Constitutional Law

Supreme Court Mulls Warrantless GPS Tracking

|

On Tuesday the U.S. Supreme Court considered whether the Fourth Amendment requires police to obtain a warrant before they use a GPS device to track a suspect's vehicle. The case involves Antoine Jones, a Washington, D.C., nightclub owner who was convicted of conspiring to sell cocaine and sentenced to life in prison based largely on information about his movements collected via a GPS tracker that police surreptitiously attached to his car. Although the cops actually had a warrant to track Jones (which suggests that requiring one in such circumstances is not an intolerable burden), it expired before the surveillance began. Hence the question is whether they needed one to begin with.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit thought so (PDF). Writing for the majority last year, Judge Douglas Ginsburg distinguished the tracking of Jones, which continued 24 hours a day for a month, from the use of a radio transmitter ("beeper") to help police follow a car, which the Supreme Court has said does not require a warrant:

The Court explicitly distinguished between the limited information discovered by use of the beeper—movements during a discrete journey—and more comprehensive or sustained monitoring of the sort at issue in this case….Most important for the present case, the Court specifically reserved the question whether a warrant would be required in a case involving twenty-four hour surveillance, stating, "if such dragnet-type law enforcement practices as respondent envisions should eventually occur, there will be time enough then to determine whether different constitutional principles may be applicable."

Ginsburg noted that the capabilities of modern tracking technology far outstrip what can feasibly be accomplished by human observers in public:

We hold the whole of a person's movements over the course of a month is not actually exposed to the public because the likelihood a stranger would observe all those movements is not just remote, it is essentially nil. It is one thing for a passerby to observe or even to follow someone during a single journey as he goes to the market or returns home from work. It is another thing entirely for that stranger to pick up the scent again the next day and the day after that, week in and week out, dogging his prey until he has identified all the places, people, amusements, and chores that make up that person's hitherto private routine.

During Tuesday's oral arguments (PDF), at least four justices (John Roberts, Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Sonia Sotomayor) seemed troubled by the amount of information that can be collected through GPS tracking. "If you win this case," Breyer told Deputy Solicitor General Michael Dreeben, "then there is nothing to prevent the police or the government from monitoring 24 hours a day the public movement of every citizen of the United States," which "sounds like 1984." Dreeben replied that we can worry about that when it happens.

Two justices, Samuel Alito and Antonin Scalia, wondered whether it was possible to draw a nonarbitrary line between acceptable public monitoring and a Fourth Amendment violation. In a recent ABA Journal essay about Jones, Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the U.C.-Irvine law school, argues that the problem is the "reasonable expectation of privacy" standard that the Court applies in Fourth Amendment cases:

One key problem with the "reasonable expectation of privacy" test is that the government seemingly can extinguish it just by telling people not to expect any privacy in a particular area.

Moreover, focusing on the reasonable expectation of privacy confuses a description of what people think it should be with a conclusion about what the Fourth Amendment should be deemed to protect. Whether people actually have an expectation of privacy in a particular instance is an empirical issue that can be measured.

But that is never how courts decide whether a reasonable expectation of privacy exists. Courts make an intuitive sense about whether people expect privacy in particular instances. But the question should not be about what people actually expect, but what they should be entitled to expect under the Fourth Amendment. 

The Court could avoid opening this can of worms by ruling that installing the GPS tracker involved a physical intrusion on Jones' property (i.e., his car) that itself required a warrant, regardless of the information that was later collected. But that solution would not apply to surveillance that requires no physical intrusion, such as pervasive public monitoring via cameras mounted on poles, drone aircraft, or satellites.

I discussed Jones, along with a 9th Circuit decision that approved warrantless GPS tracking, last year. More on GPS tracking here.

[Thanks to Mark Sletten for the Chemerinsky link.]

NEXT: Twelve Apathetic Men

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I don’t think the privacy angle is a winner.

