@Mr. Bean: I was referring more to the police and district attourneys that care more about convictions than making sure they have the right guy. No doubt lack of good evidence is a problem, but so is prosectorial misconduct, bad cops, unsure (or vindictive) witnesses, and forced confessions. I don't believe for a…

@zelannii: I saw the last half of a Jefferson biography on History channel the other day that showed his opinions changed depending on who was in power, if that counts for anything =)

@Janglesatwest: that's why I wonder about those people that hoard guns like the zombie apocalypse is coming. If the black helicopters are coming for you, it doesn't matter what kind or how many guns you have, you're still going to lose. David Koresh comes to mind...

@Bender: because there was no posted notice stating they could not enter

@Sumada: I don't have a garage.

@Zalethon: tracking people by gps is so cheap, once the gate gets opened, there's no reason not to track everyone.

@chrisflow: to be fair they didn't go inside the car (afaik), they attached a gps transceiver to the undercarriage somewhere.

@Thrubeingcool: you're absolutely right, and it looks like giz has already linked to one article showing that (something about an Oregon mileage tax). But those would all be laws that would go under consideration of the state/federal legislatures and ultimately the public. The 9th just decided to do an end run around…

@Mr. Bean: somewhere between 2% and 5% of convictions put innocent people in prison (that's between 40,000 and 100,000 innocent people in prison). Just because you're a good person doesn't mean the police and prosecutors care.

@zelannii: interesting, i'll have to research and dig through what you're saying to have a proper reply. I still have to disagree that we don't have a right to privacy. The founding fathers were well acquainted with overbearing and invasive government so I cannot imagine they would go along with what the 9th circuit…

@maztec: right, hence my disgust for this ruling. Reading the case summary, this guy was obviously up to something, making purchases they knew was for growing pot, keeping company with known drug growers and sellers. I just scratch my head as to why they just couldn't have bothered to get a warrant?

@Noumenal: If I'm reading the ruling correctly, the assenting judges were O'Scannlain, Smith, and Wolle.

@RT100: i used to help my mom (who has horses) move bales of hay and alfa alfa from her truck to the storage shed, that guy's not wearing more than 50lbs of straw.

@zelannii: I'll admit IANAL, but the 4th admendment states:

@hfm: because 1) he didn't have any fences or anything obstructing view of the vehicle 2) there were no signs stating private property/keep out and 3) access to the house required passage through the driveway, removing that EoP.

@bg-dez: what if they just do a database query of gatherings of more than 10 cars in a 1000 square feet (something adequately small, anyway)? Is it a gang fight? or a neighborhood bbq? a crack house? or a book club?

I think the issue is getting sidestepped whether the government should be required to get a warrant (meaning they have enough probable cause to violate a citizen's rights) or not. With a warrant, the government has to have a reason to look at you. In this court case, the defendant had a history of suspicious purchases…

@Dynasty99: Don't overlook the fact, that with a warrant, the government has to have a reason to look at you. If the police can attach a GPS to your car just because they can, they will begin searching for reasons to look at you.

@AlexMcDavid: reminds me of Push, where there were people you could hire, that if you stayed close enough, could hide you from government psychics, to keep them from tracking you.

I'm surprised no love for The Black Hole. While it has its flaws, it's one of the great sci-fi movies of my childhood, miles above ET at any rate.