Until such time as the appeal process is completed and a final decision is rendered in this regard, there truly is not much to discuss in this instance. Once the Supreme Court has ruled on the matter, then we will see exactly what criteria have to be met.
Let's not forget also that requiring a warrant is every instance could play havoc when people are in dire need of emergency services and can only be located via a GPS device.
Until such time as the appeal process is completed and a final decision is rendered in this regard, there truly is not much to discuss in this instance. Once the Supreme Court has ruled on the matter, then we will see exactly what criteria have to be met.
Let's not forget also that requiring a warrant is every instance could play havoc when people are in dire need of emergency services and can only be located via a GPS device.
Something to consider.
Ray
That second part is an entirely different matter. That would be tracking someone using their own personal GPS, should they have one. Nobody is sneaking around in the middle of the night placing GPS devices on your vehicle because they think you might be in an emergency situation :P
That second part is an entirely different matter. That would be tracking someone using their own personal GPS, should they have one. Nobody is sneaking around in the middle of the night placing GPS devices on your vehicle because they think you might be in an emergency situation :P
Okay then... how about parents wanting to keep tabs on where their kids went... would they have to get a warrant to glean that information?
The whole issue could be moot once a final decision is rendered anyway... so I am not overly concerned at present.
That second part is an entirely different matter. That would be tracking someone using their own personal GPS, should they have one. Nobody is sneaking around in the middle of the night placing GPS devices on your vehicle because they think you might be in an emergency situation :P
Okay then... how about parents wanting to keep tabs on where their kids went... would they have to get a warrant to glean that information?
Like K10 said, it's not the same thing Ray. I have no issue with the FBI or RCMP using my phone to track my whereabouts if I've been missing for a few days. That's using technology to our advantage. But to use a gps to spy on people just because the government suspects something is going on illegally, that should not be allowed by any court.
OBL must laugh when he reads crap like this. lol He must be high fiving as we speak.
You the man Osama, you managed to change our world and we aint seen nothing yet....
I miss the 20th century. Remember when we had peace but were so afraid of losing it we did absolutely nothing to keep it until one T took it all away for us in this new century?
Okay... perhaps we need to focus on the last paragraph of the article which says:
But the Ninth Circuit doesn’t make precedent for the whole country, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia recently ruled that extended tracking via GPS requires a warrant. But, since conflicting precedent has now been set on the West Coast, this issue is bound for the Supreme Court. Hopefully, they’ll side with the rights of the people.
As I previously mentioned, this whole issue could be moot, depending on the ultimate decision rendered.
Just being devil's advocate here, but wouldn't they have been tracking the car and not the guy? I don't think his car has any right to privacy. If someone else drove the car, they wouldn't know where the suspect was. If the suspect drove the car and then went somewhere else by foot, they wouldn't know where he was either.
Anyway, I'm all for personal rights, but there's a point where I'm willing to draw the line and allow law enforcement to do its job. To me, this isn't a "terrorist" thing at all and I think the same thing might have been tried 9/11 or no 9/11.
If they were going to track the guy for a month, there was obviously no "imminent threat" to the public safety -- why not just go get a d*** warrant and avoid the whole brouhaha? And if they can't convince a judge that a warrant is warranted (sic) they had better reconsider the whole operation ...
Also, if since the accused was kind enough to return the incriminating evidence, shouldn't he get the standard reward/finder's fee for recovery of lost governement property? I'm sure his attorney can use the money ... :-(
I'm with you bro.....in addition, all a warrant is.....is convincing a judge that you have some shread of evidence that a crime will be or is being committed. So one judge can sign a paper and THEN it is ok to put the gps on the car!!??
Originally posted by mBastin:
Why is it such a big deal? if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about. Simple as that.
I'm with you bro.....in addition, all a warrant is.....is convincing a judge that you have some shread of evidence that a crime will be or is being committed. So one judge can sign a paper and THEN it is ok to put the gps on the car!!??
Originally posted by mBastin:
Why is it such a big deal? if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about. Simple as that.
Checks and balances. What is to check or balance abuse of this? Last I knew, there were few exceptions to the direct correlation between unmonitored use and abuse. If you let your kid eat as many cookies as they wanted, and then you said "but eating more than 5 per day is unhealthy, so don't do that." they would listen? It's something that needs to be universally present in government, not selectively.
I'm with you bro.....in addition, all a warrant is.....is convincing a judge that you have some shread of evidence that a crime will be or is being committed. So one judge can sign a paper and THEN it is ok to put the gps on the car!!??
Originally posted by mBastin:
Why is it such a big deal? if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about. Simple as that.
Hey, lets go one further and require everyone to have a tracking chip installed at birth...then the authorities can know where everyone is all the time. Then, when a crime gets committed, they'll just see who was in the area and track them all down. They could even track people they think might commit a crime and if they are in any "sensitive" areas, detain them before they can do anything to hurt others...even if they weren't.
They could also monitor your health and prevent people who are too fat from eating at McDonald's or alcoholics from going to the liquor store or entering a bar. Just think, for every person, there could be a government assigned monitor...how many jobs would that be?
Sometimes it seems we hold personal freedom up so high that we lose sight of reasonableness. Personal responsibility and law enforcement have their very real place and I would hate to live in a state that had neither.
The issue in front of the court, BTW, wasn't whether the guy's car could be tracked with a GPS transponder, the issue was whether they could put it on his car when it was in his driveway.
I'd like to know when the government is going to stop going after people for pot. I'm mean, Oh my gosh, this guy grew some plants, lets throw him in jail and throw away the key. Meanwhile, the real criminals are walking free every day.
I'd like to know when the government is going to stop going after people for pot. I mean, Oh my gosh, this guy grew some plants, lets throw him in jail and throw away the key. Meanwhile, the real criminals are walking free every day.
I'd like to know when the government is going to stop going after people for pot. I'm mean, Oh my gosh, this guy grew some plants, lets throw him in jail and throw away the key. Meanwhile, the real criminals are walking free every day.
Juan is pretty well an idiot. Oregon, where he was caught, has 42,000 (count them) medical marijuana licenses which allow you to grow four plants for yourself (but you can't sell). I just saw some pictures on my pal's phone (state trooper) of a legal grow site in Medford (where this guy was caught) where the plants were literally 14 feet tall and looked like trees. Oregon has one of the most permissible attitudes toward pot in the union and it still isn't enough?
Law enforcement will stop going after people when it stops being illegal and, one would hope, not a day sooner. I don't want my law enforcement deciding which laws are worth enforcing and which aren't. That leads to trouble.
Juan is pretty well an idiot. Oregon, where he was caught, has 42,000 (count them) medical marijuana licenses which allow you to grow four plants for yourself (but you can't sell). I just saw some pictures on my pal's phone (state trooper) of a legal grow site in Medford (where this guy was caught) where the plants were literally 14 feet tall and looked like trees. Oregon has one of the most permissible attitudes toward pot in the union and it still isn't enough?
Law enforcement will stop going after people when it stops being illegal and, one would hope, not a day sooner. I don't want my law enforcement deciding which laws are worth enforcing and which aren't. That leads to trouble.
Just a few corrections and a statement. You can actually have 6 mature and I believe 18 immature plants with the medical card. and 1.5lbs of usable MJ. So yes, OR has very relaxed MMJ laws, and very easy to stay in compliance if your not selling.
Now I completely agree that law enforcement shouldn't be making the laws, but there are police here that are doing whatever they can to keep it illegal. And some sheriffs are trying to keep MMJ patients from having a concealed weapons permit. OR is a shall issue state, meaning if your not a criminal and you took the safety course, they have to issue your concealed carry license. Yet the police are taking it upon themselves to make the law.
Edit to add some links:
Police presentation on Oregon's rescheduling from Schedule 1, to 2-4. Police pushed for schedule 2 which is what is was classified as, even though marinol is schedule 3
//www.pharmacy.state.or.us/Pharmacy/Imports/Marijuana/Public/ORStatePolice_OMMALegPP.pdf?ga=t
Sheriff denying CC permits to legal OMMP patients.
//www.katu.com/news/politics/99590574.html
//www.katu.com/news/69244857.html
Law enforcement will stop going after people when it stops being illegal and, one would hope, not a day sooner. I don't want my law enforcement deciding which laws are worth enforcing and which aren't. That leads to trouble.
They have been doing that forever, Doc. There are literally hundreds of outdated and/or unenforceable laws on the books throughout the union.
We now live in a constant state of worry over a few assholes.
*shrug* not much to be done, short of moving to Canada.
Hey, the OP's from Canada and I'm worried about my crazy PM giving anyone who asks permission,
access to my personal info. He's a nut I tell ya. A loon!
