the 4th?

That is a good question. Almost all cars are now traceable. From what I read about SMART readers and the recent ruling if you accept having one installed you accept the invasion of privacy. As far as travel goes if you apply that theory you basically lined out why wouldn't that give any law enforcement agent a right to search your car also? Why do you expect a right to privacy inside of your car? (heck maybe you don't just a thought)

Searching your car is not quite the same as tracking its movements.

While you car is on a public road its location is not private but your space inside the car is akin to the space inside your home as the location of your home is public record but its contents are private

The public road here is literally on my private property so what then?

 

[Skull Pilot]

So the cops put a GPS on a car

How is that different than assigning a cop to follow a person everywhere he goes?

Does anyone have an expectation of privacy when they travel on public roadways?

If a city had a network of traffic cameras they could have been used to track the guy as well

Are either of these examples a violation of the 4th?

That is a good question. Almost all cars are now traceable. From what I read about SMART readers and the recent ruling if you accept having one installed you accept the invasion of privacy. As far as travel goes if you apply that theory you basically lined out why wouldn't that give any law enforcement agent a right to search your car also? Why do you expect a right to privacy inside of your car? (heck maybe you don't just a thought)

Searching your car is not quite the same as tracking its movements.

While you car is on a public road its location is not private but your space inside the car is akin to the space inside your home as the location of your home is public record but its contents are private

The public road here is literally on my private property so what then?

The location of your property is not private as it is part of the public record.

And I doubt if the road actually travels through your home so once again the contents of your home are private but its location is not and never has been

I also have a right of way running through a property I own but that does no negate the need for a warrant to look inside any of the buildings

 

[RodISHI]

So the cops put a GPS on a car

How is that different than assigning a cop to follow a person everywhere he goes?

Does anyone have an expectation of privacy when they travel on public roadways?

If a city had a network of traffic cameras they could have been used to track the guy as well

Are either of these examples a violation of the 4th?

That is a good question. Almost all cars are now traceable. From what I read about SMART readers and the recent ruling if you accept having one installed you accept the invasion of privacy. As far as travel goes if you apply that theory you basically lined out why wouldn't that give any law enforcement agent a right to search your car also? Why do you expect a right to privacy inside of your car? (heck maybe you don't just a thought)

Searching your car is not quite the same as tracking its movements.

While you car is on a public road its location is not private but your space inside the car is akin to the space inside your home as the location of your home is public record but its contents are private

The public road here is literally on my private property so what then?

The location of your property is not private as it is part of the public record.

And I doubt if the road actually travels through your home so once again the contents of your home are private but its location is not and never has been

I also have a right of way running through a property I own but that does no negate the need for a warrant to look inside any of the buildings

That brings another question to mind. What gives Google the right to put cameras everywhere looking into peoples private property?

Basically the way you are saying that one has no right to privacy on their own property either because its registered in the public record. I disagree. Just because people have permission to travel on a right of way going through my property does not give rights to say Google or anyone else to freely access it. To even enter on to private property has long been established takes a warrant. In order to get that warrant there needs to be a cause. With the Patriot Act some of law enforcement peeps seem to think that absolves them from all that legal stuffs when it comes to entering into someone's private domain whether it is enclosed in a building or not.

 

[Skull Pilot]

So the cops put a GPS on a car

How is that different than assigning a cop to follow a person everywhere he goes?

Does anyone have an expectation of privacy when they travel on public roadways?

If a city had a network of traffic cameras they could have been used to track the guy as well

Are either of these examples a violation of the 4th?

That is a good question. Almost all cars are now traceable. From what I read about SMART readers and the recent ruling if you accept having one installed you accept the invasion of privacy. As far as travel goes if you apply that theory you basically lined out why wouldn't that give any law enforcement agent a right to search your car also? Why do you expect a right to privacy inside of your car? (heck maybe you don't just a thought)

Searching your car is not quite the same as tracking its movements.

