Judge dismisses lawsuit over GPS tracking

[Freddie Stubbs]

Source: Politico

A federal judge has dismissed a California student's lawsuit over a GPS tracking device the FBI planted on his car in 2010.

Yasir Afifi discovered the device after a technician doing an oil change noticed a strange box attached to Afifi's car. After Afifi posted a picture of it on the internet, he learned it was a GPS tracker. He was later visited by FBI agents who asked him about his finances and travel to Yemen. They also demanded return of the device.

Represented by the Council on American-Islamic Relations, Afifi filed suit in 2011, alleging that he was subjected to a warrantless search and had his rights violated under the First Amendment and the Privacy Act.

In 2012, the Supreme Court ruled that placement of a GPS tracker on a person's automobile is a search that requires a warrant under the Constitution.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2015/04/judge-dismisses-lawsuit-over-gps-tracking-206410.html

[The CCC]

1. Judge dismisses lawsuit over GPS tracking

That judge needs to learn the meaning of the word sophistry.

[JimDandy]

2. Dismissed ONLY because the tracking took place before SCOTUS decision.

Of course the Judge simply evaded the legal reasons why the SCOTUS reached their decision in the first place.

Judge is a Zero...not a Hero.

[Downwinder]

3. Hopefully this will be appealed.

[HassleCat]

4. Under the Mattress or...

When the FBI asked him abut his finances, he should have told them, "I keep all my money in a little box attached to the bottom of my car."

[cstanleytech]

5. Frankly this ruling doesnt make any sense as it wasnt legal for them to place the gps

in the first place, if it had been scotus would have said it was legal and thrown the case out out.

[blackspade]

6. WTF?

[happyslug]

7. Another "Qualified Immunity"

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2011cv0460-52

http://www.tourolaw.edu/lawreview/uploads/pdfs/_2_QualImm_WWW.pdf

http://www.vanderbiltlawreview.org/content/articles/2012/05/Williams_65_Vand_L_Rev_1295.pdf

http://leb.fbi.gov/2012/september/qualified-immunity-how-it-protects-law-enforcement-officers

Basically "Qualified Immunity" is a legal act to DISMISS a case against a government official if the illegal act was within the discretion of the official AND there existed no CLEAR evidence that the act was illegal at the time the act took place.

Qualified immunity came out of Military cases, to free commanders of troops from being sued based on how he ordered those troops to perform in combat. After the passage of the post Civil War Amendments (the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments) and the massive expansion of federal power and rights during that time period, the US Supreme Court decided to adopt Qualified Immunity to Civilians who acted in violation of the 1865 Civil Rights Act and the above amendments, but within what the Court says was within their discretion. This was the law till the 1960s, when the Supreme Court expanded the right even more (See the above articles for details).

In this case, with in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, a court that held that such tracking devices were CONSTITUTIONAL, the use of such tracking devices can NOT be seen as clearly being unconstitutional, when the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals had ruled them Constitutional. The fact that later on he US Supreme Court ruled them Unconstitutional does NOT factor into the case, the issue was the law was it was when the illegal act occurred.

Furthermore, the Court ruled that since the only harm to the Plaintiff was self inflected, i.e he notified the media who ran with the story, and thus the Plaintiff can NOT find a job do to the publicity of the case he himself caused, is NOT recoverable in any action. Simply the Plaintiff should NOT have informed the media, and because he did, potential employers know about him being tracked by the FBi. That is NOT the fault of the FBI, for all the FBI did was put a tracking device on his car. The FBI did not tell the Media about it.

You may dislike that finding, but it is one of the reason the judge dismissed the case..

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2011cv0460-52