    However, it seems to me that attaching a device to someone’s vehicle constitutes seizure of that property, since it is now being put to government use. Particularly with the new GPS devices that are wired to feed off of the vehicle’s electrical system.

    1. Oops, I see Mr Sullum addressed this at the end. Apologies.

    2. If we’re looking for a bright-line test, we could say that anything that the cops do that would be tortious if private citizens did it to each other may not be done without a warrant. For example, if I attach any device to your car, I have committed a trespass to chattels, and you could sue me for that if you were so inclined. This test is clean, and Scalia indicated that he might go that way.

      The problem with that standard is that it doesn’t have much of anything to do with the 4th Amendment. Placing a device on someone’s car or person is neither a “search” nor a “seizure” as originally understood, and the proposed tort standard is contrary to Supreme Court precedent.

      Suppose you own 100 acres, and you have a house on the property that is not visible from any public road. The cops may trespass onto your land to peer into your windows without violating your 4th Amendment rights, provided they don’t get too close to the house.

      So as much as I’d love to go with a simple “don’t commit torts” standard for deciding whether the cops need a warrant, that’s not what the Constitution requires.

      1. “The cops may trespass onto your land to peer into your windows without violating your 4th Amendment rights”

        Wait, what? How is that not a search of my property?

        1. I believe he’s differentiating between the home and the curtelage.

          1. Make that open fields, which is not protected vs. curtilage (area immediately surrounding the home), which has some protection vs. home, which is completely covered by the dwindling 4th amendment.

            1. that’s the advantage of HAVING a right to privacy (vs. merely the 4th amendment).

              WA state has an actual right to privacy. thus, WA cops are much more restricted.

      2. Placing a device on someone’s car or person is neither a “search” nor a “seizure” as originally understood

        Well, we do have to account for the fact that high-speed vehicles (let alone GPS) didn’t exist in 1789, so this issue is to some extent entirely foreign to the original understanding of the 4th. Thus it has to be extended in a reasonable way.

        Though I would suspect that the federal government requiring every interstate horse rider to carry mail for the government on demand would have been considered seizure of property even in 1789.

        1. Flip that one around and you’re onto something.

          If a log were required of every letter that went into the post bag, I suspect that that would have been considered beyond the meaning of the fourth Amendment : “to be secure in their… papers, and effects… ; and no Warrants shall issue … particularly describing the place to be searched,”

          Effects includes one’s possessions, i.e. car. And, regardless, they need a warrant.

      3. “So as much as I’d love to go with a simple “don’t commit torts” standard for deciding whether the cops need a warrant, that’s not what the Constitution requires.”

        Actually, the tortious standard seems like pretty good definition of “reasonable”. If surveillance by the cops would constitute harassment or trespass by private parties, it’s unreasonable.

        1. I agree, but be aware that we’re not drawing on a clean slate. The question of whether trespassing is per se “unreasonable” for 4th Amendment purposes has been asked and answered. You’re going to have to undo or circumvent that line of cases if you want to establish a tortious-conduct rule.

          1. Agree: lots of precedents ought to be undone.

      4. Amendment IV: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures …”

        It should be obvious that this prohibits unreasonable searches for a person as well as unreasonable searches of a person.

        1. No, it isn’t, prepositional blurring notwithstanding.

          1. also, note that this standard would NOT prevent the cops from (for example) endlessly following a car from above, etc.

            this is just more expensive than GPS, but it still largely creates the same privacy concerns IF done.

            several commenters at volokh.com have posited a “mosaic theory” of privacy which i think handles these situations well, but of course it is not the law

    3. I think that there is one aspect of the privacy angle that should be a winner (but probably won’t be). Cars can leave public areas. GPS allows cars to be tracked even when on private property where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. Old fashioned surveillance can’t do that without a warrant.

      1. That’s a good point. They would have to somehow guarantee that it stops tracking upon entering a private area, which would be essentially impossible.

        Though I’m not convinced the right to privacy really exists in the BoR.

