Your Driveway is not Private Property

VINNY GOOMBA

blackredyellow wrote:

I have an EZPASS transmitter in my car... if the cops had a way of completely tracking my car with that (not just toll records), the it's not as big of a deal to me (still too big brother for me thought). I knowingly put that transmitter in my car.

"For every tool they lend us, a loss of independence."

Fuckin EZ Pass... I talk so much shit about wanting to get rid of it, but have yet to do it!

bgivens33

VINNY GOOMBA wrote:

bgivens33 wrote:

VINNY GOOMBA wrote:

The key here above anything else is the warrant. It shouldn't matter if it's your driveway or Starbuck's, after all that too, is someone's private property. Even on park land, a warrant. If there is reasonable suspicion against a person, there should be a warrant issued for this type of action, all of the time-- I don't care if the party in question is a bankrobber or a terrorist, there must be a just cause to search someone, including every extension of his or her private property: person, home, car, laptop, cell phone, etc...

What should disturb everyone is that our government is requiring more and more transparency of us, our private lives and property, while constantly demanding more secrecy for itself. It's supposed to be the other way around.

Just to play devil's advocate....

What exactly is being searched? What is the difference between this and putting surveillance on someone 24/7?

I'm not sure I understand the question-- but for surveillance by the state, that should require a warrant as well. Why constantly watch someone without reasonable suspicion that they are breaking the law? Surveillance isn't necessarily as physically invasive as being patted down, having your stuff rummaged through, or even just having someone waltz onto YOUR PROPERTY without your permission to plant something on your car-- but it doesn't make it right to constantly watch someone either, unless again there is cause. We have the right to privacy as guaranteed by the fourth amendment.

I think I more was addressing the ... "or Starbucks" part of your response, not necessarily your driveway. I'm not sure why you brought up "having your stuff rummaged through" though.

There is no right to privacy guaranteed by the fourth amendment, I think you might want to go reread that. And the police certainly don't need a warrant to follow someone around, they never have.

VINNY GOOMBA

bgivens33 wrote:

I think I more was addressing the ... "or Starbucks" part of your response, not necessarily your driveway. I'm not sure why you brought up "having your stuff rummaged through" though.

There is no right to privacy guaranteed by the fourth amendment, I think you might want to go reread that. And the police certainly don't need a warrant to follow someone around, they never have.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

To me, this addresses privacy. Is the word used? No, but it is certainly implied that we are to be left alone unless a warrant is issued over probable cause.

As far as the Starbucks part of my explanation, if it's MY CAR anywhere, what right does the government have to put a bug on it for no warranted reason? I don't see how they can do so legally. Just because they do, doesn't mean it's right or legal. The act of bugging someone's car is making someone insecure in their "effects." I mentioned "rummaging through stuff" because yes, that is more intrusive than surveillance, just describing the difference between say, camera surveillance and actively searching someone's things. But still, neither are permitted unless there is reason to believe the person in question is potentially guilty of a very specific wrongdoing.

VINNY GOOMBA

If this bullshit about our driveways not being private property ever holds up in this part of the country or anywhere else, property owners should declare 90% of their property to be "driveway." Then they should adjust their tax payments accordingly, and demand that the land be maintained, since it's now "public."

Jason P

I'm still torn over this issue. I like rights but I also like results. I've seen the word "reasonable" come up several times. The cops had reason to believe the suspect was trafficking drugs but didn't have "reasonable" evidence to get a warrant. They knew he had bought every prerequisite to start a sizable grow operation. But in order to find the drugs, they had to put surveillance on the suspect. Due to Oregon being a very remote area, their choices for surveillance were probably airplane, helicopter, or tracking device. The suspect ended up being caught red-handed so the surveillance worked.

Does this violate our privacy? I guess I would be more concerned if it turned out the government was planning on tracking all cars. However, if this is a successful method for helping catch suspected criminals then I would have to agree with it.

Would opinions change on this case if the suspect was making meth? Would it be acceptable to let the suspect go free due to a technicality?

catefrances

VINNY GOOMBA wrote:

If this bullshit about our driveways not being private property ever holds up in this part of the country or anywhere else, property owners should declare 90% of their property to be "driveway." Then they should adjust their tax payments accordingly, and demand that the land be maintained, since it's now "public."

you know what you do??? you whack a fence around your property thus making everything INSIDE the fence your private property. thats how we do it here. think about it.