In response I believe all public officials should wear GPS leg bands so we know how they are spending our tax dollars.

From what I've gathered from what I skimmed, it was the fact that the court has said it's okay to go onto your driveway and install one of these devices on your car while it's there.

Because, apparently, the driveway isn't your property because kids can run across it without your permission.  Not that you're not allowed to yell at them to get off your property, because it's your damn property not theirs.

Apparently, according to some of the judges, the only way you can reasonably expect privacy, and therefore tell the government to get the fuck off your lawn, is if you have a security gatehouse or electrified gate or a fence surrounding your property.

Fucking really?  That's just insane.

And then that, if there's a GPS installed like this, they want to say they don't need a warrant to track you?

Wow, man, fucking wow.  The balls, yo.

I can only hope that if anything like this ever found its way up here it would get squashed really fucking quick.  Sad thing is, I'm not sure if it would.  Half the time policy makers up here mirror what goes on south of us, and considering who's in power up here... would not put it past them.

Don't Texans who do that to cops still get rung up? Wouldn't the feds completely disregard that law if one of theirs got shot?

Yeah, I guess that a jury trial would rule out any shenanigans in the case of a cop, deputy, or Ranger getting shot. But if it's a fed, aren't they just as likely to bring the trial to someplace in the circuit other than Texas for this precise reason?

That would make sense based on the judges' reasoning, but what's actually happening is that they can in fact do that while the car is on your own private property unless you have, at minimum, a fence with no holes and a lockable gate.

That I'm not sure about. I feel like doing that probably needed a warrant before now, but I could be wrong.

I don't have anything to say about this myself. Just thinking about it makes me so angry I am nauseous

You know, that sums up my reaction pretty darn well, too.

What were they thinking?! Were they actually thinking? m(

I wonder if they charge you for the device if you find and destroy it?  Or charge you with destruction of property or something?   

That wouldn't surprise me in the least. The obvious course of action is therefor NOT to destroy it, but to put it somewhere inconvenient: in a float on the nearest river or in the sewers, say.

That wouldn't surprise me in the least. The obvious course of action is therefor NOT to destroy it, but to put it somewhere inconvenient: in a float on the nearest river or in the sewers, say.

Or do as Bart did, and attach it to a bird... Watch them try to track your movements then.

For more information, I suggest Judge Koizinski's pointed and legally sound dissent.

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2010/08/12/08-30385.pdf

...Law-speak is hard. But you're right, it does seem that the driveway is part of what is legally defined as your home, and therefore should be protected by the Fourth Amendment.

And the Fourth Amendment is a kickass amendment. We need more idealist activist judges knocking these kind of rulings down. What the hell was this court thinking? Don't they have to swear to uphold the constitution or something?