        1. Ive yet to see anything that you think the 9th covers.

          Im on the side of an expansive 9th (covering all natural rights uncovered by the BoR) but you seem to think it should be ignored.

          1. My answer to the 9th Amendment question is that it protects all unenumerated liberties enjoyed by free Englishmen in 1789. Which doesn’t get us very far on this issue…

          2. The 9th was not intended to provide legally enforceable rights in itself, it was intended as a reminder that the existence of the Bill of Rights didn’t grant power to the feds to do everything the BoR didn’t prohibit. ie, that the feds were still limited to their enumerated powers.

          3. I mean, one of the arguments against the BoR was that there was no way the enumerated powers in A1S8 could be used to abridge the free exercise of religion, for instance (outside of DC and post offices, I guess). So the First Amendment really was meaningless at the time, and carried the danger (now realized in the post-Wickard era) that the BoR would be taken as a list of things the feds couldn’t do rather than A1S8 being the list of things they could do.

      2. except… generally speaking, not from above. iow, an airplane or helicopter can (except for very rare properties) legally surveil from above EVEN IF THE CAR is on private property.

        1. Aerial surveillance does not carry the means of surveillance onto private property in order to gather information about the targets movements on private property.

  2. You know, I might be OK with GPS tracking and snooping if it were legal for me to do it too.

    But If I can’t buy radio equipment and listen to non-encrypted cell phones or plant a GPS tracker on a cop car, then they shouldn’t be able to do it either, without a warrant. This shouldn’t be that hard to figure out, even for a current crop of awesome Philosopher Kings.

    1. That seems like the best standard to me. If I can’t do it to any other person, then the cops shouldn’t be able to do it without a warrant. I tend to imagine that if I attached a GPS tracker to a police officers personal vehicle, I would get in some trouble if it were discovered.

      1. This is a great standard, but see my comment above. The police can do things that private individuals cannot do (e.g., trespass on your property) without violating your 4th Amendment rights.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O…..ted_States

        1. The point, Mr. Pete, is that they shouldn’t be able to do those things.

          A cop without a warrant is just another citizen.

          A cop with a warrant can do what the warrant authorizes.

          1. Everybody beat me to the punch and this sums it up nicely. Too bad the cops without a warrant are not prosecuted like trespassing private citizens.

            1. Let’s make sure cops that break into people’s houses and murder indiscriminately are held accountable and prosecuted first. THEN we can worry about trespassing.

              1. Can’t we do both at once?

              2. which they ARE held accountable all your lies aside.

        2. The police can do things that private individuals cannot do (e.g., trespass on your property) without violating your 4th Amendment rights because they have steroids and guns

        3. That’s fucked. I’m all for being allowed to gambol across un-posted private property, but if there is a gate and a sign that should damn well apply to cops too.

        4. “The police can do things that private individuals cannot do (e.g., trespass on your property) without violating your 4th Amendment rights.”

          If you go by shitty interpretation of the fourth amendment, as the courts have.

      2. I’ve often thought that there is a reasonable standard here for gun restrictions as well. If the civilian police force can have automatic weapons, flash/bang grenades, belt-fed .50 cal mounted to a vehicle, then so can I. After all, if it is so dangerous that the police need that kind of gear, then I do too.

        1. No need for reasonable gun restrictions. The writings of the guys who drafted the Second make it perfectly clear that the government cannot infringe on our right to keep arms to mount a resistance to invaders or our own government if needed. That means we must necessarily have access to equivalent weapons and equipment as the military.

          Obviously, very few people could afford an aircraft carrier, a stealth bomber, or a nuclear-tipped ICBM. But if you could find someone willing to build you one for a price you could afford, then the Second says the government can’t do anything about it.

  3. since one cannot have a reasonable expectation of privacy when placing a trash can by the public curb, then driving on public roads would have the same expectation regardless of how one is shown to have driven on public roads whether traffic cams, witnesses, or GPS.

