{"id":541,"date":"2013-05-21T09:53:58","date_gmt":"2013-05-21T09:53:58","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/localhost\/monderlaw\/?p=541"},"modified":"2020-07-10T13:41:15","modified_gmt":"2020-07-10T13:41:15","slug":"event-data-recorder","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.monderlaw.com\/news\/event-data-recorder\/","title":{"rendered":"Event Data Recorder"},"content":{"rendered":"

The extraction of information from the Event Data Recorder (EDR) may not intrude on one\u2019s Fourth Amendment Rights. A person cannot claim that a violation of the Fourth Amendment has occurred unless \u201c the person who claims the protection of the Amendment has a legitimate expectation of privacy in the invaded place.\u201d Rakas v. Illinois<\/em>, 439 U.S. 128, 143 (1978). The subjectivity regarding the expectation of privacy is deemed legitimate if \u201csociety is prepared to recognize as reasonable.\u201d Id. at 143-144. Here the data gained from the EDR device could be obtained by the public. One of the primary functions in the EDR device is to measure the speed of the vehicle. The public could receive this information by use of a radar gun. The information from the radar gun does not raise a reasonable expectation of privacy issue because the data is public.<\/p>\n

\n

Also, the EDR device is becoming more common in our society today. In Kyllo v. United States<\/em>, the agents used a thermal device to determine whether the defendant was using heat lamps to grow marijuana. The Court said the thermal device was not widely used in public and thus the thermal device was an intrusion to one\u2019s Fourth Amendment right. Unlike the thermal device in the Kyllo case, the EDR device is widely used in public and people are becoming more aware of its function which then diminishes one\u2019s reasonable expectation of privacy rights.<\/p>\n

In addition, people are willing to accept warrantless intrusion when it comes to information gained from license plates or VIN numbers. Similarly, the information gained from the EDR will be routine. So the public will be comfortable if the government wants to obtain data from the EDR device such as the speed of the vehicle. This will not alarm the public because the extraction of information from the EDR device will be routine and will be widely use by law enforcement.<\/p>\n

