backtop


Print 147 comment(s) - last by ekv.. on Sep 18 at 5:13 AM


Today local, state, and federal agents in many states have access to warrantless wiretaps and can enter your property to plant tracking devices on your vehicles.   (Source: Matt York, Associated Press)
Federal agents can now enter your property without warrant and track you in nine western states

Most would consider the Constitution is one of the finest achievements by the U.S. people and has viewed as a paradigm internationally.  However, in an age of technological revolution, members of U.S. local, state, and national level -- on both sides of the aisle -- are increasingly viewing some of the Constitution's guaranteed rights as inappropriate or at least subject to review.

Among them is the Fourth Amendment, part of the original Bill of Rights.  It states:

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.

While some developments such warrantless wiretaps or police arrests of people who photograph them have ruffled feathers in the past, a new legal precedent is raising more than a few eyebrows.

Under the laws of California and eight other Western states, state, local, or federal agents can sneak onto your property without a warrant, plant a GPS tracking device on your vehicle and monitor your movements 24-7 -- without a warrant.

The ruling has already been upheld at the federal level via a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit decision.

The case came before the court via the Drug Enforcement Administration's (DEA) 2007 arrest of Juan Pineda-Moreno, an Oregon resident who they suspected was growing marijuana in California.  At night, federal agents snuck on his property without warrants and planted a GPS tracking device on his Jeep.  The data collected later lead to his arrest and prosecution.

Mr. Pineda-Moreno's appeal to the federal court fell on deaf ears.  The judges who made the ruling told him that his private property (his driveway) was not applicable to Fourth Amendment protections as it was open to strangers, such as delivery people and neighborhood children, who could wander across it uninvited.

Two separate panels of judges on the circuit upheld the decision.  Eventually the Supreme Court will likely be forced to review this ruling.

Chief Judge Alex Kozinski, who delivered a dissenting opinion on the Ninth Circuit's decision, says that the result of the current law is to essentially equate justice to the amount of money you have.  He points out that the rich can afford electric gates, fences and security booths have a large protected zone of privacy around their homes -- which allow your property to qualify for the states' creative reinterpretation of Fourth Amendment protections.

Judge Kozinski remarks, "1984 may have come a bit later than predicted, but it's here at last.  Some day, soon, we may wake up and find we're living in Oceania."



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Didn't even make the news.
By Reclaimer77 on 8/26/2010 4:50:06 PM , Rating: 4
Notice how when a Republican is in the big chair in Washington, stuff like this is a huge issue? How is this any different than warrantles wiretapping that was ENDLESSLY debated and publicized by the Left years ago?

Where is all their moral outrage about Freedom and Constitutional rights when a Democrat is in office?




RE: Didn't even make the news.
By MPE on 8/26/10, Rating: -1
RE: Didn't even make the news.
By JasonMick (blog) on 8/26/2010 5:05:30 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
You do know that this is the COURT and not the legislative or executive branch.

Oh, you mean like the legislative and executive branches that fought to gain the power to do warrantless wiretaps, under both Democratic and Republican leadership? Get real.

quote:
Also, I love how Jason Mick has pretty much post only trolling articles that he has limited comprehension on so he make some "journalistic analysis" and ramp up traffic.


Eh? What did I miss? Seems pretty straightforward. Fourth Amendment rights have been stripped away here.

quote:
Good job Jason. LOL. Sad.


Thank you for your thoughtful criticism.


RE: Didn't even make the news.
By sprockkets on 8/26/2010 8:31:40 PM , Rating: 5
Uh, yeah, Jason Mick didn't mess up this time.

Kudos.

Nope, the headline is apropos.


By cruisin3style on 8/27/2010 2:31:00 PM , Rating: 5
I don't think it is a matter of Democrat or Republican in office. You can cry foul all you want, but this is not even close to the first story I've read where certain freedoms/rights/whatever will be trampled on/taken away by new laws over the last 10 years.

People don't tell the story about the boy who cries wolf, however cliche, because it's meaningless...


RE: Didn't even make the news.
By Reclaimer77 on 8/26/2010 5:58:00 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You do know that this is the COURT and not the legislative or executive branch.


Oh right, hide behind a court. Ok...

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jan/16/nation/na-...

I guess two wrongs make a right?


RE: Didn't even make the news.
By Spivonious on 8/27/2010 9:44:32 AM , Rating: 4
"The people" typically means citizens when it's applied in the Constitution. I don't see how wiretapping terrorists living outside of the U.S. applies at all.


RE: Didn't even make the news.
By Lerianis on 8/28/2010 5:38:33 PM , Rating: 1
Actually, there is a reasoning that the freedom from undue search and seizure is a HUMAN right, therefore going beyond our Constitution meaning that you have to have a warrant before doing surveillance on people outside of the country as well.


RE: Didn't even make the news.
By jhb116 on 8/26/2010 6:56:42 PM , Rating: 4
Court made the decision - what the person above is referring to is the endless NY Times and other articles that blamed this type of stuff on Bush and compared him to Hitler. This hasn't even made national news let alone any imposition that the current administration is responsible.

That said - I believe it hurts our country to constantly blame such things on the administration in power - much like the current economic debacle is the responsibility of both parties interfering with the natural order of progress.


RE: Didn't even make the news.
By Reclaimer77 on 8/26/2010 7:03:51 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Court made the decision - what the person above is referring to is the endless NY Times and other articles that blamed this type of stuff on Bush and compared him to Hitler. This hasn't even made national news let alone any imposition that the current administration is responsible.


THANK YOU. I assumed it was obvious what I meant.


RE: Didn't even make the news.
By MadMan007 on 8/26/2010 10:32:18 PM , Rating: 3
You might want to note the date of the arrest my neocon friend.


RE: Didn't even make the news.
By Reclaimer77 on 8/26/2010 11:14:33 PM , Rating: 2
Which isn't relevant at all. What your point? Now every arrest that happens is the administrations problem too?


RE: Didn't even make the news.
By rmclean816 on 8/27/10, Rating: -1
RE: Didn't even make the news.
By Pythias on 8/31/2010 5:14:15 PM , Rating: 2
I do not think that word means what you think it means.


RE: Didn't even make the news.
By foolsgambit11 on 8/26/2010 10:48:29 PM , Rating: 5
Exactly. What's more, the DEA action in question was taken under the Bush administration, so if there's a president to complain about....

But as far as the decision goes, the 9th District was simply following precedent set by the Supreme Court. In Oliver v. United States (1984), the Court ruled that when the police ignored a "no trespassing" sign and a fence, trespassed onto the suspect's land without a warrant, followed a path for hundreds of feet, and discovered a field of marijuana, no search had taken place (in the 4th Amendment sense of the word 'search'). And I think GPS bugging has already been equated with a physical tail on a vehicle, and so is acceptable, though I'm not sure if that precedent was set by the Supreme Court. Long story short, don't blame the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals - they were just following precedent as is required of them. Otherwise, they would have been "activist judges".

Now it's up to the Supreme Court to decide whether they want to hear this case and reexamine the privacy expectations of the 4th Amendment. I'm betting they won't hear the case, and if they do, they will side the same way as the 9th Circuit - and with the conservative Justices all on the side of upholding the ruling. After all, this is a Supreme Court with little regard for property rights, as evidenced by the imminent domain case from a few years ago.

If anything it was the dissenting judge's opinion which was a liberal, activist argument, trying to take into account inequality under the law based on income.


RE: Didn't even make the news.
By Ard on 8/27/2010 2:02:38 AM , Rating: 4
Judge Kozinski's blistering dissent would disagree with you and the Ninth Circuit and does an excellent job of distinguishing the Supreme Court precedents the court erroneously relied upon. Oliver clearly laid out that the curtilage of one's home, that is the attaching property and entryways, are subject to a reasonable expectation of privacy. Last time I checked, the driveway of my house is private property and falls under the "curtilage" doctrine.

In Oliver, no one claimed that the entire field the police had to cross to reach the marijuana was contained within the curtilage of the property. It was, quite literally, an open field subject to the doctrine of the same name. That's a stark contrast to the driveway connected to your house and, as such, the Ninth Circuit effectively ignored everything that Oliver stands for.

As to Judge Kozinski's dicta regarding economic inequities, it was done to make a point and was certainly not the crux of his argument. The Ninth Circuit's decision effectively only impacts those who can't afford to shield their property from trespassers and it's absolutely true given the breadth of their decision. Thankfully the other circuits have some common sense and aren't going along with this nonsense. Now we just need the Supreme Court to reaffirm the long-standing Fourth Amendment jurisprudence of this country.


RE: Didn't even make the news.
By knutjb on 8/27/2010 3:32:39 PM , Rating: 3
As you state its a complex issue and which rulings apply is difficult to identify. To me this must require a warrant, law enforcement must have a higher burden of proof to justify their actions. The act of following a car around with a line of sight observer is significantly different than planting an electronic device on their vehicle. Does the public in general place GPS trackers on anonymous vehicles?