    1. Incorrect. When I throw things away, I am essentially releasing my ownership of them. The car is my personal, real property. For cops to be able to plant, modify, or change the function of that property without properly getting a warrant is scary indeed.

      I don’t see why they’re not making the same case as an electronic bug. Or even remote audio surveilance. Can the cops use one of those shotgun mics without a warrant?

      1. I think o3’s error (one among many) is that he confuses mere watching property with altering property.

      2. paul – and yet throwing away trash is NOT sufficient to mitigate privacy IF the trashcan is NOT moved to the curb.

        1. Absolutely correct. What’s your point? Moving trash to the curb isn’t the same thing as moving my car to the curb.

          1. as i wrote, driving on a public road mitigates any reasonable expectation of privacy same as moving one’s trash to the public curb…which may then be searched w/o a warrant.

            1. Sure, if you’ve got eyes on the person from a cop, in his car trying to keep up. Absolutely. But not by an electronic device attached to your vehicle. I absolutely have an expectation that my car not be tampered with by law enforcement officials for the purpose of remote tracking.

              Just because 24×7 surveillance is hard, doesn’t mean we remove constitutional protections to make it easier.

              And I like how the gov’t whistles past the graveyard while making their own argument. “Oh, yeah we got a warrant, but it expired, so we didn’t get the warrant again…”

              “Why did you feel the need to get the first warrant?”

              “Uhm, YOUR SHOE’S UNTIED!”

              1. seems like parsing. guess we’ll see what the Robert’s court decides.

                1. Parse this:

                  Technology becomes sufficient to allow a device to attach to the outside of your home which can pick up the sound vibrations of all conversations going on within.

                  Because of this new technology, law enforcement no longer need enter the home to place a bug or listening device, they can just slap it on the outside wall of your house.

                  Because this new technology makes it easier to eavesdrop on citizens, and less intrusive as it mitigates the need for surreptitious entry into the home, we don’t require a warrant for this type of device.

                  Comfortable?

                  1. this is not new tech, but one has a reasonable expectation of privacy in one’s own home unlike driving on a public road

                    1. Well, we can tell where stOOOpid stands on the impending police state…

                    2. this is not new tech, but one has a reasonable expectation of privacy in one’s own home unlike driving on a public road

                      And why does one have a reasonable expectation of privacy in one’s own home? Because for just about all of human history, people haven’t been able to listen or look through walls.

                      One doesn’t have a reasonable expectation of complete privacy on a public street, but again, for most of human history, one has had the reasonable expectation that every movement made outside the home could not be monitored. You could be seen, you could be overheard, but you could not be 100% tracked, day in and day out, no matter where you went.

    2. I own the trash can, just because its by the curb on the easement that sits on MY PROPERTY, doesn’t mean you can take the trash can itself, and you shouldn’t be tampering with the trash can if it doesn’t belong to you. It is there as a means for the trash service that I contracted with to haul away the things that I put inside of it. The whole “trash can contents are free for the taking” precedent is a load of bullshit.

      Placing a GPS device on a vehicle involves tampering with personal property, even if the presence of the vehicle does not have the expectation of not being observed. Observing something is different than tampering with it.

  4. The lawyer arguing for the requirements of Warrants missed a great opportunity.

    One of the justices told him that in London, cameras are so pervasive that an investigator can patch video feeds together and essentially track your every move and even watch you inside your home.

    The lawyer said, “I wouldn’t want to live in London” to which Scalia replied: “Well, it must be unconstitutional if it’s scary.”

    The lawyer should have quipped: That’s correct because citizens of the UK don’t enjoy the same constitutional protections under the 4th amendment that Americans do.

    1. I seriously doubt they’re able to watch you inside your home even in London. The cameras are mounted outdoors and in public buildings.

      1. Incorrect. I’m googling it now, but there was a story where a man was surveiled inside his apartment by a camera on the street. I’ll post it as soon as I find it.

