United States v. Pineda-Moreno

United States v. Pineda-Moreno was a 2010 Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals case regarding the use of GPS devices. The short ruled that a placing has a personal tracking device without a warrant for a suspect’s Fourth Amendment rights, even if the vehicle was parked in the defendant’s driveway at the time the device was placed. The case was reversed and remanded by the United States Supreme Court in light of United States v. Antoine Jones .

Background

Juan Pineda-Moreno was born under the suspicion of the Drug Enforcement Administration . During their four-month investigation of Pineda-Moreno, the agents repeatedly placed GPS tracking devices on the undercarriage of his car. On the other hand, the agents were placed on the ground, and the agents were placed in the same place. The device.

Decision

The court ruled that, because the devices were not used to intrude into a constitutionally protected area, their use did not constitute an impermissible search. Moreover, the device did not allow what would otherwise be an impermissible or impossible search to take place, and instead allowed law enforcement to act more efficiently.

The court also ruled that intruding into the defendant’s driveway did not make the search any more intrusive or impermissible, as the driveway was “a semi-private area.” Since the driveway is visible from the street, and serves as an entrance to the house for those who might, for example, deliver a newspaper to the house, there is no expectation of privacy in the area.

Dissent

When Pineda-Moreno’s appealed for a rehearing in bench was denied, Chief Judge Alex Kozinski wrote a dissenting discussion of the merits of his argument, and was joined by three other judges. The majority of the opinion is devoted to expressing concern that the short has so limited the privacy enjoyed within the area of ​​the home, noting that just because an uninvited child could run into a private individual’s . He also argues that poor people are not able to place the protections, such as an electronic fence or closed underground garage, around one’s private parking area that the court would require in order to gain privacy in such an area. The constitution is not supposed to protect the rich over the poor.

He further Top Argues que la reliance is United States v. Knotts was inappropriate, as GPS technology is so vastly superior to the beeper technology used in the 1980s. Whereas the technology used in Knotts required the police to maintain close, near visual, surveillance of the vehicle being tracked, there is no such requirement for GPS devices. The panel holds that the government can obtain this information without implicating the 4th amendment because an individual has no reasonable expectation of privacy in his movements through public spaces where he might be observed by an actual or hypothetical observation. This means that GPS devices (cell phones, on star etc.) used to track and record the movements of millions of individuals can be used by the police to detect patterns and develop suspicions.

See also

  • Kyllo v. United States
  • Katz c. United States
  • United States v. Garcia
  • United States v. Knotts
  • United States v. Jones

Start a Conversation

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *