Right to Privacy? Not if You're Poor

Oh, America. Land of the free, home of the brave. A place where everyone has the same rights, no matter the color of their skin or how much money they have in their pocket ...

Oh wait. I guess I'm going to have to backtrack on that last statement. You see, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals just decided that poor people living in its bounds (California and eight other Western states) don't have the same rights to privacy that rich people do.

If you've got a fancy home with a gate or fence surrounding the entrance, then the government can't breach that barrier to do something like ... well, say put a GPS tracking device on your car. But maybe you're a regular person, without iron gates or stone lions guarding your driveway? Sorry, buddy. You can be tracked.

The case is U.S. v. Pineda-Moreno. The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) suspected that Juan Pineda-Moreno, an Oregon resident, was growing marijuana. To find out, they sneaked into his driveway at night and put a tracking device on the underside of his car.

Invasion of privacy? Not so says the 9th circuit. People may have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their homes, the judges said. But driveways are a different matter. Unless you've got electronic gates or security booths barricading access to your home, they say you don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy and the government is free to wander onto your property for the purpose of tracking your every move.

It's nothing new for the 9th Circuit. A few years ago, its judges decided that welfare recipients didn't have the same 4th amendment rights against search and seizure that the rest of us do. When a San Diego welfare program required that any beneficiaries submit to unannounced visits by officials who might search through their drawers or medicine cabinets, the 9th circuit upheld the rule.

One judge, Harry Pregerson, saw the inherent classism in the suit: "This case is nothing less than an attack on the poor. San Diego's program strips these individuals of their rights of privacy," he wrote. "This is especially atrocious in light of the fact that we do not require similar intrusions into the homes and lives of others who receive government entitlements. The government does not search through the closets and medicine cabinets of farmers receiving subsides."

The government does search the drawers of homeowners who get a mortgage interest deduction. It doesn't pick through your refrigerator if you get a credit for buying a Prius or installing new windows. You don't have to empty your pockets in front of a police officer if you want to drive on a state-owned road or mail something at the post office.

If the poor aren't second-class citizens, why do they have second-class rights?

Photo credit: w00kie