08-29-2010, 08:38 PM
(08-29-2010, 06:50 PM)--Pete Wrote: No question about it. Yes, they had probable cause. Probable cause is necessary but not sufficient to conduct a search. In addition, either a warrant or exigent circumstances is required.
I think I agree with you about whether this should be considered exigent circumstances or not. But, rereading the opinion, it seems the judge sidestepped that issue entirely. The police did not conduct a "search", in the constitutional meaning of the term, because they did not enter into an area in which the defendant had a reasonable expectation of privacy. His driveway was open to view to the public, and lacking any clear attempt to render it private. Tracking his car with a device, or even entering his property (but not his house) to plant one was not legally different for the police than simply staking the place out and following him - no warrant required. Had he made attempts to keep his Jeep private, that would (apparently) be a different matter, but it appears he did not.
Whether doing this was good policy, for the police or for the public, is another question, and one where I strongly disagree with the police. But it does not appear his constitutional rights have been violated, at least, under the current interpretations of what "privacy" and "search" mean.
-Jester