fish82;1063334 wrote:The difference is you're talking about placing a device for a specific purpose on the vehicle, and coming in contact with said vehicle. IMO, it's no different than prying open the trunk and saying "hey, look...the trunks open! I guess we can peek inside!"

i'd say there is quite a bit of difference. forcing open the trunk is taking action to see something you couldnt see before. placing a GPS on the OUTSIDE of the car to see where it goes does not have an effect on the car itself.

Glory Days;1063471 wrote:no, you dont. hence why if you walking with an open beer can in your hand, the cop can arrest you. they dont need to get a search warrant first. they also dont need a warrant if they are giving someone a pat down and feel a crack pipe in someone's pocket. obviously without cause, what is in your pocket is not in plain view.



its not different and you know it. once you enter a public area you have no expectation of privacy. the cops can dig through your trash without a warrant. they can goto your place of work and enter public areas without a warrant. they could sit next to you on a park bench and listen to every word of your cell phone conversation without a warrant.

whats next, you going to tell me if a cop is working undercover, he has to tell you if he is a cop if you ask?

The cop in your scenario had seen me doing something illegal.

If I'm just walking down the street and a cop wants to search through my coat and wallet and anything else I'm going to tell him to kindly fuck off. You think the police have a right to do anything so long as it's "in plain/public view". The constitution and most people who aren't cops would disagree. You should have no right to follow me around, listen to my conversations, search my belongings, etc, etc unless you have a warrant. End of story. If I followed someone around, put a gps on their car, and creeped on their conversations I would likely be arrested for being a stalker. Same should apply to police without a warrant. You are not above the law.

And your definition of "public area" is so absurdly huge its ridiculous. You've said a car parked in a driveway could be considered in a public area simply because it's technically accessible via a public road. Using that logic my living room is a public area that you are free to invade anytime you want because it's accessible via a public sidewalk which leads to my porch and hence the door.

Glory Days;1063474 wrote:i'd say there is quite a bit of difference. forcing open the trunk is taking action to see something you couldnt see before. placing a GPS on the OUTSIDE of the car to see where it goes does not have an effect on the car itself.

1984 sounds awesome to you doesn't it?

Cameras and government agents everywhere would make everything better wouldn't it?

Cops acting without probable cause make me sick.

Glory Days;1063474 wrote:i'd say there is quite a bit of difference. forcing open the trunk is taking action to see something you couldnt see before. placing a GPS on the OUTSIDE of the car to see where it goes does not have an effect on the car itself.

You're physically altering the vehicle in both cases. Look, you know I'm a law/order guy, and agree with you most if not all the time...but you're wrong on this one.

I Wear Pants;1063597 wrote:The cop in your scenario had seen me doing something illegal.

If I'm just walking down the street and a cop wants to search through my coat and wallet and anything else I'm going to tell him to kindly fuck off. You think the police have a right to do anything so long as it's "in plain/public view". The constitution and most people who aren't cops would disagree. You should have no right to follow me around, listen to my conversations, search my belongings, etc, etc unless you have a warrant. End of story. If I followed someone around, put a gps on their car, and creeped on their conversations I would likely be arrested for being a stalker. Same should apply to police without a warrant. You are not above the law.

And your definition of "public area" is so absurdly huge its ridiculous. You've said a car parked in a driveway could be considered in a public area simply because it's technically accessible via a public road. Using that logic my living room is a public area that you are free to invade anytime you want because it's accessible via a public sidewalk which leads to my porch and hence the door.

the inside of your pockets or jacket are not in plain view. of course cops cant just got into your pockets for no reason. never said that. and the reason why most people who arent cops and are like you, would think cops cant do certain things in public/plain view is because they dont understand the law, plain and simple.

read up on plain view doctrines and expectations of privacy. your living room wouldnt be a public area, but if someone or a cop walking by on the public sidewalk can see into your living because you didnt close the curtains and he sees you committing a crime, he can go get a warrant and arrest you for whatever he saw you doing. if you dont want cops listening to your conversation in public, you must create an expectation of privacy, hence the case law which involves a man using a telephone booth. by closing the door of the phone booth, he created an expectation of privacy inside the booth.

Glory Days;1063741 wrote:the inside of your pockets or jacket are not in plain view. of course cops cant just got into your pockets for no reason. never said that. and the reason why most people who arent cops and are like you, would think cops cant do certain things in public/plain view is because they dont understand the law, plain and simple.

read up on plain view doctrines and expectations of privacy. your living room wouldnt be a public area, but if someone or a cop walking by on the public sidewalk can see into your living because you didnt close the curtains and he sees you committing a crime, he can go get a warrant and arrest you for whatever he saw you doing. if you dont want cops listening to your conversation in public, you must create an expectation of privacy, hence the case law which involves a man using a telephone booth. by closing the door of the phone booth, he created an expectation of privacy inside the booth.

The bold is all we're fucking asking for.

I Wear Pants;1064480 wrote:The bold is all we're fucking asking for.

and the supreme court already decided when a warrant is and isnt needed.

Glory Days;1064518 wrote:and the supreme court already decided when a warrant is and isnt needed.

Good lord. Except for when new cases pop up and it's left to interpretation. You would have said that placing GPS on a car was okay without a warrant, the court obviously disagrees.

I Wear Pants;1064586 wrote:Good lord. Except for when new cases pop up and it's left to interpretation. You would have said that placing GPS on a car was okay without a warrant, the court obviously disagrees.

I cant have opinions? up until a few days ago, the courts did agree or atleast were divided.

http://boingboing.net/2012/02/29/fbi-anti-terrorism-expert-tsa.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+boingboing%2FiBag+%28Boing+Boing%29

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/03/us/justices-approve-strip-searches-for-any-offense.html?_r=1&hp

Yay! Our path towards full blown police state continues.

Speaking of which, did anyone catch the piece on 60-minutes last night with the doctor saying sugar is basically a poison and we need to begin a war on sugar? I missed it, but that was the jist I caught in the promos.

gut;1134619 wrote:Speaking of which, did anyone catch the piece on 60-minutes last night with the doctor saying sugar is basically a poison and we need to begin a war on sugar? I missed it, but that was the jist I caught in the promos.

I watched it. Seems pretty scary and seems to have ample evidence supporting it.