(KOMO) PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) – A federal appeals court has ruled that mobile tracking devices can be attached to suspect vehicles as part of a marijuana investigation in Oregon.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court in the case of Juan Pineda-Moreno, who argued his constitutional rights were violated when U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration agents attached devices to his sport utility vehicle.

The DEA agents used several of the devices to track the SUV after they learned Pineda-Moreno and his associates had purchased large amounts of fertilizer, groceries, irrigation equipment and deer repellent at several stores in the Medford area in 2007.

But the court noted the agents attached the devices while the vehicle was parked in a driveway and in public areas, including a street and parking lot.

The court ruled Pineda-Moreno had no reasonable expectation of privacy at any of those sites.

Sounds like the opening for an entrepreneur to begin a fertilizer, groceries, irrigation equipment, and deer repellent delivery service.  If I’m reading this precedent correctly and not too broadly, doesn’t this mean police can bug any car they like in any parking lot they like so long as they consider it part of an investigation?  Why have them go to all the hassle; let’s just hard-wire every car for OnStar and give police unlimited power to surf their live data.  It seems clear to me the courts are continuing to decide that once you leave your home, privacy doesn’t exist (and it barely still exists there if you own a telephone.)

I really can’t wait until I’m finished with my new invention – time text messaging.  I’m really close to perfecting the technology that will allow me to type in a text message and send it back in time to the past.  It’s very complicated getting the binary digits to travel through time and get themselves written out by someone with a quill pen and ink, but I have some mad g33k sk1llz, yo.

Here’s the first message I’m planning on sending back about 221 years to Philadelphia:

Dear Founders,

Our courts have just decided that it is okay for law enforcement agents of the state, acting without a warrant, to hide in one’s carriage so that they may track and inspect every location a citizen may travel and what goods and services he may purchase therein.  This is deemed necessary to prevent citizens from engaging in the crime of planting and harvesting hemp.  Is this what you’re intending as you write the phrase “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.”

Sincerely,

Future Americans

I imagine the response might be: “OMG! Growing hemp is a crime?!? WTF!!!”