Originally Posted by Morganan

I can't speak about CO law, but in PA, anyone can walk on your property at any time unless you have it clearly posted for no trespassing so long as there is clear access to the property in question. (Meaning you aren't climbing a fence or things of that nature) Now you as the property owner have the right to tell them to leave your property, and if they refuse you can call law enforcement and press charges. (those cases generally go nowhere as it's your word against mine but law enforcement can and will make them vacate) This doesn't even address the "right-of-way" every homeowner has to grant to the government in their property for roadwork. In PA again, I believe it's 35 or 65 feet each way from the pin marking the center of the road that is technically "public land" even though it is your property. (the actual number depends on the type of road, if it's a township road, a state road, etc)

The basis is usually that if a normal person can walk to your front door then a public official like an officer can too. Many times the driveway leads to the short sidewalk to the front door, so a cop being there wouldn't be an issue unless there is a posting that makes it clear, or a fence that also makes it clear. The default fence thing is just a notice that you don't want anyone on that part of your property without manually allowing access.

Also, would law enforcement require a warrant to for example follow your twitter/facebook?

If they were viewing publicly posted messages it would be like them standing on the sidewalk in front of your house while you yelled your thoughts. If they are there every day with no reason to be there, you could file a harassment complaint against the officer/department just like if they were following your online messages but it doesn't make it an automatic violation. If you had your facebook settings set to private and they either had to access it through an administrative override or by lying to get you to accept them as a friend to view the posts then they would need a warrant just like listening in on you having a conversation in your house with special equipment.

Would that not be considered "technological surveillance? It's all a case of degree's, and honestly there needs to be laws written that spell out what a persons "right to privacy" is when he/she connects to a public network. (which technically GPS is) Until then the courts are flying without a net so to speak, and it's hard to blame them for making a call that should have been made by the lawmakers, but they passed the buck down the line so to speak and we, the voters have given lawmakers a pass on this, and many other topics.

The courts need to apply the least amount of basic common sense to come to a reasonable conclusion when it is a constitutional issue and no law is in place. Obviously GPS tracking allows for tracking beyond what an officer would normally be able to do without a warrant, including remote areas of private land and doesn't necessarily indicate who was being followed since they are simply tracking the car. This is clearly a situation that should require a warrant, which isn't hard to get at all.