As to the Ninth, their Supreme Court overturn track record would lead me to believe this might be overturned too.


RE: Didn't even make the news.
By bh192012 on 8/27/2010 6:24:23 PM , Rating: 5
I was just thinking "so does this mean I can put a GPS tracking device on my neighbors car?" What if I get a "No Trespassing" bumper sticker?


RE: Didn't even make the news.
By Pythias on 8/31/2010 5:38:50 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I was just thinking "so does this mean I can put a GPS tracking device on my neighbors car?"


Or a cop car?


By foolsgambit11 on 8/28/2010 12:21:36 AM , Rating: 2
All very good points. Nice reply. I wish the internet was more like this - reasoned debate by reasonable people (at least I hope I'm reasonable). I didn't (and still haven't) read the actual ruling of the court, so I must admit I didn't do enough homework to effectively argue the finer points. And for that I apologize.

How about this one - in California v. Ciraolo, the Court ruled that an aerial search of someone's backyard didn't require a warrant because any civilian aircraft would have had the same view. That certainly can be extended to include a driveway the public can walk up and down, can't it? Unless the Supreme Court ruled otherwise specifically, which you say they did. But I disagree in this case, since the Court specifically laid out questions to be asked to determine if an area was curtilage, the judges tested the driveway against those questions, and (for most of the judges) it was found wanting.

It helps to separate the two actions law enforcement made here. I'm pretty sure the government can search my driveway without a warrant, especially if there isn't a gate on it (oh, that tricky money question again). The GPS issue I'm still not sure about from a legal standpoint. Walking up my driveway doesn't ring any "hey, my privacy!" bells, while planting the GPS does. So I'd like to hear about any precedents (on both sides of the issue) regarding this or similar issues, if anyone knows of some.

Either way, if the Supreme Court hears this case, it may help to answer some outstanding questions and resolve some incongruent rulings on the extent of 4th Amendment protections.


RE: Didn't even make the news.
By flatrock on 8/27/2010 12:39:50 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
You do know that this is the COURT and not the legislative or executive branch.


I know that, but I'm not so sure the 9th Circus is aware of that.

quote:
And not only that, this is the 9th Circuit, which is considered by most as the most liberal of all circuit federal courts.


Yes, but liberal, not libertarian. Liberals tend to have pet causes which they support and don't want the government or anyone else to interfere with. However, they aren't for small and unobtrusive government. Conservatives tend to be for small and unobtrusive government, except for on their pet issues (defense, terrorism, and for some moral issues).

Libertarians tend to have less issues on which they want the government to intervene, but can also tend towards being anarchists and even to the point that they feel they can do whatever they want, at least until somone else forces them to stop.


RE: Didn't even make the news.
By Pythias on 8/31/2010 5:10:35 PM , Rating: 1
I'm not always a fan of "The Mick", but this time he's right. This is ridiculous.


RE: Didn't even make the news.
By rcc on 8/26/2010 4:59:39 PM , Rating: 3
I am morally outraged.


RE: Didn't even make the news.
By chagrinnin on 8/26/2010 5:29:29 PM , Rating: 2
My ex-wife used to get orally outraged,... oh, wait...nevermind.


RE: Didn't even make the news.
By Spookster on 8/26/2010 6:17:50 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah I know.


RE: Didn't even make the news.
By chagrinnin on 8/26/2010 9:20:10 PM , Rating: 2
Ah, dude! You too!? Are you still wakin' up with the Dirty Sanchez thing? :P


RE: Didn't even make the news.
By Adonlude on 8/27/2010 12:17:24 PM , Rating: 2
No words. So angry about this decission from that joke of a court the 9th. This is not American! The supremes will smack those liberal jokers soon.


RE: Didn't even make the news.
By JasonMick (blog) on 8/26/2010 4:59:56 PM , Rating: 5
quote:

Where is all their moral outrage about Freedom and Constitutional rights when a Democrat is in office?


I thought it was pretty outrageous then, and I still think its pretty outrageous now. /Some/ of us are consistent in that regard at least.

Taking away Constitutionally guaranteed freedoms is a slippery slope. And making provisions that favor justice for the wealthy over the fiscally less-endowed is even worse.

It makes me wonder in 10, 20 years from now what kind of intrusions will be considered acceptable as society grows complacent to its vanishing freedoms.


RE: Didn't even make the news.
By Ammohunt on 8/26/10, Rating: 0
RE: Didn't even make the news.
By skirvmi on 8/27/10, Rating: 0
RE: Didn't even make the news.
By bh192012 on 8/27/2010 6:42:37 PM , Rating: 4
"escalation that may or may not happen" ? Are you serious? Do you really think there is any chance of it not escalating? Sorry, I hate to be the one to break it to you, but the slope is real.

Some people don't know it, and if there was no slope they would be ok with the situation. The slope is real, and they are going to suffer for thier ignorance.


RE: Didn't even make the news.
By Pythias on 8/31/2010 5:41:01 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I thought it was pretty outrageous then, and I still think its pretty outrageous now. /Some/ of us are consistent in that regard at least.


For what its worth, I respect that.


RE: Didn't even make the news.
By MrBlastman on 8/26/2010 5:07:21 PM , Rating: 5
This is absurd and I'm even surprised the 9th Circuit ruled in favor of allowing this unabashed abuse of our civil liberties. Our Founding Fathers are rolling over in their graves about this.


RE: Didn't even make the news.
By sviola on 8/26/2010 5:16:07 PM , Rating: 5
So, when are you americans going to start the next civil war to guarantee your rights? The way things are going lately, the next thing the congress will pass is an increase in the taxes for a popular beverage...


RE: Didn't even make the news.
By Skywalker123 on 8/26/10, Rating: -1
RE: Didn't even make the news.
By MrBlastman on 8/27/2010 9:35:35 AM , Rating: 4
I agree, let it begin! The Constitution does grant the States the right to secede if the Federal Government oversteps their boundaries of constitutionality...


RE: Didn't even make the news.
By flatrock on 8/27/2010 12:59:56 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
The Constitution does grant the States the right to secede if the Federal Government oversteps their boundaries of constitutionality...


I could be wrong I guess, but I don't think that's in the constitution. Of course it doesn't really need to be in there. Secession is pretty much open rebellion against the federal government, which is what the constitution defines.

We don't have a constitutional right to rebel, we have constitutional methods by which we can change our governement. If we rebel, or are forced into rebellion, then we are saying that the constitution or our implementation of it has failed.


RE: Didn't even make the news.
By Spivonious on 8/27/2010 9:46:47 AM , Rating: 1
I would, but remember how the first Civil War went? Southern states seceded from the Union, made their own country. The federal government said "oh no you di'n't" and started a war.

Plus do you really think that citizens could make any impact against the U.S. Armed Forces? Hunting rifles and handguns against F-16s.


RE: Didn't even make the news.
By MrBlastman on 8/27/2010 9:50:21 AM , Rating: 5
We outnumber our Armed Forces considerably. Never underestimate the power of a fully armed America. Plus, if you consider the number of men and women in our military that are just as pissed off about our government as we are, I say we have a decent shot at it.

Or, Americans can take it up the rectum like we have been doing for the last two years. This latest ruling makes me sick.


RE: Didn't even make the news.
By Spivonious on 8/27/2010 10:13:42 AM , Rating: 2
Try the last 50 years, but you have a good point about numbers.


RE: Didn't even make the news.
By Rugar on 8/27/2010 11:47:51 AM , Rating: 2
WOLVERINESSSSSS!!!!!


RE: Didn't even make the news.
By mrkun on 8/27/2010 3:05:16 PM , Rating: 2
Umm, the Confederacy started the war by attacking Fort Sumter. They fired the first shot.


RE: Didn't even make the news.
By Spivonious on 8/27/2010 4:33:43 PM , Rating: 2
They had formed a new country. Letting another country that have labeled your actions a rebellion have a military outpost in your country is pretty risky. I've lived in the "North" my whole life, but I can't blame the Confederacy for what they did.


RE: Didn't even make the news.
By clovell on 8/31/2010 2:04:22 PM , Rating: 2
Arguably, the Union precipitated the war by capturing a half-completed fort in the harbor of a main Confederate port by crossing Confederate waters.

How long was the Confederacy supposed to put up with cannons being trained on the city of Charleston? Really, that's not a rhetorical question - how long? Because 4+ months is a lot longer than I would have done it.

I'm not trying to tout the Confederacy as being in the right, but distilling the history of our nation's bloodiest engagement down this far seems a bit... much.


