It’s quiet out. A federal agent furtively sneaks to your driveway and crouches under your car, planting a GPS tracking device before disappearing into the darkness of the night.
While that may sound like a scene in some Hollywood thriller about government agents gone awry, a recent decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (previously highlighted here by Amanda) makes that seemingly far-fetched scenario into a reality, deemed perfectly legal under the constitution. While it’s true that this ruling currently only applies to states within jurisdiction of the Ninth Circuit, the possible implications of this decision rightly demand attention.
Without a doubt, this ruling was an egregious violation of the Fourth Amendment, as the court failed to address the legal precedent that has long recognized that individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy both within and around their homes.
In one of the most notable Fourth Amendment cases, Katz v. United States, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a wiretapping device attached to the outside of a public telephone booth amounted to an unconstitutional search, in part because there was a reasonable expectation that phone calls in an enclosed booth would be private.
If the Supreme Court upheld privacy in the instance of a public telephone booth, how much more should the Ninth Circuit have recognized the reasonable expectation of privacy on the private grounds just outside a man’s home?
In the opinion, the reasoning of the Court was that there is no expectation of privacy for a driveway that could be accessed by the general public, including deliverymen and neighborhood children, stating:
“If a neighborhood child had walked up [the defendant]?s driveway and crawled under his Jeep to retrieve a lost ball or runaway cat, [the defendant] would have no grounds to complain.”
Quite frankly, that logic of equating a FedEx delivery man, neighborhood kids selling Girl Scout cookies, or a neighborhood child looking for their runaway cat with a government agent planting a device that tracks your every move would be downright laughable if the implications of this case weren’t so disturbing.
While there may be times when law enforcement officials need to employ more aggressive techniques in their pursuit of criminals, such methods should always be checked by the requirement of having to first obtain a warrant.
Otherwise, the verdict should be clear: big brother has no right to be a stalker.
