My life is fairly mundane. I say that not as one who is unhappy about it; it's just that my life is not very complicated. I am a creature of habit and that makes my every day routine as predictable as the rising of the morning sun. I have always said that if anyone wants to know what I am up to, it would only take a day or so of watching to have it down to the last detail. If there is anyone out there who is watching, I'll see you in the morning at 7:00, not 6:55 or 7:05, but precisely at 7:00 for a cup of coffee.<br />
<br />
But, everyone's life is not quite that predictable. In fact, some people go to great lengths to make sure that no one knows where they will be, what they will be doing at any given time, and who they will be doing it with. Being unpredictable is actually their goal. If you are like me, you might say that if someone isn't doing anything wrong, they wouldn't care if someone else watches them doing nothing wrong. But, there are others who really aren't doing anything wrong that detest the whole notion that someone else might be watching them. A person's right to privacy is a very important issue to those who feel that their privacies are being diminished by the government.<br />
<br />
Most of these arguments came to the surface with the inception of the Patriot Act which was established after the 9-11 terrorist attacks. The surveillance provision of the Patriot Act simply allows the government to begin its investigation on cases where the information received needs to be confirmed or corroborated through further investigative means. Surveillance is, and has always been, a means to the end on building any criminal case. But, there is no doubt that even though the Patriot Act has surely been a great weapon in keeping our country safe from would-be terrorists and terrorist cells, those who oppose the act will never be convinced that its good outweighs its potential harm in privacy issues. <br />
<br />
The arguments as to an individual's privacy have been primarily limited to homeland security issues, but a Federal Court Judge has now expanded the argument to mainstream law enforcement issues. Judge Alex Kozinski, Chief Judge of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has stated that GPS devices used for tracking vehicles without a search warrant is a violation of an individual's expectation to privacy. This opinion is in conflict with the laws of the State of California which states that such a provision is not required. <br />
<br />
According to an Associated Press report by Paul Ellas, dated October 16, 2010, the Judge associated the practice as being straight out of George Orwell's novel, 1984. Law enforcement officials have stated that the Judge is exaggerating the point just a tad. They say that the use of such devices eliminate the need for the "old school" stakeouts and "tailing" vehicles which is a manpower and time intensive prospect. They claim that the GPS device is a natural bi-product of incorporating technology into law enforcement techniques. Cases involving these techniques, where warrants were not secured, have resulted in the cases being tossed out by other appeals courts. Even the Obama administration, which some might accuse of leaning on the liberal side of most controversial issues, has requested that the court change its ruling stating that the decision will cause law enforcement to lose this investigative tool which is apparently widely used. <br />
<br />
As someone who has spent a considerable amount of time following someone else that we thought was "up to no good," I would welcome such a tool for our law enforcement's arsenal. Typical surveillance techniques are only as good as the person doing the surveillance. The increase of traffic on our streets, as well as the potential for violence to occur if the person under surveillance should notice, can cause the case to go very bad very quickly. Using the available technology eliminates the factors of human error as well as human emotion. The results of the surveillance are documented with unbiased and impartial dates recorded by the device. Unless law enforcement has figured out a way to manipulate the satellites the information gathered is what it is. If someone is doing something that they shouldn't be doing, this technique will identify them of doing so.<br />
<br />
Just so you'll know, something got law enforcement interested in these individuals to start with. They don't just ride around and randomly pick out the fourth blue car on the third row to start watching. If these people are not doing anything, which is in violation of the law, their activities will simply remove whatever suspicions started the case to begin with.<br />
<br />
I realize that this simple argument will do little to sway those who will never waiver from their philosophical stances that have to do with issues of privacy. I guess I'm just a little tired of some of the public's outcry and demands that they be kept safe at all times. But while doing this, they expect government, in this case law enforcement, to do so in a manner that is completely burdensome and outdated. They want it done, and done now, but whatever you do, don't dare do anything if the results could possibly affect "me."<br />
<br />
Those who are up to no good not only love this controversy; they are taking advantage of it right under our noses. Maybe some of these people who are threatened by this practice, and if they truly aren't doing anything that is in violation of the law, need to relax just a bit for the good of the larger picture which might expand a little beyond "just me." But, that's just me. At any rate, I have got to run...it's 1 minute and twenty seconds from my morning break. Here's looking at you!<br />
<br />
The views and opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and are not those of the Gwinnett District Attorney's Office.
