A recent ruling in California should further cement those fears and bring into question not only the constitutionality of the ruling, but also the judges’ common sense and overall lucidity.

The case I refer to is a ruling allowing government agents to place a GPS tracking device on an individual’s car when it is parked in his or her driveway. Although this might sound terribly Orwellian or like something out of a fiction novel, for California and eight other western states, it is reality.

The case was brought to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit because in 2007 the Drug Enforcement Agency, or DEA, suspected an Oregon man of growing pot — a crime law enforcement agencies continue to waste millions attempting to prevent. The DEA’s cunning strategy was to sneak onto his property and place a GPS tracker on his vehicle, which was parked in the driveway.

Thanks to the tracker, the DEA was able to confirm its suspicions and secure a conviction. The Oregonian appealed the man’s case and attempted to have the evidence thrown out because the GPS tracker violated his 4th Amendment rights, which protect individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures.

The methods used to obtain the evidence stood, both during the first case in January and in a follow-up panel earlier this month. The judges argued a driveway is not covered by the 4th Amendment because in a driveway there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. Neighborhood kids and strangers such as deliverymen walk on it, therefore it is not considered private.

The implications of this decision might resound for a generation and usher in a period of government surveillance unlike anything we have ever seen.

The daily implications of this are substantial. Right now, without a warrant, it is possible for the government to place a GPS tracker on your car while it is parked in your driveway. There only need be suspicion that you might have broken the law. Furthermore, the court went on to rule that once a tracker has been placed on a vehicle, the government does not need a warrant to continue tracking you.

This is a matter that should be getting attention in the national press and media. These decisions are shredding parts of the U.S. Constitution. Forget fretting about social decay or the economy; the government can go into your driveway, place a GPS tracker and monitor your position at all times, sans warrant.

This is something that should really frighten you and might be indicative of the direction of our country. The potential exists to create a ubiquitous spy network, tracking every person’s vehicle and position, without their knowledge.

The issue is something that eventually will make its way to the U.S. Supreme Court, but the fact this might be considered constitutional is pure lunacy. The ruling becomes nearly offensive because it states the only people who are protected from this sort of government intrusion are those who have gates, fences and walls to officially make their property private.

This sort of language essentially spells out that those who are entitled to privacy are those who can afford it. Constitutional rights should not be something that can be bought and sold — they are not commodities.

The issue is not partisan, but one of the expansion of government rights without consideration to the Constitution.

Although the decision will likely be overruled, we’ve reached a time in our history when wiretapping, surveillance and clandestine operations are cheaper and easier than ever to carry out.

We must exercise caution to ensure we do not become subjects that can be legally monitored. We have rights, and they need to be protected. 1984 was a long time ago and I’ve never been a fan of revisionist history.

Matt Manning is a State News guest columnist. Reach him at mannin84@msu.edu.