        1. Yes, if you leave your windows unshaded, this can happen. Of course, a cop standing on the street can also look in your window in that case, which isn’t unconstitutional either.

          As long as cameras only see places that cops can see, there’s no 4th amendment problem.

          1. The problem I have with your argument is that it suggests we’re not limiting the actions of technology by the 4th amendment, we’re limiting the 4th amendment by the actions of technology.

            “Well, technology let’s me see infrared images of people inside the home, so you have no 4th amendment protection against us pointing a Thermovision at your house”.

          2. Here’s the video of the kid that did the prank in response to what I believe was surveillance going on inside his apartment from an outside CCTV camera.

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npM-tWbyyiI

            Oh, and a cop can look inside your window. Which if the cops want to look inside your window, then they should station a cop outside your home to look inside. Guess where that would end up?

          3. Cameras don’t stand on the street though. They stand at the top of poles, giving them a far better view of upper story windows than a cop standing on the street might be expected to have.

    2. BTW, 4th amendment has nothing to do with the supposed right to privacy. That is purported to come from the 9th.

      1. If we agree that planting a GPS on a car is different than planting a listening device on the car, sure.

        1. I’m with you on the seizure aspect of GPS tracking.

          But that’s quite different from the camera issue. Cameras don’t search or seize so the 4th amendment is irrelevant to that issue.

          1. I’m not tracking your point here. How does a camera not ‘search’? If a police officer places a secret camera in your living room, I’m pretty sure it’s going to require a warrant. Even under today’s incredibly lax and liberal reading of our living constitution.

            1. I should have specified that I meant cameras pointed at places or things in plain view.

              1. The 4th amendment says nothing about excepting searches in plain view.

                1. Looking at something in plain view is not a search.

                2. Otherwise, you and I and everyone else search hundreds of people every day.

      2. I think it comes from the 9th, but the Surpremes claimed 14th, something about permutations and umbrellas.

      3. And the 4th and 5th. Just read Boyd and Entick.

  5. But that solution would not apply to surveillance that requires no physical intrusion, such as pervasive public monitoring via cameras mounted on poles, drone aircraft, or satellites.

    I’m not clear on why that surveillance needs to be “solved”.

    It would be a gargantuan task to track someone’s movements over a long period of time using video feeds from satellites or stationary cameras. Observer drones (ie not the kind with missiles) are essentially the same as having plainclothes cops tail a person.

    1. We’ve tangled on this before, of course, but I still think this is way off-base. The “gargantuan task” you speak of gets easier every day with technology–in fact, that is the whole point. If the police want to tail you in plain clothes, 24/7 for a month, have at–they should have to throw those resources at it if they want it so bad, and give you the chance to notice that you’re being tailed, just like people have been able to do forever (and thus in line with reasonable expectations).

      The thing is, Justice Breyer is right–under your rejection of the Mosaic Theory or any other potential reasoning that makes this unconstitutional, what stops the government from tracking us all, everywhere but in our homes, all the time? Do you really think that is permitted by the constitution?

      1. At the state level I don’t think there’s a constitutional problem with it so long as no one’s property is used against them in this way without a warrant. Obviously I would be opposed to such a policy though.

        At the federal level it’s not covered by an enumerated power.

      2. thank you. this is an excellent point, and why i think the mosaic theory is important.

        it is also important in that it sheds light on why PRIVACY is important.

        my state constitution recognizes privacy. thus, it’s not even a QUESTION. clearly, it’s invasive of privacy. so we don’t have to get into the 4th amendment question, which IS much trickier, because like it or not…the 4th doesn’t mention or protect privacy

  6. I mean, is it unconstitutional to allow police to drive cars while on duty, since it allows them to follow people and move between locations of crimes in ways that a person on foot couldn’t do?

    I don’t see any difference between that argument and the argument that high tech extensions of old police tactics are necessarily unconstitutional.

    1. It’s not an “extension” when it requires attaching something to my car. Any more than placing a bug inside someone’s home is an ‘extension’ of what I could hear if they left their window open and I listened in.

