Supreme Court Rules to Protect Privacy Rights (4th Amendment) State, National, International, posted by Hurray, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Jan 23, 2012 at 9:35 am
The Supreme Court just ruled that the police or government can't monitor people's movements with GPS tracking devices without a search warrant.
This means the police can't just put a GPS tracking device on your car and start tracking your movements like has been done in the Bay Area. The Supreme Court has ruled that people have a reasonable expectation of privacy and that the government putting a GPS tracking device on a car to track someones movements without a search warrant is unconstitutional.
This is a victory because the Supreme Court has significantly limited widespread spying by the government on ordinary citizens.
Posted by Resident, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Jan 23, 2012 at 9:54 am
That is good news. So when a dog sniffig case goes to the Supreme Court, it is likely they will rule that sniffing dogs violate the 4th amenment right to privacy - a case is currently in the Supreme Court, about a dog sniffing the outside of a house (Florida Supreme Court already ruled sniffing violated the 4th amendment right and case is now in the US Supreme Court)
Posted by Gloria, a resident of the Stoneridge Orchards neighborhood, on Jan 23, 2012 at 10:02 am
Yes, although the right-wing boobs keep carping on about how the Constitution does not defend the right to privacy, the right has been a matter of law for decades now. Of course, it is the Supreme Court's reasoning on privacy that will ensure they will reject consideration of cases aimed at taking away pregnant women's right to privacy as well.
Posted by Hurray, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Jan 23, 2012 at 10:44 am
Resident, I agree. The dog sniffing as requiring probable cause and a search warrant will also probably be upheld by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional unless there is a search warrant or probable cause.
Airports have more ability to search randomly because of the so-called "border-search" exception.
Posted by Stacey, a resident of the Amberwood/Wood Meadows neighborhood, on Jan 23, 2012 at 10:50 am Stacey is a member (registered user) of PleasantonWeekly.com
From another article on Rand Paul and TSA: "But [Whitehouse press secretary] Carney sided with the TSA saying, "I think it is absolutely essential that we take necessary actions to ensure that air travel is safe.""
I just have to ask... Is strip searching 85-year old ladies "necessary actions" that "ensure that air travel is safe"? Do they strip search 85-year old ladies in Israel?
Posted by Hurray, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Jan 23, 2012 at 11:02 am
For U.S. border security, I think there are two levels of search, the random search and a higher level search, but the higher level search requires reasonable suspicion, but not probable cause (a higher standard).
For Israel, that is another story, but they have their own laws there and due to the amount of terrorism, their searches are very extensive. I have heard of items confiscated and never returned, items like bars of soap drilled through to search for explosives, interrogations and yes strip searches. They search every nationality and gender and age group.
I was taken aside and detained once in Germany at an airport for a while when on business travel from CA, but never knew exactly why.
Posted by steve, a resident of the Parkside neighborhood, on Jan 24, 2012 at 1:09 pm
Once again, your court system handing potential and current criminals another reason to keep doing what they are doing with impunity. Like any tool, using GPS technology can be used or abused, but the benefits certainly outweigh the 'cist'.
Heck, you purchase software and services to track just about anyone right now, including your own kids or anyone with a cell phone.
The complaint was lodged by a muslim who did not want authorities to know his whereabouts and now hopes to cash in by suing the dept.
his ruling also opens the door for Yusef Bey to file for a retrial, since he was also tracking (this information from today's C.C. Times).
Hope you guys are proud of what you're supporting.......and hope you don't become a victim of crime.
Posted by Hurray, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Jan 24, 2012 at 4:06 pm
I wish the issues could be discussed without all the name calling.
Parents tracking where their children are vs. all-pervasive surveillance by employees of the government are two separate things. Just how much of a Big Brother state do people want to tolerate? How much tax money is spent on the government watching and broadcasting the whereabouts and activities of ordinary citizens?
Posted by Patriot, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Jan 24, 2012 at 5:54 pm
I don't know if you are kidding or not, but I hope go back and read the fourth amendment, and some of the history of why it is in the bill of rights. It was a unanimous decision by the court, and it was the right decision.
Posted by Patriot, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Jan 25, 2012 at 8:19 am
I'm hoping to be able attend the meetings coming up in February. I'm hoping there is time to dissuade them. Otherwise, they can count on legal action. I wonder if these board members were sleeping in their civics classes or if they ever studied early American history. This is a school board we are talking about. I'd really like to hear their interpretation of the fourth amendment.