Supreme court ruled no gps trackers!

What is difficult about it? The analogy is valid... How ANYONE could this this is a good idea is beyond me.

 

Not even close to valid.

The ruling involves a personal vehicle in a criminal investigation. Personal vehicles are not subject to FMCSR's, POV's have some expectation of privacy that commercial vehicles do not.

You are by law required to report all commercial vehicle activity, and as an operator of said commercial vehicle subject to the reporting requirements of 49 CFR part 395.
Even the recent court ruling you all keep misrepresenting dismissed all 4th and 5th amendment arguments raised by the group in Grain Valley summarily and instead hinges on driver harassment easily addressed by part 393.


Your equation would be like insisting radar guns are illegal because pointing them at a vehicle indicates a prejudice of guilt. In fact just like radar guns, log books and very soon EOBR"S are simply compliance tools ensuring people are following the laws set for their vehicle class and weight.

All of you people fail to answer how an EOBR differs from a log book. The exact same information is tracked and reported.

 

So now pointing a radar gun at a vehicle is the same as warrantless tracking, and information gathering? Just who is going to decide when a particular 'crimminal' vehicle is going to be tracked. It should be easy, if suspected... get a warrant track the vehicle.... The monkey wrench: Cops don't wanna do this, it takes effort and at least some evidence to back it up... Here comes the whole, if you have nothing to hide why not comply... Why?

 

I'm all for it, I just don't see how it applies to trucking. When (if) the FMCSA can mandate that a company must use EOBR's they'll have a reason to do so. The process appears to be working. Legislation is presented, it's challenged, when it's flawed it gets rejected. It still doesn't mean that just because the police cannot use GPS to track without a warrant that the FMCSA cannot mandate EOBR's for trucking companies. The two are unrelated.

 

i think this whole mess is bordering on the insane. the idea a person who simply wants to be left alone to do his/her job and not be harassed somehow has "something to hide" is manure. i know of no other occupation where the police can detain a person without cause, and in the case of an ebor, issue a citation based on data collected without probable cause, and in time put that person out of a job. for those of you who don't stand on the brakes going down a hill and drift over the speed limit a bit, that is cause for a citation, points on your license, and your csa score. maybe you idled 2 minutes too long somewhere. another ticket. remember, one mile an hour over the limit is still over the limit, and from what the states have been hiring for dot cops lately i'm sure there at least one of them.........

in time, with the help of those who simply have the spine of a washrag and think nomatter what the goverment does, it's ok, i think you will find yourself out of a job, as will many of us. there are those in government and elsewhere, who see us all as murderers and maniacs, and are determined to make us suffer. there are those in government determined to have mexicans running our freight who are exempt from nearly all regulation, and will not be forced to comply with nearly any of our rules and regulations, and will work so cheap the wages for the rest of us will drop.

already, thanks to the screwball hours of service regulations, i can't take a nap if i'm tired unless i risk losing half a days pay, and forced to run in the 11 hours alotted to me, and if the rules stick, in 2013, will will all lose another hour from that. meanwhile, poncho is running his brains out in a beater truck with a mexican drivers license the cops can't check to even see if it's valed.

i'm all for running safe. in case some have forgotten, if i get in a wreck i could get killed or hurt and not just the other guy. somehow, common sense is going to have to return to this industry, and soon, or many of us won't be employed, and like the construction industy, people from other countries will be doing our jobs for 1/4 of the pay.

 

No where have you seen me disagree with the court ruling which involved POV's. Nope not once, and further just to make this very clear to you I agree placing a GPS tracker, or activating one for the purposes of a criminal investigation does and should require a warrant duly sworn by a Judge.

Now none of the applies to commercial vehicles or EOBR's. Not one bit.Like them or not there are Operational rules for operating a business under MC ICC or USDOT authority. To enforce a large majority of these rules commercial vehicles lose a significant portion of their right to privacy. You are required to document the product, vehicle, locations, weight, billing, inspection, and fueling paperwork to maintain your authority.