RE: Didn't even make the news.
By Helbore on 8/27/2010 4:28:25 PM , Rating: 2
Why just the Americans? Name me a modern Western nation that isn't stripping away its citizens rights in the name of law and order.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating handcuffing our security services against real threats to the public safety, but you have to wonder where we are going when a court in a country built on the principle of individual freedom rules that there is nothing wrong with a law enforcement agency buggin a car - without judicial warrant - because he might be growing weed. Tell me he was suspected of building high explosives or cultivating anthrax and I might consider this worthy of bugging that guy - but still with a court-ordered warrant.

But free reign on someone growing weed? Seriously! How long before you can be pulled over and fined on the spot, without option of trial, for speeding 1mph over the limit, for example? They just seem to be giving more powers to crack down on small crimes. This isn't about the public's safety, its about keeping the people under the thumb.

Its the disaster that is two-party politics. You're damned by either choice and that's all you've got to choose. What's the point in voting when you get the same thing with superficial differences, either way you go.


RE: Didn't even make the news.
By Reclaimer77 on 8/26/2010 5:18:25 PM , Rating: 1
I guess we need to Amend the Fourth Amendment to remove the word "unreasonable". Because it looks like the courts think this kind of thing if very reasonable as long as it's for a good cause like drug busts.

I don't think it's reasonable. At all. But then again I'm not a wacked out Leftist.


RE: Didn't even make the news.
By Motoman on 8/26/2010 5:26:21 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Judge Kozinski is a leading conservative, appointed by President Ronald Reagan, but in his dissent he came across as a raging liberal.


From the linked Time article. This kind of judicial decision isn't leftist - it's ultra-right-wing.


RE: Didn't even make the news.
By Reclaimer77 on 8/26/10, Rating: -1
RE: Didn't even make the news.
By Ammohunt on 8/26/2010 5:22:44 PM , Rating: 5
Why are you surprised? That was the same court that invalidated millions of votes of Californians to define marriage in their state constitution. One judge > Millions of voters


RE: Didn't even make the news.
By Sibuna on 8/26/10, Rating: 0
RE: Didn't even make the news.
By Ard on 8/27/10, Rating: 0
RE: Didn't even make the news.
By Chaser on 8/27/2010 7:29:13 AM , Rating: 1
Oh please. Spare us the victimhood discrmination parallels. No "rights" are being violated. We all have the exact same identical rights.

Its ironic that prop 8's largest opponents at the voting box were African Americans while casting votes for President Obama back then. Funny how one of the largest minorites in the U.S. didn't seem to lock arms with the "mariage ban" victims.


RE: Didn't even make the news.
By jackstar7 on 8/27/2010 9:35:47 AM , Rating: 1
It's almost as though homophobia crosses culture lines and unites more people than it divides. Just barely more in California, it turned out.

Prob 8 is still legislated discrimination based on frightened ignorance.


RE: Didn't even make the news.
By ekv on 8/27/2010 11:30:55 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Prob 8 is still legislated discrimination based on frightened ignorance.
In a word, bull-pucky.

Two friends. One laughs at the thought of gay marriage, as in, "why the hell would I get married, think about it". Second guy is your garden variety radical, "I don't care if gay marriage overturns thousands of years of history". Talk about frightening.


RE: Didn't even make the news.
By Ard on 8/27/2010 12:06:23 PM , Rating: 1
You can disregard the analogy all you want, but it's apt. Last time I checked, there is a fundamental due process right under the to marry encapsulated in the penumbra of privacy rights of the Constitution. By defining marriage as between a man and a woman, you have effectively denied every homosexual couple their fundamental right to marry (and, no, the ability to enter a "civil union" is not even close to being a substitute). What, it's alright because other minority groups decided to vote for it? Pull your head out of your ass. I'm sure if the people voted to deny you the right to do something, you'd have a very different point of view.


RE: Didn't even make the news.
By ekv on 8/27/2010 12:46:50 PM , Rating: 1
I respectfully disagree.

By NOT defining marriage as tween man and woman you'd open the door to whatever relationship somebody so happens to fancy, e.g. man and object, man and group, man and animal ... [man-bear-pig anybody?]. What is the point to re-defining marriage? other than to allow your special interest group access? Marriage is a covenant relationship. Marriage has been fairly successful up to this point, and arguably, going forward. It is not a social experiment.

I'm curious, how is a "civil union" not even close? Since it does provide all rights, while avoiding the marriage tax.

The point about minority groups, and this is an educated guess on my part, I believe has to do with skin color. The skin color you're born with can't (currently) be changed. You are born with it. You are not born a homosexual. No such connection has been made. I'm not sure it has been established, but even if you were born with a predilection towards homosexuality ... that can be dealt with. For example, American Indians have a (proven) inclination towards alcoholism. Of course, alcoholism can be treated and you can function normally and soberly in society. [I do not address gender issues here]. If I had a predilection towards alcoholism that does not make me a victim -- a priori, ad hoc, propter poop, etc. The point is, I believe, that skin color has legitimate civil rights issues whereas homosexuality does not.

"Pull your head out of your ass." If I may speak with candor, perhaps you are projecting...?

Lastly, do you have an example of, as you said, people voting to deny a right?


RE: Didn't even make the news.
By clovell on 8/27/10, Rating: 0
RE: Didn't even make the news.
By ekv on 8/27/2010 4:06:01 PM , Rating: 1
What does it have to do with?

"Being a practicing Jew isn't a choice either" ??? Care to explain?

"Homophobic"? Defined as "irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals". I have no irrational fear, nor irrational aversion, nor irrational discrimination against or towards homosexuals. I highly suspect however that your emotional response belies suppressed anger. You are insinuating that I am prejudiced. Given my experience, perhaps I ought to be, but no. Nice try.


RE: Didn't even make the news.
By clovell on 8/30/2010 12:22:38 PM , Rating: 2
You're not prejudiced? How does gay marriage affect you, then? While you're thinking of your response (good luck, btw - the obvious answer is that it doesn't affect you), I'll get to the Jewish thing - I had a major type-o there.

Practicing a religion is a choice, and yet we still let people of any religion marry. So, it's unfair to say that since homosexuality is choice, then we ought not to let them marry.


RE: Didn't even make the news.
By Reclaimer77 on 8/30/2010 3:20:39 PM , Rating: 2
Well since marriages are partly subsidized by the taxpayer, I would say they do effect everyone. The only difference between a civil union and a marriage is a piece of paper and a different tax bracket.

I don't know, this issue can never properly be debated because it's too easy for someone like you to play the "homophobic" card and shut the other side up. So it's almost not even worth discussing it.

quote:
Practicing a religion is a choice, and yet we still let people of any religion marry. So, it's unfair to say that since homosexuality is choice, then we ought not to let them marry.


Ok I'll admit I haven't read every post on this leading up to yours, but I'm confused as to where you are going with this. Religion and choices and homosexuality and marriage...huh?

I think it really boils down to this. If judge whats-his-face defines whatever makes you happy in life as being a "right", then I should have the right to marry 2 or 3 or however many women at the same time that I see fit. Because that makes us happy. Yep, we roll like that. Why isn't that legal too?

But sorry, I find it hard to believe everyone is homophobic on this issue. Especially hard to believe there are 9 million of them in California of all places and they all turned out to vote. Open your eyes and stop trying to turn this into some civil rights issue.


RE: Didn't even make the news.
By clovell on 8/31/2010 2:17:16 PM , Rating: 1
Wait a second, Reclaimer. This is a civil rights issue. I'll explain a bit more. It strikes me that your only issue is not that gays can be in civil unions and do everything that heteros can do, but what we call it.

Why?

If it's important to me to say 'potatoe', but you prefer 'potato', why would you give a damn how I spell it?

The poster above tried to invalidate the arguments for gay marriage by saying that being gay isn't about civil rights because you're not born gay like you're born black. Some people seem to have this idea that in order for an issue to be about civil rights, it has to concern a condition that is not a choice.

My counter-example was an orthodox jew. A jew isn't born orthodox, since orthodoxy must be practiced. Being an orthodox jew is a choice. And yet, were this debate about allowing orthodox jews to either 'marry' or commit to 'civil unions', this debate would be long over.

The fundamental driving force behind Proposition 8 is that certain heterosexuals resent the idea that gays can be married in the same way as themselves. "It's not the same!" they shout. And, on many levels, it's not. But much in the same way that a man does not have a vagina, and a woman does not have a penis - and yet they can both vote for President - the two are equal in the eyes of the law.

So, this is about equality. This is about gays wanting the same legal nomenclature, and, hence, status as heterosexual couples. this is about certain heterosexual couples who don't view them as the same, who seek to push their personal views into legislation.

'Homophobic' is a personal failing I have when I try to condense the above 5-6 paragraphs into a single word. I see it's not helping the discussion, and it's only fair that I apologize for not using my words in a more intelligent fashion.


RE: Didn't even make the news.
By RaggedClaws on 9/8/2010 1:27:37 AM , Rating: 2
For the courts it is primarily a civil rights issue. The courts must concern themselves with equal protection under the law, so the question then becomes how can the law justify denying a right to a certain subclass of people when it allows that same right to others.