      What’s being lost here is no one is saying the cops CAN’T DO THIS. All we’re saying is it should require a warrant. Why is that so hard?

      1. Right, I’m arguing against Sullum’s shocking innuendo at the end about cameras.

        1. there’s an attorney in WA state who is famous for repeatedly (i believe the claim is about once a year) trying to make the legal claim in some case that it shoudl require at least reasonable suspicion before a cop can run a license plate for wants and warrants, too.

          it’s pretty funny.

          iow, if a cop sees vehicle, he should not be able to check the license plate to see if the car has any stolens or attached warrants for the RO UNLESS he has at least reasonable suspicion of some OTHER crime, or has made a traffic stop for an offense

          seriously

    2. A person on foot can also get in a car.

      1. And a person can look at the feed from a camera with their naked eye. So?

  7. As a private citizen, and I permitted to place GPS tracking devices on property I do not own?

  8. Wait…he got a life sentence for dealing coke? Is that it?

    1. You’ll do the time for your VICTIMLESS CRIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIME.

      Drug wars — fantastic things, eh?

  9. Wasn’t there a case somewhat recently of someone finding a GPS tracker on their car and throwing it in a river or something and later being confronted by the police and threatened with destruction of property charges or something like that?
    Seems to me that even if they are allowed to put the things on your car, after they put it there, it is yours to do what you will with.

    1. Yeah, it was a woman who found the device and passed it to a techie friend. She then got a letter or some such communication from the FBI that they’d, uhm, sort of, uhm, like their property back. If I’m correct, she told them to get stuffed.

  10. The best thing to do to foil this is to check your car for GPS devices periodically.

    If you find one, you remove it, and attach it to the underside of the first parked police cruiser you see.

    1. Based on the government’s argument, I can purchase one right now and place it on the car of that hot girl I’m not supposed to be within a thousand feet of… 100% legal.

      1. Yeah, but you’re just a worthless, stupid little peasant that should be content with grovelling for scraps from the almighty God-Emperor and his sycophantic associates in government. The same standards don’t apply to your betters, you know!

    2. The new ones are very hard to find because they don’t have a battery attached, rather they draw power from the car’s electrical system.

      So short of Faraday caging your entire vehicle, there’s no defense against this.

  11. Yeah, but you’re just a worthless, stupid little peasant that should be content with grovelling for scraps from the almighty God-Emperor and his sycophantic associates in government.

    Hey! Leave me out of this, TVM. I governed in a fatalistic manner. Since I had the gift of foresight, I could get away with some the less tasteful aspects of governance, knowing full well that it consume me and my demise set in motion the next cycle. I knew when to proceed and when to hold back.

    The puny Federalistas, OTOH, have a similar ability to discern the poor outcomes from restictions on liberty, but foolishly fight them in a vain attempt to quell the obvious outcome.

  12. If I ever found one on my car, I’d be sorely tempted to toss it on top of the first train I found….

    1. Put in on a UPS truck. Those guys go everywhere.

      1. but only make right hand turns.

  13. Can they prove that Jones was in the vehicle for every movement they tracked?

    1. That would have been an excellent question for Jones’ defense attorney during trial.

  14. Ginsburg distinguished the tracking of Jones, which continued 24 hours a day for a month, from the use of a radio transmitter (“beeper”) to help police follow a car, which the Supreme Court has said does not require a warrant

    … now we’re merely haggling over the price.

    1. Good thing “slippery slope” concerns are fallacies…

  15. I’m surprised the court doesn’t distinguish between tracking an individual and tracking an individual’s car.

    1. Give them time, AT.

  16. “But the question should not be about what people actually expect, but what they should be entitled to expect under the Fourth Amendment.” Kinda like, questions about the limits on Congress under the Commerce Clause shouldn’t be about what people expect (no one should be forced by law to by a GM car), but what they should be entitled to expect (no one in Congress would be silly enough to pass such a law).

