[micks56]

According to the courts, private property does not have an absolute REP. Your definition of REP is not one used by any US court.

Good luck with trespassing claims. Criminal trespass elements are not met, so no luck there. You probably don't have a civil trespass claim, either. Civil trespass is intentionally entering the property of another without justification to do so. The court just affirmed that placing GPS on a car is legal justification to enter the property. So you would lose on the trespass claim.

Of course that assumes it even sees the light of day in court. Civil claims take years to litigate and seeing that no actual monetary damage was done to the car the plaintiff is only entitled to nominal damages, perhaps $25 if he is lucky. Contrast that with thousands of dollars and many hours to litigate and this case is clearly a money losing proposition.

I am not saying I agree with it. This is just the current affairs in the US legal system.

Also, Fast Passes are RFID transponders. They are activated when you drive through the toll. No GPS is present. Don't forget that you explicitly consented to the placing of the device inside your car.

[CamperBob]

This issue really is black and white, crystal clear, and very simple. I don't understand all of the legalistic bloviating. It all comes down to one question: What happens to me, a private citizen, if I plant a GPS tracker on a police car?

If the answer is anything other than "nothing," then brand-new police powers are being spun from whole cloth by this (lack of) ruling.

[micks56]

Your last sentence is very loaded.

1. This case wasn't a ruling, nor is it a lack of ruling. It was an instance of a court refusing to re-litigate existing law. That means that it already ruled and does not feel that the law should be changed. Nothing happened here. No new powers can be created by not ruling. By definition nothing happens when refusing to hear a case.

2. Second reason no new powers were created: The 4th Amendment to the US Constitution protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. The 9th Circuit has interpreted GPS to not be an unreasonable search and seizure. Therefore the restriction on government never existed because the Constitution does not protect people against reasonable searches. The police power to install GPS devices on cars was not abolished when the 4th Amendment went into effect 220 years ago. No new powers because the power existed 220 years ago.

[CamperBob]

Great. So, as an attorney, you're saying that I won't be charged with anything at all, if caught planting tracking devices on police vehicles....? There is definitely a new business opportunity there.

[micks56]

No, and this is important.

1. I am not an attorney. I am not your attorney.

2. I am not giving out legal advice, and nothing that I have said is even considered legal advice.

3. I have no idea what the law is in your jurisdiction because I do not know what jurisdiction you live in, and I most likely do not even know the law in your jurisdiction. There may be statutes specifically proscribing the conduct you describe. You need to research that yourself.

4. Nothing I wrote implies a person won't be charged with placing devices on police vehicles. I only commented on laws pertaining to police placing GPS devices on cars in open driveways in California through August 25, 2010.

[count]

More importantly, depending on the USE of the devices (I assume for tracking the movements of police cars), you might be nailed for obstruction or something other than 'trespass'.

The argument can be made that you can simply follow the police cars around and see them on public streets when they pull out of the police HQ - but that may be considered harassment or some other crime.