The pending U.S. Supreme Court case of United States of America v. Antoine Jones puts modern police tactics in the spotlight of the Fourth Amendment search and seizure law, and it’s implications are serious. The case in question was decided last year by a D.C. Circuit Court.  As Andrew Dat writes in his blog, the defendant, Jones, was arrested and charged with drug trafficking by the police.  The cops suspected Jones was a narcotics distributor and placed an electronic GPS tracking device on his car.  Using satellite technology, the police were able to follow Jones’s movement about town and collect enough evidence against him to charge him.

The problem was that the cops did this without a warrant and when prosecutors tried to put Jones away, Jones raised a Fourth Amendment defense claiming that the GPS tracking device was tantamount to an illegal search and seizure of his car.  Jones faced a life sentence for his alleged crime, but the circuit court agreed with Jones’s argument and vacated his sentence.

Traditionally, the courts have held that technology merely enhances what the police could do on their own, there is no violation. Examples of enhancement are as simple as the use of a flashlight, the use of a helicopter, or use of binoculars.  But this new use of technology – namely a GPS tracker, seems a bit over the top to me.  All searches require a warrant unless there is an exception to the rule.  With the advent of inexpensive GPS tracking devices, I can envision a day when all cars are simply manufactured with a GPS tracker already installed (the black box in modern vehicles do nearly the same thing).  The tracking of a vehicle could become a simple matter of a few computer key strokes at the local police station.  We already live in an age of “Big Brother.”  When and where will it end?

The Fourth Amendment has always pitted the values of freedom against the need for law enforcement.  The Constitution always seemed to default towards ensuring our freedom.  Is this the line in the sand that needs to be drawn?  It will be very interesting, and important, to see where the U.S. Supreme Court comes down on this decision.  What do you think?

Recent study suggests a bicycle helmet does reduce head injuries, but will not save your face or neck from injury. http://bit.ly/qjy3in

Mirsepasy Law Offices added as EV Charging Station during appointments – http://www.plugshare.com/

Bring your own 110 v cord and plug in!  We support everything that electric vehicles do for our community.

A former NASA scientist pleaded guilty Wednesday to attempting to sell classified information about US military satellites.  He admitted guilt in exchange for a proposed 13 year prison sentence (he faced 30 years to life).  CNN reports that the FBI sting operation busted the trader in 2009.  Spies are nothing new.  Unfortunately, it is also nothing new that our own allies, including this one (Israel) are the ones spying or attempting to purchase illegally gained information about our secret developments and technologies.  While James Bond thrillers are a favorite, in real life, it bothers me when countries that we support with taxpayer dollars turn around and treat us this way.  What do you think?

Pia Bergqvist writes in this month’s Flying Magazine about private airplane operators’ desire to keep their flights private from flight tracking web sites and the like.  The operators view the publishing of their flights as violations of their privacy, which the FAA is mandating in no longer allowing operators to opt out of disclosure of the tail number/flight information dissemination.  This, the operators fear, will be a boon for electronic stalkers, the paparazzi or a businessperson’s competitors.

The National Business Aviation Association (NBAA) and the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) filed a joint opening brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit opposing the FAA’s major revisions to the Block Aircraft Registration Request (BARR) program. The associations argue that the revisions are illegal and should be invalidated.

AOPA president and CEO Craig Fuller said: “…just because the government collects information doesn’t mean it should be broadcast over the Internet…”

The BARR program, which was put in place in 2000, allowed aircraft owners and operators the option to prevent public dissemination of flight information pertaining to an aircraft’s tail number. But under the new rule, detailed in a notice of modification to the FAA/Subscriber Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) issued on June 3, only certain aircraft with a “Certified Security Concern” are allowed to opt out.

Despite overwhelming opposition from not only industry organizations and aircraft owners and operators, but also civil liberties groups, business organizations and the U.S Chamber of Commerce, to name a few, the FAA put the new rule in place on Aug. 2. In the MOA, the FAA used the government’s focus on openness and disclosure and the Freedom of Information Act to justify its decision.

“Transparency” is the buzzword of the 2000’s thus far, but apparently not everyone supports the concept.  What do you think about the publication of flight plans based on tail numbers?