According to the latest ruling out of the Ninth Circuit Court, it’s perfectly legal for federal agents to secretly plant a GPS locator on your car in the middle of the night, even if it’s parked in your driveway, and then use said locator to track your movements as they see fit. Even without a warrant.
In the case, DEA agents secretly planted a GPS locator on Juan Pineda-Moreno’s Jeep at night while it was parked outside his home, and then used it to pinpoint the illegal marijuana crop he was cultivating. Pineda-Moreno appealed the case on the grounds that the secret tracking violated his Fourth Amendment rights, but a three-judge panel denied his appeal in January and a larger panel ruled this month against reconsidering the case.
The ruling, which sets precedent for Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon and Washington, holds that “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures” doesn’t apply to driveways.
This decision upsets years of legal precedent establishing “curtilage” (legalese for the property surrounding a house) as protected under the Fourth Amendment, and represents an officiously narrow interpretation of the “open fields doctrine” test established in United States v. Dunn in 1987. In that case, DEA agents tracked a large shipment of chemicals used to manufacture drugs to Mr. Dunn, a meth lab operator. Agents crossed his fence, looked through the barn window, found the meth lab, executed a search warrant and convicted Dunn of conspiracy to manufacture and distribute methamphetamine.
The prosecution argued that, as per Hester v. United States, Fourth Amendment protection does not extend to the “open fields.” Dunn argued that the case didn’t concern an “open field”; it concerned a barn surrounded by barbed wire. Dunn’s conviction was thrown out by the Supreme Court, and established the four-point test of whether curtilage privacy protections apply.
From the ruling, “curtilage questions should be resolved with particular reference to four factors: the proximity of the area claimed to be curtilage to the home, whether the area is included within an enclosure surrounding the home, the nature of the uses to which the area is put, and the steps taken by the resident to protect the area from observation by people passing by.”
In the majority opinion, the Ninth Circuit Court ruled that since Pineda-Moreno’s driveway wasn’t enclosed and was open to passersby like delivery men and neighborhood children, it didn’t pass the Dunn test for curtilage. Never mind that in the Dunn opinion, the majority writes “we do not suggest that combining these factors produces a finely tuned formula that, when mechanically applied, yields a “correct” answer to all extent-of-curtilage questions.”
This strict application of precedent really means that only people who can afford to fence off their driveways have a reasonable expectation of privacy, as pointed out by Chief Judge Alex Kozinski in his dissenting opinion. Though he was appointed by Reagan and remains a vocal conservative in the predominantly liberal Ninth Circuit, his dissenting opinion makes him sound like a hardline leftist.
“There’s been much talk about diversity on the bench, but there’s one kind of diversity that doesn’t exist,” he wrote. “No truly poor people are appointed as federal judges, or as state judges for that matter.”
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.
[...] While it is unknown whether these FBI agents had obtained a warrant (for the placement of a pen/trap device) prior to installing the device, the 9th US court of Appeals recently made obtaining a warrant unnecessary for this kind of action. (see executivgov.com) [...]
[...] [...]
[...] isn’t really private property, and warrants are an unnecessary hindrance. That’s paraphrased, of [...]
It’s not that the 9th Circuit applied a narrow application of the ‘open fields’ doctrine. It’s that they applied a *selective* application of it. They selected the “steps taken to protect the area” and “…in an enclosure” criteria and applied those while ignoring the “uses the area is put to” and the ‘proximity’ criteria.
Is the driveway close to the house? Yes, it’s directly adjacent to the house. The pouring of concrete for a driveway does not create a new curtilage line.
Is the driveway used daily for the purposes of those living in the house adjacent, and no one else? Yes, the driveway is used every day by the owners of the property and nobody else is allowed to use it.
Am I allowed to ask someone to ‘get off my property’ if they are in my driveway? Yes, indeed I am. How then can you consider the driveway not a piece of curtilage?
[...] a recent ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals saying it’s legal for law enforcement to secretly place a tracking device on a suspect’s car without getting a warrant, even if the car is parked in a private [...]
[...] of this comes on the heels of the 9th circuit court ruling that GPS tracking devices can be placed on your vehicle parked in your driv…. Thankfully there is a conflicting ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of [...]
[...] a recent ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals saying it’s legal for law enforcement to secretly place a tracking device on a suspect’s car without getting a warrant, even if the car is parked in a private [...]
[...] a recent ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals saying it’s legal for law enforcement to secretly place a tracking device on a suspect’s car without getting a warrant, even if the car is parked in a private [...]
[...] -FBI did not do anything illegal, according to a recent court ruling. [...]
[...] recent ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals saying it’s legal for law enforcement to secretly place a tracking device on a suspect’s car without getting a warrant, even if the car is parked in a private [...]
[...] a month ago, the 9th Circuit Court ruled that it was legal for federal agents to secretly plant GPS trackers on your vehicles without a [...]
[...] [...]
[...] ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals declaring it’s legal for law enforcement to secretly use tracking devices on a suspect’s car without a warrant, even if the car is parked in a private driveway. In a similar case, however, [...]
[...] ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals declaring it’s legal for law enforcement to secretly use tracking devices on a suspect’s car without a warrant, even if the car is parked in a private driveway. In a similar case, however, [...]
[...] ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals declaring it’s legal for law enforcement to secretly use tracking devices on a suspect’s car without a warrant, even if the car is parked in a private driveway. In a similar case, however, [...]
[...] a recent ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals saying it’s legal for law enforcement to secretly place a tracking device on a suspect’s car without getting a warrant, even if the car is parked in a private [...]