If you have questions about the event data recorder in cars, contact San Diego Defense Attorney<\/a> Vik Monder at 619.405.0063<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The extraction of information from the Event Data Recorder (EDR) may not intrude on one\u2019s Fourth Amendment Rights. A person cannot claim that a violation of the Fourth Amendment has occurred unless \u201c the person who claims the protection of the Amendment has a legitimate expectation of privacy in the invaded place.\u201d Rakas v. Illinois, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-541","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-blog"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\nEvent Data Recorder - Monder Criminal Lawyer Group CA<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"The extraction of information from the Event Data Recorder (EDR) may not intrude on one\u2019s Fourth Amendment Rights. A person cannot claim that a violation of the Fourth Amendment has occurred unless \u201c the person who claims the protection of the Amendment has a legitimate expectation of privacy in the invaded place.\u201d Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128, 143 (1978). The subjectivity regarding the expectation of privacy is deemed legitimate if \u201csociety is prepared to recognize as reasonable.\u201d Id. at 143-144. Here the data gained from the EDR device could be obtained by the public. One of the primary functions in the EDR device is to measure the speed of the vehicle. The public could receive this information by use of a radar gun. The information from the radar gun does not raise a reasonable expectation of privacy issue because the data is public.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.monderlaw.com\/news\/event-data-recorder\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Event Data Recorder - Monder Criminal Lawyer Group CA\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"The extraction of information from the Event Data Recorder (EDR) may not intrude on one\u2019s Fourth Amendment Rights. A person cannot claim that a violation of the Fourth Amendment has occurred unless \u201c the person who claims the protection of the Amendment has a legitimate expectation of privacy in the invaded place.\u201d Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128, 143 (1978). The subjectivity regarding the expectation of privacy is deemed legitimate if \u201csociety is prepared to recognize as reasonable.\u201d Id. at 143-144. Here the data gained from the EDR device could be obtained by the public. One of the primary functions in the EDR device is to measure the speed of the vehicle. The public could receive this information by use of a radar gun. The information from the radar gun does not raise a reasonable expectation of privacy issue because the data is public.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.monderlaw.com\/news\/event-data-recorder\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Monder Criminal Lawyer Group CA\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2013-05-21T09:53:58+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2020-07-10T13:41:15+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"2 minutes\" \/>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Event Data Recorder - Monder Criminal Lawyer Group CA","description":"The extraction of information from the Event Data Recorder (EDR) may not intrude on one\u2019s Fourth Amendment Rights. A person cannot claim that a violation of the Fourth Amendment has occurred unless \u201c the person who claims the protection of the Amendment has a legitimate expectation of privacy in the invaded place.\u201d Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128, 143 (1978). The subjectivity regarding the expectation of privacy is deemed legitimate if \u201csociety is prepared to recognize as reasonable.\u201d Id. at 143-144. Here the data gained from the EDR device could be obtained by the public. One of the primary functions in the EDR device is to measure the speed of the vehicle. The public could receive this information by use of a radar gun. The information from the radar gun does not raise a reasonable expectation of privacy issue because the data is public.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.monderlaw.com\/news\/event-data-recorder\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Event Data Recorder - Monder Criminal Lawyer Group CA","og_description":"The extraction of information from the Event Data Recorder (EDR) may not intrude on one\u2019s Fourth Amendment Rights. A person cannot claim that a violation of the Fourth Amendment has occurred unless \u201c the person who claims the protection of the Amendment has a legitimate expectation of privacy in the invaded place.\u201d Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128, 143 (1978). The subjectivity regarding the expectation of privacy is deemed legitimate if \u201csociety is prepared to recognize as reasonable.\u201d Id. at 143-144. Here the data gained from the EDR device could be obtained by the public. One of the primary functions in the EDR device is to measure the speed of the vehicle. The public could receive this information by use of a radar gun. The information from the radar gun does not raise a reasonable expectation of privacy issue because the data is public.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.monderlaw.com\/news\/event-data-recorder\/","og_site_name":"Monder Criminal Lawyer Group CA","article_published_time":"2013-05-21T09:53:58+00:00","article_modified_time":"2020-07-10T13:41:15+00:00","author":"admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"admin","Est. reading time":"2 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.monderlaw.com\/news\/event-data-recorder\/","url":"https:\/\/www.monderlaw.com\/news\/event-data-recorder\/","name":"Event Data Recorder - Monder Criminal Lawyer Group CA","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.monderlaw.com\/#website"},"datePublished":"2013-05-21T09:53:58+00:00","dateModified":"2020-07-10T13:41:15+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.monderlaw.com\/#\/schema\/person\/7f4616cba715a487c1605b93af866a74"},"description":"The extraction of information from the Event Data Recorder (EDR) may not intrude on one\u2019s Fourth Amendment Rights. A person cannot claim that a violation of the Fourth Amendment has occurred unless \u201c the person who claims the protection of the Amendment has a legitimate expectation of privacy in the invaded place.\u201d Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128, 143 (1978). The subjectivity regarding the expectation of privacy is deemed legitimate if \u201csociety is prepared to recognize as reasonable.\u201d Id. at 143-144. Here the data gained from the EDR device could be obtained by the public. One of the primary functions in the EDR device is to measure the speed of the vehicle. The public could receive this information by use of a radar gun. The information from the radar gun does not raise a reasonable expectation of privacy issue because the data is public.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.monderlaw.com\/news\/event-data-recorder\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.monderlaw.com\/news\/event-data-recorder\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.monderlaw.com\/news\/event-data-recorder\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.monderlaw.com\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Event Data Recorder"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.monderlaw.com\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.monderlaw.com\/","name":"Monder Criminal Lawyer Group CA","description":"Just another WordPress site","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.monderlaw.com\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.monderlaw.com\/#\/schema\/person\/7f4616cba715a487c1605b93af866a74","name":"admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.monderlaw.com\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/1bcef7789a7964d3c26ef1f432360330493f8432ad76de0170d901f2e19946d3?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/1bcef7789a7964d3c26ef1f432360330493f8432ad76de0170d901f2e19946d3?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"admin"},"url":"https:\/\/www.monderlaw.com\/news\/author\/admin\/"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.monderlaw.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/541","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.monderlaw.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.monderlaw.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.monderlaw.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.monderlaw.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=541"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.monderlaw.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/541\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":542,"href":"https:\/\/www.monderlaw.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/541\/revisions\/542"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.monderlaw.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=541"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.monderlaw.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=541"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.monderlaw.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=541"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}