One of the guys involved in bringing the case against the previous judgment is a well-known Republican conservative who chose to support gay right to marriage precisely because he saw it as a civil rights issue.


RE: Didn't even make the news.
By ekv on 9/10/2010 4:20:09 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
For the courts it is primarily a civil rights issue.
I'm curious, can you explain how this is a "civil rights issue"? How can it be a civil rights issue when your "certain subclass of people" is neither a minority nor underprivileged?

http://www.crrange.com/wall34.html

What rights are being denied? Can you name this specific well-known Republican conservative, that supports gay-marriage? or is it a secret? or am I supposed to get a tingle-up-my-leg because he's a "Republican" AND a "conservative"? Maybe he has a PhD in rocket science too?

There was a fellow who led the GOP caucus either nationally or in a state, who unbeknownst to to the caucus was a closet homosexual, and he used his power to derail a pro-traditional marriage plank in the GOP's declarations. His subterfuge and treachery were found out after the fact, since he became tired of living a duplicitous lifestyle, resigned and announced his "status."


RE: Didn't even make the news.
By RaggedClaws on 9/18/2010 2:22:34 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'm curious, can you explain how this is a "civil rights issue"? How can it be a civil rights issue when your "certain subclass of people" is neither a minority nor underprivileged?


"Civil rights include the ensuring of peoples' physical integrity and safety; protection from discrimination on grounds such as physical or mental disability, gender, religion, race, national origin, age, or sexual orientation ; and individual rights such as the freedoms of thought and conscience, speech and expression, religion, the press, and movement."

Why do you assume that one must be in a minority before one's civil rights can be violated. It was only in the last 100 hundred years or so that it was determined that denying women the right to vote was a violation of their civil rights. However, I have no idea why, given their numbers, you claim gays aren't a minority.

But your question seems to imply that gays have no civil rights. How is that? Laws have been passed in many States protecting the employment and housing right of gays.The Supreme Court ruled (in 2003?) that Texas had infringed the Constitutional right of gays to bugger each other if they wanted.

Since courts and legislatures have repeatedly acted to protect the rights of gays, clearly they recognize homosexuals as a distinct group of people who have rights.

quote:
What rights are being denied?


The right to marry.

quote:
Can you name this specific well-known Republican conservative, that supports gay-marriage?or is it a secret?


Theodore Olson former United States Solicitor General, serving from June 2001 to July 2004 under President George W. Bush - his wife was killed in the 9/11 terrorist attacks - is the well-known conservative who argued the pro-gay side in the recent overturning in California of the Prop 8 ban on gay marriage

I realize that for some, gay marriage is difficult to accept, but I say, who cares. I'm not gay by the way in case you were wondering.


RE: Didn't even make the news.
By ekv on 9/18/2010 4:33:03 AM , Rating: 2
Can you cite a reference, please, for your definition of civil rights. I'm not saying you did a crevice pull, but I'm curious about the lineage. If you look back a couple years, "sexual orientation" is not included in most dictionaries. It is a relatively new concept, for "modern" times that is. I'm not saying open homosexuality hasn't ever been the norm -- just look at ancient cultures, their debauchery and downfall.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_Should_We_Then_Li...
by Francis A. Schaeffer [not exactly to the point, but interesting nonetheless].

quote:
Why do you assume that one must be in a minority before one's civil rights can be violated.
Rights granted by civil authority are relative and alienable. The act of granting special rights and privileges to some subclass (or subset) of citizens need not be done unless this subclass is under-represented in some capacity, in other words, a minority. Homosexuals, a subset of the class 'citizens' do not meet the criteria for minority. I have not said they are not citizens. Do not read into my statements that their rights as citizens are denied.
quote:
It was only in the last 100 hundred years or so...
This is just a simply stupendously fabulous example. So women being denied the right to vote is a violation of civil rights. However, the majority of Californians that voted -- twice, repeat, TWICE -- to maintain traditional marriage are being denied their vote. So ought a civil rights lawsuit be filed against judge Walker?

Further, women are born, well, women. Ignoring gender change operations for the moment, you can't change your gender. Similar to not being able to change skin color. This leads us to the gay "gene" which is unproven. There is no proof anyone is born homosexual. It is an adopted behaviour. [If you want to argue for civil rights based on behaviour, how about the subset of society known as murderer, or rapist, or pedophile.]

Lastly, minority status is not necessarily based on percentage of population. Here's the logic, if you have a ruling class of about 10-15 families who are ultra-wealthy, then the plebs, as it were, even if they could vote in open elections still run the risk of being manipulated by the ruling class. Case in point, Mexico bears eerie similarities. The plebs would be a minority here since they are economically under-represented.

I highly suspect you did not read the link I gave. The 3 criteria for minority status are succinct.

quote:
Since courts and legislatures have repeatedly acted to protect the rights of gays, clearly they recognize homosexuals as a distinct group of people who have rights.
So it is only when courts and legislatures act to protect gay rights is it legal and righteous? Only when they act in your favor that it's remarkable and acceptable. What about when the will of the people is voided, repeatedly? What makes you better? Because you are part of the illuminated, elite ruling class?

This issue needs to be thought through much, much more before we proceed any further. I'll use your example to support this statement. Women's suffrage did not happen overnight, but it was sure and true. There is also Biblical support -- Jesus' treatment of women as equals was unheard of in his time; he taught the worth of every person, but also that we each chose wrong and need someone to bail us out -- but I'll leave that discussion for another time. The Womens' right to vote was itself voted on and passed (as we know). Imagine judge Walker throwing out that vote. Imagine his decision in that light, let alone the base, scurrilous courtroom antics.

This is not some social experiment. And you want this on a cultural scale, let alone a city-wide scale. What you're suggesting, the right for homosexuals to marry, is a radical departure from societal norms (for hundreds of years, if not longer). Why the push to ram this agenda through the legal system? Because you can't do it legitimately.

Ah, ok, yes Mr. Olson. Tragic. [GW Bush's wife, Laura, is soft on gay marriage. An otherwise elegant Lady, a classy and gracious woman, I could not disagree with her more on this issue. A shame.] As great a legal mind as Olson is, he ought to re-examine his motivations and personal testimony. What a toxic legal legacy he is working on.


RE: Didn't even make the news.
By ekv on 8/30/2010 10:41:31 PM , Rating: 2
Thanks for answering my question. I'm glad we both agree with the OP that no "rights" are being violated, since homosexuality is a choice.

First you issue a slur, now you are calling me a liar. FYI, bias means that if possible I shall vote for my preconceived idea. Prejudice means whether possible or not I shall vote for my preconceived idea. I admitted bias, not the latter.

Judge Walker is openly homosexual and he, instead of citing conflict-of-interest, voted in favor of his preconceived ideas. Overturning the will of the people, for the second time. Tell me, who is prejudiced? Tell me, who is the rogue perched in their ivory tower, issuing imperial decrees? [Everybody knew he was in-the-tank, but to take so much time to come up with such a weak ruling ... just pathetic. Can we not end, or at least curb judicial activism?]

A man learns how to drive. Learns the rules of the road. He then decides to go for a joy ride with his roomie. His Toyota goes faster and faster. A state trooper pulls him over and a ticket for speeding is in order. The man knew the law, yet he broke the law. He goes before the judge and argues, "Judge, there were lots of people going faster than me but they didn't get tickets. It's not fair. Since there is 'equal protection' under the law, this ticket represents blatant discrimination." Tell me, if the jugde agrees with the man, when does he stop speeding?

Where do you draw the line? When is it enough?

To answer YOUR question, there are six consequences

http://www.whatisprop8.com


RE: Didn't even make the news.
By clovell on 8/31/2010 2:38:49 PM , Rating: 2
> I'm glad we both agree with the OP that no "rights" are being violated, since homosexuality is a choice.

In case you forgot American History, the Constitution of the United States of America protects the rights of individual choices.

> Judge Walker is openly homosexual and he, instead of citing conflict-of-interest, voted in favor of his preconceived ideas. Overturning the will of the people, for the second time. Tell me, who is prejudiced?

Given the thoughtful and reasoned response he wrote, I'd say you and Judge Walker are on opposite sides of the same boat.

> A man learns how to drive. Learns the rules of the road. He then decides to go for a joy ride with his roomie. His Toyota goes faster and faster. A state trooper pulls him over and a ticket for speeding is in order. The man knew the law, yet he broke the law. He goes before the judge and argues, "Judge, there were lots of people going faster than me but they didn't get tickets. It's not fair. Since there is 'equal protection' under the law, this ticket represents blatant discrimination." Tell me, if the jugde agrees with the man, when does he stop speeding?

Speeding endangers lives. Gay marriage does not. Gay 'civil unions', which many have admitted are no different than gay 'marriages' are perfectly legal. In fact, gays aren't breaking any law - they're challenging one. And so, the analogy breaks down.

