Posted on 10/02/2011 4:40:14 PM PDT by Ken H
Fifth District Ohio Appeals Court ruling meant to influence higher courts against allowing warrantless GPS vehicle tracking.
Although the US Supreme Court is expected to settle the issue of GPS tracking of motorists soon, a three-judge panel of the Ohio Court of Appeals, Fifth District ruled 2-1 earlier this month against the warrantless use of the technology. The majority's decision was likely designed to influence the deliberations of the higher courts. On November 8, the US Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the GPS case US v. Jones. The Ohio Supreme Court is also considering Ohio v. Johnson in which the Twelfth District appellate court upheld warrantless spying.
The present case began on January 14, 2010, when Franklin County Sheriff's Department Corporal Richard Minerd's investigation of a burglary brought him to a white Honda Civic in an apartment complex. Minerd slapped a battery-powered GPS tracking unit under the bumper that allowed real-time tracking of the vehicle's location, speed and direction of travel. Minerd did not seek a search warrant before acting.
Nine days later, the Civic appeared at the location of a robbery, and Minerd was able to follow the car back to the home of David L. White, who was caught with the stolen property. The Fifth District considered the question of whether it is ever acceptable for government agents to attach such devices to privately owned vehicles without a warrant.
"We respectfully disagree with our brethren in the Twelfth Appellate District," Presiding Judge W. Scott Gwin wrote. "We find for the reasons which follow that under the facts of this case a warrant was required before placing the GPS tracking unit on the suspect vehicle and to continuously monitor the tracking signal."
The panel majority took issue with the idea that attaching devices on the bumper of vehicles was ordinary conduct one could expect from any member of the public. The judges expounded on the importance of the Fourth Amendment in securing individual privacy against arbitrary government intrusion and concluded their colleagues were wrong in suggesting one has no expectation of privacy when parking on the street.
"When a person parks his car on a public way, he does not thereby give up all expectations of privacy in his vehicle," Gwin wrote. "There is no way to lock a door or place the car under a protective cloak as a signal to the police that one considers the car private... Upon observing a stranger underneath one's automobile, it is reasonable to believe that most citizens would sound an alarm. A response to the effect of, 'Well, you have no reasonable expectation of privacy in the undercarriage of your car so any stranger can crawl under there and attach a GPS tracking device' would be met with righteous anger and disbelief. A citizen would justifiably feel that his or her property has been defiled; her privacy breached and his personal security compromised."
Since the GPS unit allows surveillance capabilities far beyond anything that could be accomplished with traditional spying methods, the majority dismissed the argument that the device only captured information that could have been observed with visual surveillance. Without enforcing a warrant requirement, police could install permanent tracking devices on anyone's car whether or not criminal activity is suspected.
"We find that the GPS tracking device, remaining constantly in place, performs a search of much more substantial and therefore unreasonable duration and scope," Gwin wrote. "The installation of the device without consent upon private property is a 'search' subject to Fourth Amendment warrant requirements, in the sense that it is an unreasonable governmental intrusion upon the individual's constitutionally guaranteed right of personal security, personal liberty, and private property."
A judge who reads and respects the Constitution??? How did he ever get on the bench?
And instead of losing his job probably got a raise...
What’s the problem here - they do this sort of thing in the movies all the time, and besides no HARM was done; the bad guy was caught with stolen property ... /s
Not just police acting alone but using them by those in power to go after their political enemies. I don't doubt for a second that creeps like Holder or Hussein would love the ability to gather information on their opponents in the hopes of blackmailing them into silence. Warrantless GPS devices makes it too easy.
In NY the highest court ruled police must get a warrant for these devices as it violates the state's constitution not to. So it doesn't matter how the USSC goes local and state cops will still need one. It's just common sense, I don't know what the big deal is.
Well if you don’t have anything to hide then you don’t have anything to fear. right?
A recent NY case involved a guy the state wanted to fire so they placed a device on his car without a warrant and tracked him and his family 24 hours a day for over a month, including on their vacations. That's creepy, I wouldn't want that, who would?
This really won’t matter in the end, at least for us in Texas, as Governor Perry has been looking at mileage-based tolling, based on GPS tracking.
It’s a great idea for fans of big government, as it gives government almost an unlimited power to control power. I would just prefer he didn’t show the interest in it.
I've met Deputy Minerd on more than one occasion. I have found him to be an honest, sincere, hard working Deputy Sheriff. In this case, I truly believe that he was using bad judgement and overreached. If this court decision ultimately goes the other way in the USSC, this tool will be abused non-stop by the big government types.
Very creepy but I had to say it before someone else did.
Figured it was sarcasm on your part but a lot do think that way. I read it all the time.
Unfortunately, there are people, even FReepers, that would stand naked outside their homes each and every night for a nightly government inspection of their homes and persons if the government told them to do it.
Fortunately there are Freepers that would stand naked outside their homes with guns to defend their rights.
Well, some people have that fetish but I’ll be battle dressed! :)
To me the big deal is employers loading up company cars with GPS devices. You have managers with no field experience, watching terminals and making calls on who is not moving.
Total BS, lots of battles will follow, and for what?
If a field rep produces - keep the dicks off their backs - let him . her produce
or else - they will do to you - what they did for you
There are always those who will trade their freedom for perceived security.
Rental car companies are using them too now and some insurance companies are pushing them for cheaper rates. No way I’d want a job being monitored like that but it would take an act of Congress to stop it. The USSC will only rule on whether government can. If anything I hope it stops the move toward GPS tracking for taxing gas mileage dead in its tracks.
Now you have gone and done it....Perry supporters will soon be here to defend him.....be carefull.....:O)
I have nothing to hide but just for shits and giggles I would connect a looped recording to the microphone circuit of my OnStar with something the Feds won’t like one bit at all.
GM tried for months to remind me to use OnStar, its still connected but its totally muted because I installed a Pioneer reciever without installing the special OnStar patch cord.
very first thing I will do is disconnect the Onstar in my next vehicle.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.