CNN: "Drug Enforcement Administration agents in Oregon in 2007 surreptitiously attached a GPS to the silver Jeep owned by Juan Pineda-Moreno, whom they suspected of growing marijuana, according to court papers.
When Pineda-Moreno was arrested and charged, one piece of evidence was the GPS data, including the longitude and latitude of where the Jeep was driven, and how long it stayed. Prosecutors asserted the Jeep had been driven several times to remote rural locations where agents discovered marijuana being grown, court documents show.
"The vast majority of the 60 million people living in the Ninth Circuit will see their privacy materially diminished by the panel's ruling," Kozinksi wrote in his dissent.
He [David Rivkin] says that a person cannot automatically expect privacy just because something is on private property.
"You have to take measures -- to build a fence, to put the car in the garage" or post a no-trespassing sign, he said. "If you don't do that, you're not going to get the privacy."
The key component here? That a police officer can put a gps tracker on your vehicle without a warrant, which means without limit. The case on trial here set precedent with Federal Agents putting the tracker on the Jeep while it was in his driveway.
Such trackers would hardly be limited to parked vehicles, it is not at all hard to imagine that a part of routine traffic stops in the future would be the placement, suppripitous or not, of a tracker on the vehicle, if only for the department to, in newspeak, create a comprehensive map of traffic flows and personal travel within the city, for the safety of the residents.
This is nothing but a blatant information grab by governments, in an attempt to make it easier to track the people they are supposed to work for.