  17. The Supreme Court is just another thing that I’ve lost faith in, and wonder why I ever had any faith in it to begin with.

    In cases like this, nobody ever seems to ask “from where does the government get the rightful authority to take this action?” The starting point is always that the government has the authority to do any damn thing it wants to, unless you can find text in the BoR to prohibit it. And even that won’t stand up to a “compelling government interest”.

    Just how is it that the nine robed weirdos get to decide for me how much privacy I can “reasonably expect”?

    It’s all a big fucking fraud.

  18. Thanks a lot, Obama administration, for again shirking your duties.

  19. Kashmir Hill in Forbes, a couple days ago:

    The Supreme Court justices were decked out in their usual black robes today for a case involving the question of whether police need to get a warrant in order to attach a GPS tracker to someone’s car. But given their paranoia about possible technology-enabled government intrusions on privacy, it might not have been surprising if they had also been wearing tin foil hats.

    I am so fucking over these jackass conservatives who thumb their noses at privacy rights and any sort of limitation of state power. Forbes used to be a useful financial digest, but these days reads increasingly like a print version of the idiot screamers at Fox News, babbling on with Team Red flag-waving. They are the intellectual and political equivalent Joe Paterno, ignoring the horrors they allow by their feigned ignorance. There is this one difference, though: to really make the analogy stick, Paterno would have to be recommending child rape in public.

  20. How much “mulling” can this take?

    With my psychic powers, I delve into the inner thoughts of a randomly-selected supreme court justice:

    Lemme see…is surreptitiously placing a sensor out of a James Bond movie on somebody’s car without a warrant a violation of the fourth amendment, which states, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

    Hmmm….of course it’s illegal. What is this, East Germany? I can’t believe I wasted my time going to law school for this.

    When’s lunch?

    [suppresses yawn]

    Where was I?

    Oh, yeah…seven letter word for “ya-think?”

  21. Speaking of the U.S. fashion industry, a handful of the few big-name designers. However, you must not forget Marc Jacobs. His designs are generally free, but the product is designed themselves. For example: Marc Jacobs Handbag, Marc by Marc Jacobs Handbag. In fact, his decks Marc by Marc Jacobs also stand out in the fashion industry. Marc by Marc Jacobs Bags as many types of styles, has also been sought after by many big Hollywood stars.

  22. Sen Tracker Company Limited As a responsible enterprise, we always keep mind to offer the user-friendly and environment -friendly products.
    Our main products are Fleet and personal management device& system ,like: GPS vehicle tracker, GPS motorcycle tracker,
    GPS container tracker and GPS personal tracker as well as tracker accessories, such as : CANbus with J1939 & J1587 protocols,
    GPS Navigator with MDT, text LCD display, taxi meter, fuel sensor, temperature sensor, camera handset of setting, and so forth .
    All these device can be managed via web-based software which 100% developed by our company.
    Company Name Guangzhou Sen Tracker Company
    Person of Contact Steven Qi
    Phone Number 86-20-61018254/86-13760812861
    Email address Steven9442@gmail.com
    Our website: http://www.eusens.com

  23. Sen Tracker Company Limited As a responsible enterprise, we always keep mind to offer the user-friendly and environment -friendly products.
    Our main products are Fleet and personal management device& system ,like: GPS vehicle tracker, GPS motorcycle tracker,
    GPS container tracker and GPS personal tracker as well as tracker accessories, such as : CANbus with J1939 & J1587 protocols,
    GPS Navigator with MDT, text LCD display, taxi meter, fuel sensor, temperature sensor, camera handset of setting, and so forth .
    All these device can be managed via web-based software which 100% developed by our company.
    Company Name Guangzhou Sen Tracker Company
    Person of Contact Steven Qi
    Phone Number 86-20-61018254/86-13760812861
    Email address Steven9442@gmail.com
    Our website: http://www.eusens.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.