Juan Pineda-Moreno was recently convicted of conspiracy to grow marijuana.
But he appealed on the grounds that sneaking onto a person's driveway and secretly tracking their car violates a person's reasonable expectation of privacy.
Gee.... do ya' think?
Well, think again:
The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the appeal twice -- in January of this year by a three-judge panel, and then again by the full court earlier this month.
I can't even fathom the flaming rhetorical hula hoops one would have to sashay through in order to allow this sort of surveillance.
Thankfully, there's a Reagan/Bush I appointee present to walk me through it:
"You left place A, at this time, you went to place B, you took this street -- that information can be gleaned in a variety of ways," said David Rivkin, a former Justice Department attorney. "It can be old surveillance, by tailing you unbeknownst to you; it could be a GPS."
He 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."
Sometimes, I don't get my country at all. I mean, last I checked we were feverously guarding the sanctity of private property from the evils of government. Oh, that's right, we were guarding our property. Who cares about that guy, lolsob.
Shakesville is run as a safe space. First-time commenters: Please read Shakesville's Commenting Policy and Feminism 101 Section before commenting. We also do lots of in-thread moderation, so we ask that everyone read the entirety of any thread before commenting, to ensure compliance with any in-thread moderation. Thank you.
blog comments powered by Disqus