Judge rules use of GPS to track a cheating spouse is not an invasion of privacy

Source

The use of a GPS device to track your whereabouts is not an invasion of privacy in New Jersey, a state appellate court panel ruled today.

Haha, this is just great. Using an excuse like this to rule that, oh tracking you by GPS is all good!

Hurray, more rights taken away! Don't get me wrong its not like they weren't tracking us before, but now its official.

Onstar probably has something to do with this.

Buy your spouse a GM vehicle, they'll do it for free.

I'm not sure what "Right" was "Taken Away" here..

Checked the Bill of Rights and it does not say you have the Right to no one knowing where you are..

reply to post by doom27


and if your helping to pay for the car and insurance
i think you have a right to know where the said vehicle is.

I would certainly feel it is my right to know where my kids are, since they don't ever seem to end up where they said they would be

As far as a spouse, if your not cheating you have nothing to worry about, right?

reply to post by doom27


This article is about a personnal matter, but yep, the Gov't is moving in this direction. But I'm all for this.

Considering the financial situation of both in the relationship. I have no problem with this. There is too much at stake and a legal ambush is always the tactic used by a cheater. When you invest in a relationship, there is more than just the heart involved.

My ex-fiancée used to demand that I trust her 100%. I always told her that I trusted everybody 98%, which gave me leeway to forgive. When you trust 100% and you are screwed over, it usually leads to bad things.

I caught her cheating on me after I lost my job using spyware on my computer, looking for new Mr. Money. Got to play detective for a couple months, which was fun. I had photos, emails and text messages; caught her with her pants down so to speak. Just up and left her. Another great thing was for some reason, she wanted all the bills in her name. That saved me a wad of dough in the long run. The best part was when her own son called her a whore and the family ostracized her for quite awhile.

I always do a background check on a prospective wife. I believe that is has saved me a ton of cash.

Did you guys read the article? You probably should.

If the judge rules that something is legal, it means the government is not going to interfere and make a law against it. That's a Good Thing.

In this case, the tracking device was in the glove compartment of the couple's car. It was used with the wife's consent and by a detective to track the husband's whereabouts.

In other words, the judge ruled that the wife can use her own tracking device to track her stupid husband. The government cannot interfere. This is GOOD.

If the husband is stupid enough to have an affair using his own car that his wife partially owns, then he deserved to get caught anyway, IMO. He had no right to expect privacy concerning his location while driving around with a GPS, advertizing the same... sending a constant signal out... Don't people know this?

That's like expecting our posts here to be private.

.

Originally posted by semperfortis
I'm not sure what "Right" was "Taken Away" here..

Checked the Bill of Rights and it does not say you have the Right to no one knowing where you are..

I can't speak for the person who feels there is a right being violated here. But it is important to recognize the principle upon which the new 'ruling' impinges.

It is based upon a corollary of the First Amendment and is even considered by certain BAR associations as well-established. It is referred to by most as Freedom of Assembly.

For example, from the Missouri bar (members.mobar.org...)

Freedom of Assembly

Freedom of assembly -- the right of people to gather without fear of government harassment or intrusion -- is inextricably tied to freedom of speech, of religion, and to petition the government, rights also encompassed within the First Amendment.

....

The Pennsylvania Declaration of Rights, adopted in 1776, embodies the first written assurance in America of a people's right to assemble: "That the people have a right to assemble together, to consult for their common good."

Thus, when a committee of the House of Representatives was considering possible amendments to the U. S. Constitution, a written guarantee of the right of the people to assemble was one of the basic proposals submitted by James Madison. Despite the soundness of this proposal, many members of the committee were opposed to the inclusion of such a provision. That opposition was not based upon a disagreement with the idea, but rather with a belief that such a written guarantee was unnecessary. One Massachusetts delegate adamantly opposed the proposal, questioning:

"Shall we secure the freedom of speech, and think it necessary, at the same time, to allow the right of assembly? If people converse freely, they must assemble for that purpose; it is a self-evident, unalienable right which the people possess . . . it is derogatory to the dignity of the house to descend to such minutiae."

Despite such pleas, the majority of the members, perhaps mindful of the examples evident throughout recent English history, were not persuaded. Their position on the issue was eloquently summarized by another Massachusetts delegate, who argued:

"The people ought to be secure in the peaceable enjoyment of this privilege, and that can only be done by making a declaration to that effect in the Constitution."

The key word here is "secure." Without a written constitutional guarantee of this freedom, making it a legal right, there could be no assurance that it would not, at some time, be undermined. It is the legal nature of freedom of assembly which insures that it will not be abridged by the government.

I'm not sure if elaboration on this and how it applies to not having your movement tracked without your consent would be overkill. But the idea behind the objection is nevertheless sound; even if it is couched as a complaint which is semantically questionable.

Freedom, liberty, and being secure in the belief that you are not subject to unwanted scrutiny; are typical assumptions that people make based upon the Constitutionally declared limitations on the intrusion of the government into the lives of people.' It might be logical to point out that these are not rights specified in the verbiage of the law of the land.... but let's not forget....

Ninth Amendment:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

It is of little value to state "That's not in the Bill of Rights or even the Constitution". The law isn't about the contract that existed before these founding documents were adopted; it's about justice, and the fact that people rule over the government, not the other way around.

Ref: The Bill of Rights: Unenumerated Rights

The government may not wish to interfere with such civil applications of surveillance; but it is supposed to address the plaintiff's complaint - which hinges of the freedom of movement and privacy. This would be a good thing IF it was NEVER a crime to track someone without there consent. But that's not the case in our country. Soon corporations will be wantonly tracking their employees, clients, and competitors, or business associates, based upon the same liberty to exercise surveillance. In this case, they made Pontius Pilot proud.

Good.

If a spouse wants to lie, they'd better be prepared to get caught. Let's take some responsibility here. Marriage should be respected. If one's spouse is suspect, who better to track their whereabouts than the one who's being lied to? There are no rights being taken away. There are no clauses in the Constitution about people not being allowed to know where you have sex, where you go, where you shop etc............... Plus it creates proof for who's at fault during the divorce hearings. The cheating husband or wife cannot try to rake the other over the financial coals when they're guily of infidelity.

- this is a win for marriage, when the marriage fails.