While you car is on a public road its location is not private but your space inside the car is akin to the space inside your home as the location of your home is public record but its contents are private

The public road here is literally on my private property so what then?

The location of your property is not private as it is part of the public record.

And I doubt if the road actually travels through your home so once again the contents of your home are private but its location is not and never has been

I also have a right of way running through a property I own but that does no negate the need for a warrant to look inside any of the buildings

That brings another question to mind. What gives Google the right to put cameras everywhere looking into peoples private property?

Basically the way you are saying that one has no right to privacy on their own property either because its registered in the public record. I disagree. Just because people have permission to travel on a right of way going through my property does not give rights to say Google or anyone else to freely access it. To even enter on to private property has long been established takes a warrant. In order to get that warrant there needs to be a cause. With the Patriot Act some of law enforcement peeps seem to think that absolves them from all that legal stuffs when it comes to entering into someone's private domain whether it is enclosed in a building or not.

anyone can already drive by your house and look at it.

no one is violating your privacy if they are on public property and looking at your house

 

[RodISHI]

That is a good question. Almost all cars are now traceable. From what I read about SMART readers and the recent ruling if you accept having one installed you accept the invasion of privacy. As far as travel goes if you apply that theory you basically lined out why wouldn't that give any law enforcement agent a right to search your car also? Why do you expect a right to privacy inside of your car? (heck maybe you don't just a thought)

Searching your car is not quite the same as tracking its movements.

While you car is on a public road its location is not private but your space inside the car is akin to the space inside your home as the location of your home is public record but its contents are private

The public road here is literally on my private property so what then?

The location of your property is not private as it is part of the public record.

And I doubt if the road actually travels through your home so once again the contents of your home are private but its location is not and never has been

I also have a right of way running through a property I own but that does no negate the need for a warrant to look inside any of the buildings

That brings another question to mind. What gives Google the right to put cameras everywhere looking into peoples private property?

Basically the way you are saying that one has no right to privacy on their own property either because its registered in the public record. I disagree. Just because people have permission to travel on a right of way going through my property does not give rights to say Google or anyone else to freely access it. To even enter on to private property has long been established takes a warrant. In order to get that warrant there needs to be a cause. With the Patriot Act some of law enforcement peeps seem to think that absolves them from all that legal stuffs when it comes to entering into someone's private domain whether it is enclosed in a building or not.

anyone can already drive by your house and look at it.

no one is violating your privacy if they are on public property and looking at your house

Drive by being key. No one is allowed to camp on the road permanent like. Not only that don't they need to install cameras for those pics? If so that would also require an easement or right of way to do.

 

[miketx]

Off we go into the great perhaps.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Searching your car is not quite the same as tracking its movements.

While you car is on a public road its location is not private but your space inside the car is akin to the space inside your home as the location of your home is public record but its contents are private

The public road here is literally on my private property so what then?

The location of your property is not private as it is part of the public record.

And I doubt if the road actually travels through your home so once again the contents of your home are private but its location is not and never has been

I also have a right of way running through a property I own but that does no negate the need for a warrant to look inside any of the buildings

That brings another question to mind. What gives Google the right to put cameras everywhere looking into peoples private property?

Basically the way you are saying that one has no right to privacy on their own property either because its registered in the public record. I disagree. Just because people have permission to travel on a right of way going through my property does not give rights to say Google or anyone else to freely access it. To even enter on to private property has long been established takes a warrant. In order to get that warrant there needs to be a cause. With the Patriot Act some of law enforcement peeps seem to think that absolves them from all that legal stuffs when it comes to entering into someone's private domain whether it is enclosed in a building or not.

anyone can already drive by your house and look at it.

no one is violating your privacy if they are on public property and looking at your house

Drive by being key. No one is allowed to camp on the road permanent like. Not only that don't they need to install cameras for those pics? If so that would also require an easement or right of way to do.

Google doesn't install cameras in permanent placements on public property for their camera views they equipped cars that drove around which is why the street view on Google Maps is not up to date