Now for your consequences:

#1 - Opt your kids out of Sex-Ed if you don't like it. Almost every state I know of allows this. I personally feel that if you do your job as a parent, your kid shouldn't need to go to sex-ed anyway.

#2 - It's a political issue, now. Churches can have their tax exempt status revoked for publicly endorsing political candidates, too. I understand that many religious institutions oppose gay marriage, but if you're going to build a political platform out of it, you pay to play.

#3 - Given the stringent requirements already set forth by most adoption agencies, if a gay couple qualifies, then good for them. Disqualifying an otherwise qualified couple simply because they're gay doesn't make sense to me. I know it does to Prop 8 backers (I used to be one a coupe years back) - because they don't view gay marriages as equal, they view them as a less than hetero marriages.

#4 - Religions that sponsor private schools with married student housing will have to allow gay couples to live there too. Wow. So, you're upset that you won't be able to continue to treat gay couples unfairly and at a lower standard than hetero couples?

#5 - Ministers who preach against homosexual marriage may be sued for hate speech? Last I checked, any minister who interprets the bible and says, "The bible says XXX" is pretty well protected. I'm sure there are lines somewhere, and they will be challenged and tied up in litigation, too - which is exactly point number six.

I paid for advances in lots of rights. My grandfather paid far more than I. But this is the United States of America - the land of the free; the home of the brave; with Liberty, and Justice for ALL. And by god - I'm not saying it's easy or comfortable. If it were easy, everybody would do it. But, as the Leader of the Free world, we have to move past pushing our personal views and biases on other people, when it really doesn't make a difference.

Do you know how much desegregation cost cost? The riots? The deaths? The laws that were re-written and challenged? Saying it will cost too much or inconvenience you as a parent, or give you neighbors in married student housing you don't like, or make parents of a perfectly qualified couple in a committed relationship, or eradicate the impunity with which churches push this political agenda fueled by their religious view in a country founded on the principles of freedom of religion - that's a pretty lame set of excuses if you ask me.


RE: Didn't even make the news.
By clovell on 8/31/2010 2:40:45 PM , Rating: 2
Oh yeah, forgot to say "you're welcome" for answering your question ;)


RE: Didn't even make the news.
By ekv on 8/31/2010 4:10:54 PM , Rating: 2
I was being facetious. Perhaps I ought to reply with "thanks ... for nothing"?


RE: Didn't even make the news.
By ekv on 8/31/2010 4:59:21 PM , Rating: 2
"... the Constitution of the United States of America protects the rights of individual choices."

Care to cite chapter and verse where you find this in the Constitution? Unless you're saying this in a general way. In which case, you added the word "choices", in order to include your pet preconceived notions.

Judge Walker ruled against the defense at nearly every turn. His summation boiled down to "because gay marriage has already taken place, it must go on." Why is this stupid? because the only way it took place is after the will of the people was overturned by judicial activism. In case you were unaware, that's what this thread is about. Judge Walker could have recused himself, but instead chose to exercise prejudice.

Gay marriage does endanger lives. Haven't you heard the crime statistics regarding jealous gay lovers committing murder? violent murder. I suppose that 'didn't even make the news'. You have also managed to NOT answer me, again. To remind you, the question is "if the judge agrees with the man, when does he stop speeding?" The logical answer is, he doesn't.

You're fond of saying, "what does it matter" or "it really doesn't make a difference". If there is no difference tween civil unions and marriage, why do you want "gay marriage"? I challenge you. It is because you want legitimacy.

Rockefeller was once asked how much money is enough. "Just one more dolar," was his sage reply. Where do you draw the line?

Here's my point, and I'll likely have to go over it 101 times. This is not about equality -- because if that were so, it's already been done, yes it has, according to Calif. civil code -- it is about those who wish "to push their personal views into legislation." Your own words.

There is death and destruction all around you, you narrowly escape collision, and all you can do is come up with excuses.


RE: Didn't even make the news.
By RaggedClaws on 9/18/2010 2:53:07 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Judge Walker is openly homosexual and he, instead of citing conflict-of-interest, voted in favor of his preconceived ideas.


You think Walker should not have been allowed to take this case because of his sexual orientation. So does that mean no Black should ever be given a case involving discrimination against Blacks, no woman judge cases involving gender discrimination - but then, wouldn't men also have to be disqualified? But if homosexuality disqualifies a judge from hearing a case involving gay marriage, why should a hetero judge be considered free from bias. And given Christianity's hatred of homosexuality, how could we have allowed a Christian judge to hear this case?

If the verdict had upheld Prop 8 and the deciding judge was a hetero Christian, would you have complained that the judge was biased?


RE: Didn't even make the news.
By ekv on 9/18/2010 5:13:02 AM , Rating: 2
If judge Walker could have been impartial and had not a vested interest in seeing Prop. 8 be defeated, I've got no problem. It appears you are unaware of Judge Walker ... he does live with someone and there is talk. Not to mention the courtroom antics. He could have easily recused himself and the outcome of the case would have been similar [District 9 being was it is], but instead Walker went for the kill.

quote:
And given Christianity's hatred of homosexuality,
but you infer Christians hate the person as well. The Biblical principle is "hate the sin, not the sinner." [cf. Jude]
quote:
...how could we have allowed a Christian judge to hear this case?
Country was founded on Christian principles and common law draws parallels with the 10 commandments.

Look, your sense of right, or sense of ought-ness is relative to whatever society thinks. You have no external point of reference. I do. I rely on the Bible. I'm not perfect. I'm still a work in progress.

If society says, murder or rape or pedophilia is the norm then you just go along. The Bible says those behaviours are unacceptable, that they represent an injustice.

quote:
If the verdict had upheld Prop 8...
Let me rephrase the question, "how can you possibly say I'm wrong and you're right?" Everything is just relative for you. You have a sense of right but you can't say why. The goalpost, as it were, keeps moving. What makes you better than me? Have you really examined the consequences of your world-view? Do you even know what your world-view is?


RE: Didn't even make the news.
By clovell on 8/27/2010 12:50:06 PM , Rating: 1
Equal protection is equal protection. Spare us your homophobia.


RE: Didn't even make the news.
By clovell on 8/27/2010 12:50:42 PM , Rating: 2
Except that judge was protecting rights - not taking them away. Nice try, 4sshole.


RE: Didn't even make the news.
By Ammohunt on 8/30/2010 3:08:55 PM , Rating: 2
What righs are those? the rights of millions of voters? The British Government made the mistake of going against the will of the people in this country.


RE: Didn't even make the news.
By Ammohunt on 8/26/2010 5:12:17 PM , Rating: 2
American Civil liberties only apply to card carrying members of the Communist party(Like Van Jones)


RE: Didn't even make the news.
By rdawise on 8/26/2010 8:10:15 PM , Rating: 5
1. Could you please explain how this involves the President? This was a judicial decision made a the judicial branch. If the President were to get involved, you would cry that he was over-reaching his power.

2. I know that Reclaimer really fails when it comes to logic, but where do you assume that the left is for this? Any proof would be greatly appreciated

3. Do you know anything more than bipartisan drivel? If there was no outrage, why is this probably going to head to the Supreme Court?

4. To the poster who commented on Jason Mick. Think of Mick's articles as if they were from either MSNBC or FoxNews. Mick's articles usually are political in nature and may or may not include tech. His aim is to get users to comment in which he succeeds (in fact I don't remember Reclaimer or FitCamaro (spelling) ever commenting on an article that was tech related). I have come to view this site more as politics with a little tech invovled when it comes to Mick.


By georgeodjungle on 8/26/2010 10:09:52 PM , Rating: 2
it even easer for them with on star
all thay have to do is call.
no placement needed


RE: Didn't even make the news.
By majBUZZ on 8/27/2010 12:41:22 AM , Rating: 4
Im fricking outraged but Big R you still seem to think that the democrats and the republicans are separate entities when in reality they are different heads of the same monster just the democrats bite less and the body is the oligarchy.

Here's a good bit of information to ponder.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0g1k5rK7bWI


RE: Didn't even make the news.
By Chaser on 8/27/10, Rating: 0
RE: Didn't even make the news.
By bh192012 on 8/27/2010 6:54:32 PM , Rating: 2
Neither do a decent job of representing me or most people I know, so I tend to agree that they are they same, in that they both suck.


RE: Didn't even make the news.
By The Raven on 8/27/2010 10:52:30 AM , Rating: 4
We are getting jobbed by both sides my friend. Vote libertarian: get the gov't out of our wallets, wombs and WLANs.


RE: Didn't even make the news.
By clovell on 8/27/2010 12:46:57 PM , Rating: 2
Outrage, you say, Reclaimer? The outrage is in my purchase of extended clips & ammo. They may have made it legal to sneak onto my property, but they forgot to repeal the Castle Doctrine.

