Source: thisisreno.com 1/29/23
A private investigator who put a GPS tracking unit on Reno Mayor Hillary Schieve’s car last year said he was hired as part of a political campaign and it’s “nothing personal” toward the mayor.
It’s also not illegal.
The GPS unit’s sim card linked the private investigator to the tracking device after it was discovered on Schieve’s car by a mechanic.
The investigator, David McNeely, was interviewed in November by Sparks police. A copy of the interview was obtained by This Is Reno as a public records request. In the interview, McNeely said he was hired to track Schieve to investigate an allegation as part of a political campaign.
“I know they are going to initiate some shit,” he told detectives last year. “It’s one of the biggest tools that I have. Hopefully she’s not too upset about it.”
McNeely, who also told police he was the stepson of former Sparks Mayor Ron Smith, said there was no physical surveillance and he was looking at whether she was at certain locations.
“I’ve never had any involvement with her whatsoever,” he told detectives. “She seems to be doing what mayors are supposed to do. She seems like a pretty good person. [It’s] nothing personal.”
Schieve is suing McNeely and is seeking damages above $15,000. A judge recently granted a subpoena for McNeely to identify his client after he refused to accept service of the lawsuit.
Schieve was also interviewed by police. She told them it’s alarming that a private investigator can legally place a GPS unit on somebody’s car to monitor them but police have to get a warrant.
Schieve’s civil lawsuit against McNeely is based on privacy intrusions “as it would cause any reasonable person significant fear and distress.”
“The District of Nevada explicitly held that the installation of a GPS tracker implicates the tort of invasion of privacy,” the lawsuit alleges. “The dissemination of the information obtained by Plaintiff would cause a reasonable person to fear death, bodily injury, harassment, stalking, financial loss, or a substantial life disruption.”
So if this mayor can civilly sue the investigator for non-criminal implementation of a GPS unit on her vehicle, can I civilly sue the state of Wisconsin for placing a GPS unit on me passed my sentence which is almost 2 years ago? All I know is they’re charging me $240 a month to be monitored, and I feel it’s highway robbery. But of course I’m just a cash cow for Wisconsin.
Well, as a public figure, its just to be expected to have less privacy. That’s just acceptable collateral damage.
“The dissemination of the information obtained by Plaintiff would cause a reasonable person to fear death, bodily injury, harassment, stalking, financial loss, or a substantial life disruption.”
Thinking about Wisconsin for some reason….
Of course, that is only true in Nevada? This “Reasonableness” is based on geography? Only a “Reasonable” Mayor would think this? How is this, “Reasonable” in Nevada, but meaningless in Wisconsin? Oh that’s right… reasonableness has nothing to do with anything…it’s all just the whims of the regional tyranny of the majority!
Nevada’s regional tyranny does not want run the risk that this could happen to any of them, so, reasonable.
Wisconsin’s regional tyranny assumes they can control the risk to them, while tracking others…so unreasonable.
Both are infallibly correct, despite be mutually exclusive, polar opposites.
Turns out, way more than reasonableness isn’t the only thing that is based on geography! Soon, both inalienable human rights and first degree murder will be based on geography too…maybe…as a result of the overturn of R v Wade!
Get an abortion in State A…. you are exercising your inalienable human right to bodily autonomy. Get one in State B, go to prison for first degree murder. Both results are Constitutionally sound, and neither violate the rights of either the Woman seeking the abortion nor the fetus…ever. Only in America could both of these be true! Oh but there’s more!
Get an abortion in State B, you’re a murder…but travel to State A to have it done….and you’re not. However, if you live in State C, you are a murder no matter where it happens….but never one if you live in State A…unless you travel to State B or C….who will say you are.
None of this is the irrational facilitation of regional tyrannies of the majority? All of these conclusions are true, and can rationally live together…and in no way are tyrannical demands of the State residents? Nobody, not the Woman, the fetus, the Medical Professionals, nor anybody’s family is ever having their rights violated….ever? How are these multiple mutually exclusive conclusions to the same event all true, rational, and justice?
They aren’t….nor is this issue with GPS devices. Turns out that the fears of harm that being GPS tracked produces are reasonable for everybody, everywhere, always.
At least she was never presented a bill for the device…not everyone is so lucky as her.