The EOBR is but one of those compliance tools. Just as the new Physical qualification laws subvert some rights a private citizen not holding a commercial drivers license holds. The state has no need to verify their caregiver with a standard license unless applying for a specific waiver.


Yes yes I know now I am promoting Stalin like initiatives against a populace I want unarmedd so I can be cared for cradle to grave.None of that is or ever will be true, but convincing people lacking natural tin foil to block the alpha rays sent out by the black helicopters to infiltrate the tea baggers and learn the uber secret source of real drivers

 

Let me throw this out there to help muddy or clear things up a little on the legality of search and seizure.

First the constitution provides us protection from unreasonable searches of our property and persons, as well as unlawful seizure of the same. From whom does it protect us from? It provides these protections from the government. So in a nutshell all relevant laws applicable to search and seizure, and privacy is directed toward the government. The government shall not search without having probable cause, and shall have petitioned the court for a warrant. There are exceptions, such as the Terry doctrine, that addresses motor-vehicles, where evidence could be quickly lost by the vehicle driving away. That's totally different that what's being discussed here.

Now with that, we now look at the EOBRs, or Elog issue. While the FMCSA is pushing carriers to install these, and the FMCSA being government entity, they are not the owners of them, they are not installing them, or purchasing them for the carriers. So that leaves us with the Carriers, your boss being the owner of the devices, the one requiring that his property have these devices installed. He is doing this so that he can monitor his employees, to ensure they are operating legally. With CSA he too stands to suffer from violations committed by his employees. So now you are asking still how does that apply to the search and seizure, the constitution?

We are protected from the government. Those things do not apply to private citizens. Cops learn a long time ago, that a private citizen does not need to secure a search warrant. However you don't go busting into someone's house to have a look around for something. That's called B&E (Breaking and Entering, ie; Burglary or trespassing). Since it is your company, boss, carrier that is requiring these, and installing them, the constitutional issues do not apply. Your carrier is not a government entity. Your company can track, monitor, watch, you while you're using his property.

Simply because the government is leaning on these carriers to install them, does not "deputize" the carrier, or in any way make them a part of the government. So you are not granted those protections from your boss, period, that simple.

One more way to make these easier to understand. When someone is arrested, and then they are going to be interviewed, while in custody (and that is very crucial), LEO's must provide them with the Miranda Warning, Right to remain silent..ect.. Well that is a protection from self incrimination, a protection from the government. If Joe Blow, who's not a cop, would ask you the very same questions, you would not have those same rights. You confess to Joe Blow and then Joe goes and tells the cops, guess what, it's all fully admissible in court.

So basically trying to make the EOBRs fall into the same category as a surveillance tool, like a GPS tracker does not work. They are totally different. If Joe Blow wants to place a tracker on your car, he does not need a search warrant, a cop, who represents a government entity does.

I've been through these things countless times. In training, in court testimony, so do have a good understanding of them.

One more thing, an employer has what's called inherent liability over his employees. If his employee does something wrong, illegal, then the employer can be held equally liable. Sound a little like CSA, doesn't it? Where we get nailed by DOT, we get points, and so does the boss. Inherent Liability is nothing new, it's been around for ages. The FMCSA is just applying it through CSA. So if we're not doing things by the book, then they can lean on our company to kinda help persuade our company to make us comply.

 

Deja Moo.......


The feeling you've heard this bull squeeze before

 

The way I understand it is the carrirs required to use eobr will be under a directive due to a audit tat they fail with log books. Texan and the rest of you all can complain til your blue in the face. It aint going to matter. The feds are going to do what they want. Look at csa.. If you want to drive, you'll do what they say or your soon be out of business.

As far as poncho in the emxican trucks i have seen them stopped numerous times in the border states. Tickets to.

 

EOBRs are being required of carriers based on company size as well. Compliance (or lack thereof) has absolutely nothing to do with it. If you happen to have been successful in developing your business, you are penalized by forced use of elogs.