By the associative law of algebra, this should apply to land vehicles too?
Logically that would be the case
However the court appears to indicate that the cost of the tracking has a bearing on whether or not it’s constitutional for some bizarre reason. If it’s cheap enough it’s not a warrantless search, if it’s very expensive and a hardship then it becomes a warrantless search.
I’ve been watching this for years with the court system, as if constitutionality is determined by cost or the hardship of one of the parties involved.
It should apply to everything that’s trackable. The gov’t should have to get a warrant before tracking anyone for any reason. Everyone who got railroaded in the J6 roundup should be an example of what an out-of-control gov’t does with such information.
>> By the associative law of algebra, this should apply to land vehicles too? <<
No. The argument used is that a road is owned by the government. It’s a little more complicated than commonly taught if you ask me: common law, which is recognized as the default law by the U.S. Supreme Court, permits free passage through property as long as that passage does not decrease the intended benefits of property ownership. For instance, beaches are public property. You can’t functionally own a beach by buying up the shore property and keeping everyone out. On the other hand, if you buy a beautiful waterfall or vista or whatever, you have exclusive rights to that waterfall; people traipsing across your land to get to that waterfall are depriving you of the benefit of private ownership of that waterfall.
So what about the car owner who claims that they’re not using the road for its own sake, but merely that the road now constitutes the only path, developed or not, between someone’s home and where they want to go? Do they really have a compelling interest in preventing you from riding an ATV alongside the road? They could allege that you POTENTIALLY could reduce the safety of those on the roads, or at least the intersections you cross, but can they really prove that you, individually, pose a threat to their interests?