Details about the orwellian warrantless GPS police monitoring 9th Circuit ruling today

[usregimechange]

SACRAMENTO, CA - A recent ruling from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has sparked strong debate over privacy rights. According to the ruling, law enforcement officers may secretly place a GPS device on a person's car without seeking a warrant.

The case dates back to 2007. According to court papers, Drug Enforcement Administration agents in Oregon in 2007 secretly attached a GPS to a vehicle owned by suspected marijuana grower Juan Pineda-Moreno to track his movements.

Moreno eventually pleaded guilty to conspiracy to grow marijuana, but later appealed on the grounds that agents violated his 4th Amendment privacy rights by entering his property to place the device.

The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which covers California and eight other western states, rejected the appeal twice, once earlier this year, and then by the full court in early August.

The issue may end up in the U.S. Supreme Court. In a recent ruling, the Court of Appeals for the Washington DC Circuit ruled the exact opposite in a similar case.

http://www.news10.net/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=92887&catid=2

Majority (from original 3 judge panel ruling)

Diarmuid Fionntain O`Scannlain
Judge, U. S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Nominated by Ronald Reagan on August 11, 1986

Norman Randy Smith
Judge, U. S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Nominated by George W. Bush on January 16, 2007

Wolle, Charles Robert
Judge, U. S. District Court, Southern District of Iowa
Nominated by Ronald Reagan on July 1, 1987
(sitting by designation)


Dissenting (from today's denial of rehearing en banc)

Alex Kozinski
Chief Judge, U. S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Nominated by Ronald Reagan on June 5, 1985

Stephen Roy Reinhardt
Judge, U. S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Nominated by Jimmy Carter on November 30, 1979

Kim McLane Wardlaw
Judge, U. S. District Court, Central District of California
Nominated by William J. Clinton on August 10, 1995

Richard A. Paez
Judge, U. S. District Court, Central District of California
Nominated by William J. Clinton on March 9, 1994

Marsha Siegel Berzon
Judge, U. S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Nominated by William J. Clinton on January 26, 1999

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


Question 1: How many circuit judges recused and why? The order states the following:

"The full court was advised of the petition for rehearing en banc. A judge requested a vote on whether to rehear the matter en banc, and the matter failed to receive a majority of the votes of the nonrecused active judges in favor of en banc consideration" (emphasis added).

Question 2: The following Dem nominee judges either voted not to rehear this bat shit crazy ruling or recused, who did what?

Mary M. Schroeder (Carter)
Harry Pregerson (Carter)
Sidney Runyan Thomas (Clinton)
Barry G. Silverman (Clinton)
Susan P. Graber (Clinton)
M. Margaret McKeown (Clinton)
William A. Fletcher (Clinton)
Raymond C. Fisher (Clinton)
Ronald M. Gould (Clinton)
Richard C. Tallman (Clinton)
Johnnie B. Rawlinson (Clinton)

Either a lot of Dem nominees were vacationing, recusing, or need to have their heads examined! Lets hope Justice Kennedy will save us.

[davidinalameda]

1. I have yet to understand how this is any different

from the cops putting a tail on this guy

they were using electronic monitoring rather than human

[usregimechange]

2. Are you joking?

[usregimechange]

3. Just in case you were actually serious let me start with a few questions...

When police follow you in a car do they come on your property first? Can they stroll around in your back yard and take a look around without a warrant? Is that a reasonable search?

[Wednesdays]

5. Well, if you don't have anything to hide, then...?

:eyes:

[usregimechange]

6. thanks for rolling your eyes, thought I was some where else for a minute

[TheKentuckian]

4. What should be simple is distorted beyond any plausible intent

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and
effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,
and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or
affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the
persons or things to be seized.


Reasonable has been expanded to anything ever, because they really want to.

The obvious intent of the fourth amendment was to put your so what well out of reach. It is not written loosely but rather willfully enforce and interpreted in a fashion to make it completely meaningless.

If the state wants to invade your privacy they must have a reason specifically related to you and the effects violated.

These abomonations like roadblocks, random electronic survallience, and yes tailing people sniffing ass by such methods is a deliberate override of out basic rights.

[usregimechange]

7. Congress needs to respond to this, write your rep and soon