Please, please, please, Federal Agents - TRY to come legally violate my fourth amendment rights, and watch me exercise my no duty to retreat... makes my blood boil.


RE: Didn't even make the news.
By cruisin3style on 8/27/2010 2:18:01 PM , Rating: 2
I think people are too burned out from the last 10 years to care about these things anymore, or at least be "outraged" by them. I mean for me I'm disdained by it but it's not even surprising. It's not like this is the first or even 4th story I've read over the last several years like this.

I think people were tired of Bush, there was a big push for Obama but things are even more grim and still similar to Bush's years, so I think most people who aren't on the more hardcore side of Republicans (and to a lesser extent Democrats) are somewhat lethargic these days.

I mean we've had 9/11, Patriot Act, 2 wars, ban on stemcell research, bailouts, ~1 trillion in stimulus, crazy legistlative antics, and huge deficits. Did I miss anything? (Glenn Beck?) It's like we're going faster and faster in the wrong direction, the bridge is out, and our accelerator/floormats were made by Toyota.


RE: Didn't even make the news.
By clovell on 8/27/2010 3:20:02 PM , Rating: 2
no ban on stem cell research; just federal funding for certain kinds.


RE: Didn't even make the news.
By F4iHorn on 8/27/2010 3:29:33 PM , Rating: 2
When did they ban stem-cell research?


RE: Didn't even make the news.
By wompirebat on 8/28/2010 11:42:36 AM , Rating: 2
http://www.lightinthebox.com/wholesale-Jammer_c257...

Individuals seriously concerned with liberty or privacy certainly do not rely on governments to provide for them.


Government is over-reaching
By TheRequiem on 8/26/2010 4:48:42 PM , Rating: 2
Now... all we need is some teams to figure out how we can stop it and stop the government dead in their tracks. All we need are some equipment to sever GPS communication.




RE: Government is over-reaching
By cmdrdredd on 8/26/2010 5:08:19 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
All we need are some equipment to sever GPS communication.


Supposedly the Taliban or Al Qaeda or both have technology that can do just that. They can intercept the transmissions of drones and interrupt their flight path. A work around was found quickly, but the technology to do such things does exist.

Anyway i think this is a clear case of the 9th circuit court needing to be defunded by congress for legislating from the bench. Time after time they often overlook reality and logic while promoting a leftist agenda. Congress has the power of funding or defunding all or part of a court system to prevent this. It's part of checks and balances. The 9th circuit is not interpreting law but rather making unreasonable decisions based on nothing. In most cities you are trespassing if you enter someone's front yard or driveway. Just because some kid can walk across it doesn't mean he or she is not trespassing on your private property. I mean, I'm all for drug control and enforcement, but lets be reasonable here, if this stands then it's only a matter of time until they determine that your vehicle is not private property because it doesn't reside inside your home or business or even worse than that. Erosion of constitutional rights by a liberal judge...pathetic.


RE: Government is over-reaching
By Reclaimer77 on 8/26/2010 5:14:52 PM , Rating: 1
I just wonder what the implications of that statement is. I mean, do we all have to put "NO TRESPASSING PRIVATE PROPERTY" signs around our yards? Would the 9'th Court then say it was private property? Probably not.. :(

The 9'th Circuit Court has been nothing but a wing of the Liberal Democrat party for years now. And I don't see that changing anytime soon. This ruling is just.. monstrous. A bloody abortion of injustice.


RE: Government is over-reaching
By Reclaimer77 on 8/26/2010 5:14:53 PM , Rating: 2
I just wonder what the implications of that statement is. I mean, do we all have to put "NO TRESPASSING PRIVATE PROPERTY" signs around our yards? Would the 9'th Court then say it was private property? Probably not.. :(

The 9'th Circuit Court has been nothing but a wing of the Liberal Democrat party for years now. And I don't see that changing anytime soon. This ruling is just.. monstrous. A bloody abortion of injustice.


RE: Government is over-reaching
By gixser on 8/26/2010 7:55:56 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I mean, do we all have to put "NO TRESPASSING PRIVATE PROPERTY" signs around our yards?


Yes, I think that might work. See quote from the Opinion.

“In order to establish a reasonable expectation
of privacy in [his] driveway, [Pineda-Moreno] must support
that expectation by detailing the special features of the driveway
itself (i.e. enclosures, barriers, lack of visibility from the
street) or the nature of activities performed upon it.” Maisano
v. Welcher, 940 F.2d 499, 503 (9th Cir. 1991). Pineda-
Moreno offers no such evidence. To the contrary, the driveway
had no gate, no “No Trespassing” signs, and no features
to prevent someone standing in the street from seeing the
entire driveway. Additionally, one of the investigating agents
testified that “an individual going up to the house to deliver
the newspaper or to visit someone would have to go through
the driveway to get to the house.” If a neighborhood child had
UNITED STATES v. PINEDA-MORENO 737
walked up Pineda-Moreno’s driveway and crawled under his
Jeep to retrieve a lost ball or runaway cat, Pineda-Moreno
would have no grounds to complain. Thus, because Pineda-
Moreno did not take steps to exclude passersby from his
driveway, he cannot claim a reasonable expectation of privacy
in it, regardless of whether a portion of it was located within
the curtilage of his home.


RE: Government is over-reaching
By cmdrdredd on 8/26/2010 9:55:41 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Yes, I think that might work. See quote from the Opinion. “In order to establish a reasonable expectation of privacy in [his] driveway, [Pineda-Moreno] must support that expectation by detailing the special features of the driveway itself (i.e. enclosures, barriers, lack of visibility from the street) or the nature of activities performed upon it.” Maisano v. Welcher, 940 F.2d 499, 503 (9th Cir. 1991). Pineda- Moreno offers no such evidence. To the contrary, the driveway had no gate, no “No Trespassing” signs, and no features to prevent someone standing in the street from seeing the entire driveway. Additionally, one of the investigating agents testified that “an individual going up to the house to deliver the newspaper or to visit someone would have to go through the driveway to get to the house.” If a neighborhood child had UNITED STATES v. PINEDA-MORENO 737 walked up Pineda-Moreno’s driveway and crawled under his Jeep to retrieve a lost ball or runaway cat, Pineda-Moreno would have no grounds to complain. Thus, because Pineda- Moreno did not take steps to exclude passersby from his driveway, he cannot claim a reasonable expectation of privacy in it, regardless of whether a portion of it was located within the curtilage of his home.


He most certainly has grounds to complain about a child getting a ball from around his car. He can tell kids to stay away from his property and confront the parents and inform them that he prefers them not to go near his vehicle. To say he cannot is preposterous. Further, it's always been assumed that anything not owned by your city or township, is YOUR PROPERTY. For example in my city in FL you must maintain every piece of property beyond the sidewalk of the neighborhood. The sidewalk and the yard beyond it out toward the street is city property and you are required to maintain it, but must obtain permission to dig it up or plant a tree. You need a special waver to plant a tree beyond the sidewalk because you do not own that property. Anything beyond the sidewalk in the direction of your home is private and you can and do have every right to complain about people on your property you did not invite.


RE: Government is over-reaching
By amagriva on 8/27/2010 6:39:48 AM , Rating: 2
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Benjamin Franklin


RE: Government is over-reaching
By nafhan on 8/26/2010 5:20:42 PM , Rating: 2
GPS can certainly be jammed just like any other radio signal. However, if you start jamming GPS signals, it's going to be fairly obvious to the person monitoring you...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gps#Artificial_source...

I agree with you about the private property thing. Rediculous...


RE: Government is over-reaching
By bh192012 on 8/27/2010 7:05:22 PM , Rating: 2
Also your jammer would probably be breaking the law.


RE: Government is over-reaching
By ekv on 8/29/2010 11:47:27 PM , Rating: 2
love the part in the wiki article ...

"A GPS jammer is relatively easy to detect and locate, making it an attractive target for anti-radiation missiles."

Kind of discouraging if you live out in the country-side. 8)


RE: Government is over-reaching
By JonB on 8/26/2010 5:25:16 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
I mean, I'm all for drug control and enforcement, but lets be reasonable here, if this stands then it's only a matter of time until they determine that your vehicle is not private property because it doesn't reside inside your home or business or even worse than that. Erosion of constitutional rights by a liberal judge...pathetic.


I'm not sure why the Judge and Courts are getting so much of the blame here. It is the DEA and drug arrest hungry police trying to justify their huge budgets in a time of budget cuts who planted the GPS. They are the ones violating our rights.


RE: Government is over-reaching
By siuol11 on 8/26/2010 9:05:58 PM , Rating: 2
Like a faraday cage?


RE: Government is over-reaching
By sviola on 8/26/2010 5:14:07 PM , Rating: 2
Well, Gizmodo had an article on GPS and Cell phone jammers related to this story.

Here's the link: http://gizmodo.com/5622807/how-to-stop-the-governm...

