Protection in Public Places

2654 days ago, 792 views
PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Presentation Transcript

Slide 1

Protection in Public Places: Does GPS Surveillance Provide a Plain View? Prof. Stamp Tunick

Slide 2

GPS Surveillance

Slide 3

Uses of GPS without court order To catch serial thief (State v. Scott, 2006) To catch killer who headed to area of covered body (Washington v Jackson, 2003) To catch tranquilize traffickers (various cases from 1999-2007)

Slide 4

Recent Court suppositions on GPS Allowed: US v McIver, 186 F.3d 1119 (1999)— medicate case US v Moran, 349 F. Supp. 2d 425 (2005)— medicate case US v Jones, 451 F. Supp. 2d 71 (2006)— tranquilize case US v Garcia, 474 F.3d 994 (seventh Cir. 2007); cert. denied Oct. 1, 2007—sedate case Exceptions: Oregon v Campbell, 759 P. 2d 1040 (1988)— radio following, theft case) State of Washington v. Jackson, 76 P.3d. 217 (2003) (kill case)

Slide 5

Why would it be a good idea for us to think about security? Being taken after is obtrusive (People v. Sullivan and stalking) What's the issue in the event that you don't know you're being taken after? Double crossers and administer violators have an issue Why ought to blameless individuals mind?

Slide 6

The "I have nothing to conceal" contention If you aren't violating the law, why mind on the off chance that you are taken after or looked? Theoretical "divining pole" Actual illustrations: pooch sniffs; FLIR looks Innocent individuals have an enthusiasm for security

Slide 7

Why is protection profitable to pure individuals? Honest individuals have privileged insights too Without protection, we will be more controlled Possible misuse of giving government a lot of data: consider a DNA database

Slide 8

fourth Amendment "the privilege of the general population to be secure in their people, houses, papers, and impacts, against preposterous ventures and seizures, might not be damaged" What considers an irrational pursuit?

Slide 9

The Reasonable Expectation of Privacy (REOP) trial of Katz. v. U.S. (1967) An administration inquiry is irrational if: (1) a pursuit disappoints a subjective desire of security (2) and the subjective desire would one say one is that society views as dispassionately sensible

Slide 10

When is a desire of protection impartially sensible? John smoking rocks out in the open restroom The plain view guideline: If data about ourselves is on display or ear shot of anybody occupied with true blue method for perception, we can't sensibly expect security in that data. Else we can.

Slide 11

Applying the plain view standard: If data about ourselves is on display or ear shot of anybody occupied with real method for perception, we can't sensibly expect protection in that data. Else we can. Utilization of telescopes? Ventures of can slows down? Cordless telephone calls? Calm discussion in an open place that lone a lip peruser could "listen" Searches of refuse?

Slide 12

California v Greenwood (trash seek) Justice White: "[i]t is regular information that plastic junk sacks left on or along the edge of an open road are promptly available to creatures, kids, scroungers, snoops, and different individuals from the general population. [M]oreover, respondents set their deny at the check for the express reason for passing on it to an outsider, the waste gatherer, who may himself have dealt with respondents' trash...." But is looking through somebody's refuse a "true blue method for perception"?

Slide 13

Following an auto?- - Knotts U.S. v. Knotts (1983): police fizzled with visual observation, so they then utilized a beeper; beeper permitted, as auto "could have been seen" by police taking after the auto. Be that as it may, is it a genuine method for perception to take after an auto?

Slide 14

IS GPS Surveillance a "real" method for perception Two criteria for whether a method for perception is real: (1) Is it predominant? Shetland Islands But: Nazi Germany and Soviet Union (2) Ought it to be common?

Slide 15

Is GPS utilize 'true blue'? Taxi/transport dispatchers LoJack/Onstar Parents following their kids Car rental organizations? (American Car Rental, Inc. v. Comm. of Consumer Protection, 273 Conn. 296 [2005]) State laws require exposure (CA, CO, NH, ME, VA) Conclusion: GPS not honest to goodness utilized without assent, unless there is a business/representative relationship

Slide 16

Is 24x7 trawl observation a "true blue" method for request? U.S. v. Cuevas-Sanchez (821 F. 2d 248, fifth Cir.,1987): can't introduce camcorder on power post to record occasions in patio U.S. v. Bind (669 F. 2d 46, 1982, Newman's simultaneousness): 24 officers in 8-hour moves more than 3 weeks is a "gigantic intrusion" Intuition: is it honest to goodness/typical to be trailed by an outsider? See guide of Knotts case

Slide 17

But by what means would we be able to expect security out in the open spots? Whispering in an uncrowded eatery Schulman v. Aggregate W. Preparations, Inc. 18 Cal. fourth 200 (1998, tort case) (mischance casualty can sensibly expect security in her discussion with surgeons at mishap scene)

Slide 18

Conclusion GPS is utilized to "tail us" over days and weeks (versus Knotts ), and this is more obtrusive than being seen in broad daylight

Slide 19

Video cameras out in the open places OK if camera uncovered what anybody can see? Imagine a scenario where our developments are followed.