Court Rejects Warrantless GPS Tracking

[Nbadan]

One needs more poor voters to need them, the other needs more rich voters to appreciate them.

Or,

One needs more rich voters to need them, the other needs more poor voters to appreciate them....

[DMX7]

Getting off topic a little, and using generalization of appearance. The democrats appear to cater to the needy. Republicans appear to cater to business. One needs more poor voters to need them, the other needs more rich voters to appreciate them.

Add these factors into my words for reference, and consider how the legislation of each side tends to move the mix.

Republicans don't need more rich voters to appreciate them, they just need the ulative political influence of their rich cons uency to outweigh that of the democrats'.

Unfortunately (or maybe not), the wealthiest democrats (Warren Buffet, Bill Gates) aren't pathetic lowlifes who fund political lies like the swift boat campaigns or the health care "death panel" drool.

Republicans are masters at playing fools like you with fear. Oh no, the economy is falling apart because fear of democrats killed it!

[ElNono]

Do you really think they are better than the last administration, especially with the Chicago style politics?

As far as civil liberties I think they're just as bad. Which is pretty terrible.

[LnGrrrR]

WC, you're fine with the government reading your email, right? If so, why do you care if they can track you too?

[Wild Cobra]

WC, you're fine with the government reading your email, right? If so, why do you care if they can track you too?

I'm not fine with it, but with probable cause, it's cons utional.

Have my arguments ever indicated otherwise?

[ElNono]

I'm not fine with it, but with probable cause, it's cons utional.

You mean with probable cause it's cons utional to request a warrant...or?

[Wild Cobra]

You mean with probable cause it's cons utional to request a warrant...or?

Probable cause does not require a warrant to take action. A warrant however requires probable cause.

[LnGrrrR]

I'm not fine with it, but with probable cause, it's cons utional.

Have my arguments ever indicated otherwise?

Considering that they just use keywords to search for emails, and then read them, how would you determine probably cause? Is merely using a word that is one of the ones they're looking for probably cause enough?

Can I also assume you're fine with GPS tracking, assuming there's probable cause? Because, of course, no one would ever abuse such a power.

[Blake]

Probable cause does not require a warrant to take action.

What kind of action?

putting a GPS tracker on a car sitting on private property type of action?

[ElNono]

Probable cause does not require a warrant to take action. A warrant however requires probable cause.

Define 'action'? There are different cons utional standards for 'probable cause' when it comes to arrest vs search.

[Wild Cobra]

Considering that they just use keywords to search for emails, and then read them, how would you determine probably cause? Is merely using a word that is one of the ones they're looking for probably cause enough?

I agree that method is at best, a gray area. However, I am more concerned about the losses of cons utional rights that the left insists on.

Can I also assume you're fine with GPS tracking, assuming there's probable cause? Because, of course, no one would ever abuse such a power.

I have made such positions clear. Did you forget, or are you being an ass?

I have no problems with such uses if there is probable cause. I simply fear that the people who have access to the technology will illegally abuse it, like in the movie Enemy of the State.

[Wild Cobra]

What kind of action?

putting a GPS tracker on a car sitting on private property type of action?

Do you seriously not know my answer?

[Blake]

Do you seriously not know my answer?

No. I'm asking for clarification on this statement:

Probable cause does not require a warrant to take action.

What action are you referring to specifically?

[Wild Cobra]

[QUOTE=Blake]No. I'm asking for clarification on this statement:[/URL]
If there is probable cause, and it's an agency given directive to do such under particular cir stances, then I don't see it as illegal at all. Regular law enforcements, with established precedent, cannot do such actions without a warrant. Agencies part of the executive branch, or delegated authority by the executive branch can.

I have explained this concept several time, and it baffles me that people cannot remember.

What action are you referring to specifically?

I'm speaking of the legal realities and definitions of the words in the cons ution.

Officers act all the time with probable cause in some types of cases, without a warrant. A warrant is a judicial order, rather than permission to take action. It is often used more than necessary because of precedent set.

[Wild Cobra]

Define 'action'? There are different cons utional standards for 'probable cause' when it comes to arrest vs search.

The cons ution doesn't define that. Sometimes it's a gray area. In some areas, it is defined by law, or judicial precinct. But then, you know that Chump.

[MannyIsGod]

What baffles me is that instead of a simple answer you spend two posts explaining how baffled you are that no one can remember. Would it not just be simpler to answer?

[Wild Cobra]

What baffles me is that instead of a simple answer you spend two posts explaining how baffled you are that no one can remember. Would it not just be simpler to answer?

I gave my answer. Sorry you are too dumb to comprehend. I don't know how to stoop to your level of understanding, without resorting to a 3,000+ word thesis.

[LnGrrrR]

I agree that method is at best, a gray area. However, I am more concerned about the losses of cons utional rights that the left insists on.

I have made such positions clear. Did you forget, or are you being an ass?

I have no problems with such uses if there is probable cause. I simply fear that the people who have access to the technology will illegally abuse it, like in the movie Enemy of the State.

Might it not be better, given the potential for abuse, if they disallowed the technology? You often claim that government can lead to no good in many areas, and thereby, we should keep it as small as possible. Wouldn't that logically entail giving them as few powers to abuse as possible as well?

After all, if your belief is that government officials tend to corrupt, why even give them the possibility?

[MannyIsGod]

I gave my answer. Sorry you are too dumb to comprehend. I don't know how to stoop to your level of understanding, without resorting to a 3,000+ word thesis.

3 posts avoiding the simple question.

This is your favorite tactic. You could end everything by simply answering but instead you avoid avoid avoid.

[Wild Cobra]

Might it not be better, given the potential for abuse, if they disallowed the technology? You often claim that government can lead to no good in many areas, and thereby, we should keep it as small as possible. Wouldn't that logically entail giving them as few powers to abuse as possible as well?

After all, if your belief is that government officials tend to corrupt, why even give them the possibility?

believe it or not, I agree with you. I don't consider myself knowledgeable enough to decide where such dividing lines should be. Inaction can be worse than action. Our president is expected to keep this nation safe. You cannot expect him to ignore that job because some feel it steps on the cons ution. As long as they stay within clear cons utional bounds, I will point that out, even when I disagree with the necessity.

[Wild Cobra]

3 posts avoiding the simple question.

This is your favorite tactic. You could end everything by simply answering but instead you avoid avoid avoid.

Then repeat the question. I must be thinking you want something else.

[ElNono]

Agencies part of the executive branch, or delegated authority by the executive branch can.

I disagree with this view on executive power. That said, if you do view it that way, why is it that when this executive does it it's bad/negative/wrong, but when the previous executive did exactly the same thing, it was good/positive/right?

[Wild Cobra]

I disagree with this view on executive power. That said, if you do view it that way, why is it that when this executive does it it's bad/negative/wrong, but when the previous executive did exactly the same thing, it was good/positive/right?

Which example are you referring to? I know I have said he does uncons utional things, but I'm pretty sure I stayed withing the guidelines I've given.

[ElNono]

Which example are you referring to? I know I have said he does uncons utional things, but I'm pretty sure I stayed withing the guidelines I've given.

Well, wiretapping all types of communications, including email, was done by both administrations. You showed your displeasure only with this one.

[Wild Cobra]

Well, wiretapping all types of communications, including email, was done by both administrations. You showed your displeasure only with this one.

Yes, the added method for emails. Your point?