The problem is that it is illegal to use them.

You can also have some GPS, wiretap or microphone location device and always use it.


RE: Government is over-reaching
By marvdmartian on 8/27/2010 8:26:42 AM , Rating: 2
People forget, you also have the freedom to look under your car, find the GPS transmitter, and take it off your vehicle.

Personally, if the darn thing didn't say, "Property of the US Govt", or something similar on it, I'd just turn around and sell the darn thing on Craigslist. Finders-keepers, and all that.

If it did have markings on it, I'd just call all the news agencies, and show it to them. Embarass the hell out of whichever agency wanted to mess around with me. Then put up some NO TRESPASSING signs, and set up a sniper nest. Even if you just nailed them with frozen paintballs the next time they tried to put a GPS locator on your vehicle, they'd probably stop trying. ;)


RE: Government is over-reaching
By ekv on 8/29/2010 11:54:05 PM , Rating: 2
or put the GPS transmitter on the neighbor's car [the guy who's been throwing rusty nails in your yard]. Even better, rig a GPS jammer and put it on the neighbor's car. 8)


RE: Government is over-reaching
By Ammohunt on 8/26/2010 5:28:44 PM , Rating: 2
No need to jam all you need is to pick up a tramsmitter detector to find the GPS bug and toss it in a passing garbage truck.


Make My Day
By zippyzoo on 8/26/2010 4:46:12 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The judges who made the ruling told him that his private property (his driveway) was not applicable to Fourth Amendment protections as it was open to strangers, such as delivery people and neighborhood children, who could wander across it uninvited.


So the Make My Day law can be extended to Wal-Mart?




RE: Make My Day
By RugMuch on 8/26/2010 5:04:50 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, I would just love an over sensitive tweeker going

quote:
"You better get up outta my koolaid, or I'm ganna bus a cap in yo a**!"


RE: Make My Day
By zippyzoo on 8/26/2010 5:09:23 PM , Rating: 2
lol It'll probably be actual Kool Aid someone gets shot over.


RE: Make My Day
RE: Make My Day
By RichardBall on 8/26/2010 5:18:52 PM , Rating: 2
Both of you are wrong they be like

step off my kicks yo!


RE: Make My Day
By raceycar on 8/26/2010 5:21:36 PM , Rating: 2
I like how you tards are having your own conversation. I'm join this thread from now on


RE: Make My Day
By raceycar on 8/26/2010 5:26:20 PM , Rating: 3
Actually, he's not far off if you look at the doctrine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine


RE: Make My Day
By RugMuch on 8/26/2010 5:31:28 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, I just wanted to change the subject from my football team is better than your football team (symbolic for political parties). Really, the guy should of been a little more tweeky and trigger happy maybe he would of caught them. Instead, he was smoking pot awh stupid man.


RE: Make My Day
By RichardBall on 8/26/2010 5:35:05 PM , Rating: 2
What's wrong with pot LzBo.


RE: Make My Day
By RugMuch on 8/26/2010 5:39:22 PM , Rating: 1
What did you call me?


RE: Make My Day
By raceycar on 8/26/2010 5:48:46 PM , Rating: 2
The guy drove a Jeep, the crystal gripping Hippie probably didn't even own a gun or a bar of soap.


RE: Make My Day
By RugMuch on 8/26/2010 5:53:14 PM , Rating: 2
Hippies own guns they just use them for bongs. If only they went off once in a while or were attached to soap.


By dgingeri on 8/26/2010 6:15:17 PM , Rating: 2
tailing a car is perfectly legal to do without a warrant. the roads are public, and you can be tracked by a police car or a helicopter without a warrant. I find nothing different between this and that.




By HostileEffect on 8/26/2010 8:18:10 PM , Rating: 4
When does tailing become harassment? Normal people do not like other people following them all day every day with a camera


By sprockkets on 8/26/2010 9:21:25 PM , Rating: 2
Really? There is a cop car/helicopter following you every place you go?


By dgingeri on 8/27/2010 8:04:14 AM , Rating: 2
no, just like there is no gps unit tracking my every move. Most people wouldn't require such measures.

you're just too stupid to realize that this isn't for every one of us. this is for the rare occurrence when someone is breaking a major law, but not at home. They can't find where he is doing these actions, so they track him.

no, this doesn't mean you are going to be tracked. duh.


By nycromes on 8/27/2010 2:03:26 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
you're just too stupid to realize that this isn't for every one of us. this is for the rare occurrence when someone is breaking a major law, but not at home. They can't find where he is doing these actions, so they track him.


Then why not just have them follow the established rules and get a warrant to track these few individuals? The issue here is that the warrant says there is just cause for the authorities to search/sieze property. This is a big deal, and it disheartens me to see people making out to be less of one.


By dgingeri on 8/27/2010 2:33:54 PM , Rating: 2
They are neither searching nor seizing. Therefore, they don't need a warrant.


By Lerianis on 8/28/2010 5:45:02 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, by the STALKING laws, it is not legal to do without a warrant. You could say that a cop is STALKING you, even if they are doing their duty, and sue them in a court of law over that.

There is also the thing of "At what point does it become harassment?" Personally, I think that without a warrant, a cop following you in public for no reason and without a warrant becomes harassment, as do most of the American people!


Wait just a minute here...
By kjboughton on 8/26/2010 6:24:19 PM , Rating: 2
Isn't it a crime to come on to private property without authorization. Isn't that called trespassing? And if so, wouldn't that require agents of the "law" to commit a crime in the performance of their job? Given that, wouldn't the property owner be completely within their right to sue both the "law" enforcement department AND the individual(s) personally responsible for the criminal act of trespassing?

I guess someone can come onto my (private) property and plant a GPS device on one of my conveyances. But if I find out there will be criminal charges filed...

And for the record, this is blatantly unconstitutional. The Fourth Amendment leaves little to be confused in this regard. Knowing I can be tracked, on my personal property no less, is not consistent with my God given right to be secure in my belongings and in my home.

This administration is anathema to freedom. When will the average American understand this? And more importantly, when will we all stand TOGETHER to turn this slide into despotism and tyranny around. Soon, I hope.




RE: Wait just a minute here...
By dgingeri on 8/26/2010 6:32:37 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The Fourth Amendment leaves little to be confused in this regard. Knowing I can be tracked, on my personal property no less, is not consistent with my God given right to be secure in my belongings and in my home.


no, wrong. it protects against unreasonable search and/or seizure. There is no search or seizure going on there. They are not tracking you on your personal property, either, because they know you're car is at home. Duh, they can just look at the driveway and see it. Nothing unreasonable about that.

They can also tail your car however they wish on public property like this with no warrant. They can tail you however they wish to: car, helicopter, or gps. They can go wherever you go as long as you are on public property: i.e. the public road system. They can tell when you are in another parking lot by watching you enter and watching you leave. There is no expectation of privacy there.

As for planting the GPS unit while the car is in your driveway, that is up to interpretation. as long as the car is easily accessible, not locked in a garage, I don't see any difference between this and simply putting a car on the street and watching for you to leave.


RE: Wait just a minute here...
By Reclaimer77 on 8/26/2010 6:37:10 PM , Rating: 2
If there was every an argument that illustrated the phrase "obey the letter of the law, but not the spirit" , yours just won the prize.

You just don't get it. Waste of time.


RE: Wait just a minute here...
By siuol11 on 8/26/2010 9:09:29 PM , Rating: 1
He's trolling. Don't waste your time.


RE: Wait just a minute here...
By dgingeri on 8/27/2010 8:12:17 AM , Rating: 2
yes, I do get it. This is a very specific set of circumstances:

1. the car is out in the open, but on private property
2. they need to follow a suspect to find some evidence of his law breaking
3. they cannot find evidence of law breaking at his known locations

This is not carte blanche to follow any/all citizens to find out if people are doing something wrong. They just don't have the manpower for that sort of thing. Since police budgets have had significant reductions in the last 20 years, they don't even have the manpower to tail people anymore. So, they use GPS tracking now. Not a big deal.

This isn't going to impact you in any way unless you're growing and selling pot out in the mountains. If you're doing something in the city, they'll find out other ways. 99.999% of the population will never have this happen to them.

As for the "invasion of privacy" argument. That's is just stupid. You're on public roads. You have no expectation of privacy there. (Putting a gps tracker on someone to have them sit at home is just completely useless.) If they didn't have gps trackers, they'd tail the person. This line of argument is just asinine.


RE: Wait just a minute here...
By bh192012 on 8/27/2010 7:13:02 PM , Rating: 2
What if I live on a farm adjacent to other farms? I drive from farm to farm w/o touching public land?

It doesn't matter, when the government uses technology to follow you 24/7 it's just as bad as putting a soldier in your home.


RE: Wait just a minute here...
By smut on 8/30/2010 1:28:11 AM , Rating: 2
Despotism and tyranny? Hahahahah!


