reply to post by ghostryder21
Another one busted when the Government oversteps their legal bounds to do their jobs.
Quote from : Oil Change Reignites Debate Over GPS Trackers
SAN FRANCISCO – Yasir Afifi, a 20-year-old computer salesman and community college student, took his car in for an oil change earlier this month and
his mechanic spotted an odd wire hanging from the undercarriage.
The wire was attached to a strange magnetic device that puzzled Afifi and the mechanic.
They freed it from the car and posted images of it online, asking for help in identifying it.
Two days later, FBI agents arrived at Afifi's Santa Clara apartment and demanded the return of their property — a global positioning system tracking
device now at the center of a raging legal debate over privacy rights.
Sorry, there is a legal and correct means to do a job for Law Enforcement, and then there is this idiotic approach.
Unless serving a warrant, asking a citizen questions whether in regards to themselves or others, or to report for a 911 call, no one is allowed to
violate the sanctity of a citizens private property, there are of course a few other exceptions, but very few, and as well they need to be
, as in the Government, whether F.B.I. or Law Enforcement, through policy, procedure, and protocol, and via a manner which
is unquestionably ethical in regards to actual deterrent of criminal activities.
Especially when it comes to putting something on a citizens vehicle, home, or person, you cannot allow this type of infringement to happen because
this is a complete, total, and heinous and extemporaneous violation of the 4th Amendment
, unlawful search and seizure.
Quote from : Wikipedia : Fourth Amendment
The Fourth Amendment (Amendment IV) to the United States Constitution is the part of the Bill of Rights which guards against unreasonable searches and
The amendment specifically also requires search and arrest warrants be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause.
It was adopted as a response to the abuse of the writ of assistance, which is a type of general search warrant, in the American Revolution.
Search and arrest should be limited in scope according to specific information supplied to the issuing court, usually by a law enforcement officer,
who has sworn by it.
In Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961), the Supreme Court ruled that the Fourth Amendment applies to the states by way of the Due Process Clause of the
The Supreme Court has also ruled that certain searches and seizures violated the Fourth Amendment even when a warrant was properly granted.
The unlawful search
is covered under the usage of the G.P.S. device, searching for a citizens locale, and through this the lawyer this guy can
hire, can also cite potential for tampering with his clients vehicle, whether it happened or not.
The unlawful seizure
comes into play with the seizure of information which was obtained via the G.P.S. device.
A citizen has the right to not purchase a vehicle with G.P.S. or OnStar (same thing basically) and has the right to safety, the placement of this
device is a direct violation of his safety, due to the placement upon his vehicle, whereupon the lawyer can tear into the F.B.I. about a potential for
tampering within vehicle, again whether it happened or not, as well as that he is being legally tracked, in essence electronically stalking the
citizen, through illegal means.
Sheepdogs vs. Wolves : Law Enforcement, Predators and Prey, and Love or Hate
ghostryder21, come on by the thread above, and introduce your thread there, and I will go more into depth about the illegality of it.
10/17/10 by SpartanKingLeonidas because: Adding Depth and Insight Into The Post.