[...] a recent ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals saying it’s legal for law enforcement to secretly place a tracking device on a suspect’s car without getting a warrant, even if the car is parked in a private [...]
[...] a recent ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals saying it’s legal for law enforcement to secretly place a tracking device on a suspect’s car without getting a warrant, even if the car is parked in a private [...]
[...] a recent ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals saying it’s legal for law enforcement to secretly place a tracking device on a suspect’s car without getting a warrant, even if the car is parked in a private [...]
[...] about this has revolved around the government’s right to attach such a device to a vehicle without a warrant or the implications that there is some kind of internet-monitoring protocol in place which caught [...]
[...] a recent ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals saying it’s legal for law enforcement to secretly place a tracking device on a suspect’s car without getting a warrant, even if the car is parked in a private [...]
[...] comes in the wake of a recent ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals saying it’s legal for law enforcement to secretly place a tracking device on a suspect’s car without getting a warrant, even if the car is parked in a private [...]
[...] a recent ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals saying it’s legal for law enforcement to secretly place a tracking device on a suspect’s car without getting a warrant, even if the car is parked in a private [...]
[...] [...]
The artilce states that the Supreme Court reversed Dunn’s conviction. This statement is not correct; the court reinstated Dunn’s original conviction since the barn was outside of the curtilage and was not used intimately in conjunction with the dwelling house. Dunn’s expecation of privacy in the barn was radically different from his expectation in his home or within his curtilage.
[...] The story comes in the wake of two important developments: first, Bay Area Muslims have been complaining as of late that they’re being unfairly targeted for surveillance by federal authorities. And second, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled it legal for law enforcement to place tracking devices on cars without first obtaining a warrant. The petitioner in the case had argued that a Drug Enforcement Agency tracking device put on his car violated his Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizure. The court found that since his car was parked in his driveway, he had no reasonable expectation of privacy. [...]
The Feds can GPS me all they want. My life has a routine that varies very little. But, this is not the Soviet Union or Communist China. I think the Supreme Court would over turn such a ruling as being unconstitutional. The Feds need all the tools they can use to combat Terrorism and Drug Traffickers; but let’s don’t sacrifice Human Civil Rights. The “End” does not justify the “Means”.
[...] The story comes in the wake of two important developments: first, Bay Area Muslims have been complaining as of late that they’re being unfairly targeted for surveillance by federal authorities. And second, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled it legal for law enforcement to place tracking devices on cars without first obtaining a warrant. The petitioner in the case had argued that a Drug Enforcement Agency tracking device put on his car violated his Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizure. The court found that since his car was parked in his driveway, he had no reasonable expectation of privacy. [...]
[...] when mechanically applied, yields a “correct” answer to all extent-of-curtilage questions.” For more information, visit: Secret GPS Tracking is Legal This entry was written by Justin [...]
[...] because in August, the Ninth Circuit Court ruled (in USA v. Juan Pineda-Moreno) that it’s legal for federal agents to track people’s movements [...]
[...] a recent ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals saying it’s legal for law enforcement to secretly place a tracking device on a suspect’s car without getting a warrant, even if the car is parked in a private [...]
[...] trackers Here's some background on the 9th Circuit Court ruling, and why it's so screwed up. Ninth Circuit Court: Secret GPS Tracking is Legal | Executive Gov Basically, if you're rich and live in a gated community or can afford to fence in the car in your [...]
[...] fetched, but a recent ruling by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals gives law enforcement the power to plant a secret GPS tracking device on anyone’s car without a warrant, even if it’s parked in a private driveway. Welcome to the [...]
[...] was a breach of his 4th amendment rights, but this was overturned by the 9th Circuit Court, which stated that the investigation was perfectly [...]
Does a person have a reasonable expectation of privacy if they were standing on their driveway with no clothes on? Obviously not. Do you have an expectation of privacy when someone stands on the street and stares into your house through a window? Nope. Next time, keep the car in the garage.
On a side note, the kid that found the GPS unit after the oil change shouldn’t have taken pictures of it. He should have just attached it to another car and went on with his life.
[...] recent ruling from the Ninth Circuit Court, as reported by Jim Garrettson of ExecutiveGov.com, says that it is [...]
[...] a recent ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals saying it’s legal for law enforcement to secretly place a tracking device on a suspect’s car without getting a warrant, even if the car is parked in a private [...]
What a fool! I would have made the picture, and then ….. reinstall the deviced on a UPS track…. that would make them wonder for a while…
[...] a recent ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals saying it’s legal for law enforcement to secretly place a tracking device on a suspect’s car without getting a warrant, even if the car is parked in a private [...]
I think the government does whatever it wants and that the people who blindly do what their told are the worst. Who do you think pays for all the stuff that goes on at AREA 51?
Oh I forgot to remember that there is no AREA 51 or white planes with red stripes that have no airline names painted on them flying to a place in the middle of the Nevada desert from Las Vegas Airport everyday!
I did enjoy the part about the FBI asking for their device back.
[...] GPS Tracking SBXVII: here is a link for the court case referenced: Ninth Circuit Court: Secret GPS Tracking is Legal | Executive Gov the original link failed. I understand the point, if you have nothing to hide why worry, but it [...]
[...] recent ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirms that it’s legal for law enforcement to [...]
[...] courts have been all over the board on this one, including a ridiculous ruling out of the Ninth Circuit which held that the DEA planting a GPS tracking device on a man’s car in his driveway did not [...]
[...] for the Seventh, Eighth and Ninth Circuits have all recently kicked the GPS hornet’s nest by upholding rulings allowing the use of GPS tracking evidence in criminal [...]