Order with dissenting opinion here
By gixser on 8/26/2010 7:27:07 PM , Rating: 2
By gixser on 8/26/2010 7:45:20 PM , Rating: 2
By gixser on 8/26/2010 8:07:09 PM , Rating: 5
Although this is no laughing matter I found the following passage in the dissent to be very funny. Reminds me of The Big Lebowski.

The panel authorizes police to do not only what invited
strangers could, but also uninvited children—in this case
crawl under the car to retrieve a ball and tinker with the
undercarriage. But there’s no limit to what neighborhood kids
will do, given half a chance: They’ll jump the fence, crawl
under the porch, pick fruit from the trees, set fire to the cat
and micturate on the azaleas.


This is not the Democrats fault!
By Dan1967 on 8/27/2010 7:07:36 AM , Rating: 2
This is not the Democrats fault! All 3 of the Judges on the 9th circuit in the original GPS monitoring case in January that was just upheld again were conservative Judges. Judge O’Scannlain wrote the opinion for the court. He was nominated by Reagan. Judge Smith was nominated by GW Bush, and Judge Wolle was nominated by Reagan. All 3 conservative Judges agreed that GPS monitoring does not violate one’s 4th amendment right to privacy.

The courts rationale (usually a conservative rationale regarding the 4th amendment) was that one must be protected inside a house otherwise the 4th amendment does not apply..

In the 1970's U.S. Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall (a Liberal Judge) ruled that the fourth amendment “protects people, not places.” He would be shaking his head in disgust at this GPS ruling!

Read the full ruling here: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1497005....




By dgingeri on 8/27/2010 2:37:56 PM , Rating: 2
They are neither searching nor seizing. They can look at someone's driveway and see the car is there. They can put a tracker on it to monitor where it goes on public roads. This wouldn't even be an issue if the car is parked on a road.

It does not require a warrant for those simple facts.

If a cop were to go into a private garage to put the tracker on, it would require a warrant.


Revolution
By saganhill on 8/27/2010 11:27:32 AM , Rating: 2
Who is up for a revolution? We need to protect our constitution from these power hungry idiots.




RE: Revolution
By Lerianis on 8/28/2010 5:42:47 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed. They are using the drug trade (which I personally think should be legal and regulated) and "Law and Order" as an onus to get us to give up all our rights slowly but surely.


Pretty easy to avoid the issue entirely
By FXi on 8/28/2010 9:36:03 AM , Rating: 2
It's pretty simple to avoid this kind of thing, don't do anything that would cause the police to be interested in tracking you. Pretty simple.

While I think the court should have recommended a warrant, I think that simply knowing your location, something which can be done by other means visually, is not grounds for invasion of privacy if you are under suspicion of a crime. And I wouldn't get in much of a huff over this either. Give it another decade or two and they'll be able to track you by satellite with no more than the few clicks of a mouse for a cost that won't be astronomical like it is now.

If the person in question had been arrested on false pretenses, or had some other violation of his rights that actively interrupted his life erroneously, he'd have more ground to stand on. The fact (and it does seem to be a fact he does not dispute) that he was engaged in the commission of a crime and is simply disputing how he got caught (he wasn't committing the crime in his home or other private domain out of sight) will make the circumstance of the crime not hold up to Constitutional review.

I have a feeling the Supreme Court may refuse to review it, thus letting it stand as precedent but not having to rule on it. If they ruled on it and it failed, then you'd have a much stronger Constitutional problem. We'll see.




By Lerianis on 8/28/2010 6:03:13 PM , Rating: 1
I have a feeling that they WON'T refuse to review it, because if they did, the people would be calling for their heads on a platter. While people don't like the fact that this guy was/is a drug dealer, they more are going to be pissed that apparently our Constitutional protections mean nothing even on private property if something is 'out in the open'.


By farsawoos on 8/26/2010 5:43:36 PM , Rating: 2
I guess I just don't understand how this parallel gets drawn, unless I'm just not understanding it correctly. The court struck down the defendant's appeal on grounds that his driveway is publicly accessible and so doesn't fall under 4th Amendment protections. How exactly is the mail man delivering my mail, or the FedEx guy bringing me a package, or the old lady down the street walking her dog even remotely comparable to a law enforcement or intelligence agency coming onto my driveway with the sole intent of attaching a GPS device to my vehicle without my knowledge?

...

I am baffled and annoyed. We can only hope now that the Supreme Court looks at this and laughs it off the bench. What craziness ensues in the mean time, however, will be nothing short of unfortunate.




Not Unexpected
By DBRfreak on 8/26/10, Rating: 0
RE: Not Unexpected
By kjboughton on 8/26/2010 6:29:15 PM , Rating: 2
I don't take exception with the idea that I have no reasonable assurance of privacy on public property; the issue I have with all of this is simply that the law seems to make no distinction between the action of planting tracking devices on vehicles parked on public fairways, and those located on PRIVATE property.

To use your words: Sneaky? Yes. Unconstitutional? Absolutely. Private property means STAY OUT. You may not enter without a warrant. How is this any different? And before you answer, please do consider the implications of your response. If you see nothing wrong with this situation, then you are in effect denying ANY right to privacy, regardless of the circumstance and you can be sure the government will treat you as such with any hesitation whatsoever...


The downward spiral
By DJOURNO on 8/26/2010 6:14:17 PM , Rating: 2
It's good to see others take notice of this horrific decision. What they are ignoring is how it reflects a broader destruction of personal privacy and civil rights in this country. - http://disenchantedjourno.blogspot.com/2010/08/tho...




You would think...
By EasyC on 8/27/2010 7:26:03 AM , Rating: 2
Anyone running a drug operation big enough to gain considerable attention from law enforcement would AT LEAST be able to afford a garage...




Goes to far
By isayisay on 8/27/2010 9:20:11 AM , Rating: 2
I think the dissent paragraph (below) that others point out clearly illustrates how silly this ruling is, how is oversteps reasonable boundaries, and the potential for abuse... (the other thing this paragraph is good for is that I've learned a new word today - micturate).

The panel authorizes police to do not only what invited strangers could, but also uninvited children—in this case crawl under the car to retrieve a ball and tinker with the undercarriage. But there’s no limit to what neighborhood kids will do, given half a chance: They’ll jump the fence, crawl under the porch, pick fruit from the trees, set fire to the cat and micturate on the azaleas. To say that the police may do on your property what urchins might do spells the end of Fourth Amendment protections for most people’s curtilage.




By sweetspot on 8/27/2010 6:41:49 PM , Rating: 2
"" The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated ""

Property boundries are not listed in the orgininal concept here, so this deal of being able to access a persons driveway and alter their personal property by attatching devices to items they own is clearly breach of this ammendment.

"" The judges who made the ruling told him that his private property (his driveway) was not applicable to Fourth Amendment protections as it was open to strangers, such as delivery people and neighborhood children, who could wander across it uninvited.
"""

How can this judge re-write the law to suit his personal beliefes ??

No place in the 4th amendment does it state property restriction zones having to be differentiated from open to closed gated places.

Just beacuse your property does not have a complete fenced in yard / driveway doesnt mean strangers can still tresspass, as his logic here clearly implies.

And further whats wrong "" such as delivery people""

Delivery poeple are not tresspassers they are invited guests to perform a wanted service on your property, thier is a distinct difference to that vs some stranger placeing foriegn items on your vehicle or any personal property.

"" neighborhood children, who could wander across it uninvited""

This activity does not mean those wandering kids are allowed on your property just because you have no fence, doesnt give them the right to wander thier, they are tresspassing, yet most would never enforce that, unless your some grumpy old person with a shot gun lol. But still the fact any person wandering on your property uninvited is tresspassing, enclosed yard/driveway or not.

You are not required to have enclosed property to differentiate between where a tresspasser can "wander" and where they cannot, you own the land in its entirety regardless of condition.

Any stranger kid or some un known is a tresspasser, just because a person lives even right next door to you doesnt give them the right or access to use your property.

The definition is between invited and univited guests, and im sure most drug runners would consider a fed checking up on them an univited guest - aka tresspasser.

This judge's claims of wandering people means hes ruling in favor of breaking tresspasing laws, for this law to be passed. Hes pretty much crazy and whacked out to think that should legally happen.

Alter this law, but breaking others to make this one pass, is not the way we do things legitimately here. Bad people every place, from world leaders to street scum criminals to yes even judges. As this one clearly is corrupt or extreamly stupid.




too bad
By magneticfield on 9/1/2010 7:14:28 AM , Rating: 2
If the US is f#*@d, the rest of the world is doomed.




I am disgusted
By BurnItDwn on 8/26/2010 5:12:11 PM , Rating: 1
Big brother needs to back the fvck off.




"This week I got an iPhone. This weekend I got four chargers so I can keep it charged everywhere I go and a land line so I can actually make phone calls." -- Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki