-
Supreme Court rules that using GPS violates privacy
At least in this case.
Washington (CNN) -- Police erred by not obtaining an extended search warrant before attaching a tracking device to a drug suspect's car, the Supreme Court said in a unanimous ruling Monday.A majority of justices said that secretly placing the device and monitoring the man's movements for several weeks constituted a government "search," and therefore, the man's constitutional rights were violated.Four other justices also concluded that the search was improper but said it was because the monthlong monitoring violated the suspect's expectation of privacy.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/23/justic...html?hpt=hp_t3
 Originally Posted by CornfieldCounty
You get so wrapped up in the proverbial "its all about me and my" that you loose not only your creditability but any resemblance of intelligence.
Originally Posted by Sonuvahusker
I'm reaching the point of becoming a lunatic here
-
Interesting that all nine justices agreed on the result, but they split on how to get there. The majority -- Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy and Sotomayor -- determined that placing a GPS device on a car for more than a month without a valid warrant constitued a search basically because it was a trespass to personal privacy in order to install it. The concurring opinion -- Kagan, Breyer, Ginsburg and Alito -- instead relied on Fourth Amendment law finding that a government investigation could be unconstitutional without a warrant because it violates a person's reasonable expectation of privacy under the Fourth Amendment. I thought Alito's concurring opinion was better reasoned and would have been easier for law enforcement to understand and comply with going forward.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-1259.pdf
"The distinctive mark of the Christian, today more than ever, must be love for the poor, the weak, the suffering." Pope John Paul II
-
As long as they get a warrant I am good with it.
Born a Nebraskan, raised a Nebraskan, will die a Nebraskan!! Go Big Red!
Men of Israel, consider carefully what you intend to do to these men. Some time ago Theudas appeared, claiming to be somebody, and about four hundred men rallied to him. He was killed, all his followers were dispersed, and it all came to nothing. After him, Judas the Galilean appeared in the days of the census and led a band of people in revolt. He too was killed, and all his followers were scattered. Therefore, in the present case I advise you: Leave these men alone! Let them go! For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail. But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God.” - Gamalie the Pharisee - Addressing the Sanhedrin regarding the new group called Christians
"I support collecting more in taxes from people with high incomes who choose to actually pay taxes at lower tax rates than use lawyers and accountants to avoid taxes at higher tax rates," he wrote. "Some tax revenues at low tax rates is a heckuva lot better than no tax revenues at high tax rates." - Art Laffer (on 999 plan)
-
Well....that settles that! 
-
Originally Posted by ChitownHusker
Interesting that all nine justices agreed on the result, but they split on how to get there. The majority -- Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy and Sotomayor -- determined that placing a GPS device on a car for more than a month without a valid warrant constitued a search basically because it was a trespass to personal privacy in order to install it. The concurring opinion -- Kagan, Breyer, Ginsburg and Alito -- instead relied on Fourth Amendment law finding that a government investigation could be unconstitutional without a warrant because it violates a person's reasonable expectation of privacy under the Fourth Amendment. I thought Alito's concurring opinion was better reasoned and would have been easier for law enforcement to understand and comply with going forward.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-1259.pdf
So what they are saying is you do not need a warrant for up to a month and then you have to get one?
"The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." Ayn Rand
-
Originally Posted by Red_in_Blue_Land
So what they are saying is you do not need a warrant for up to a month and then you have to get one?
No, that was what happened in the case that the justices are saying in constitutional. What they are unanimously saying is that if you want to attach a GPS tracker to someone's car, you need to have a warrant to do so.
"The distinctive mark of the Christian, today more than ever, must be love for the poor, the weak, the suffering." Pope John Paul II
-
-
Originally Posted by ChitownHusker
No, that was what happened in the case that the justices are saying in constitutional. What they are unanimously saying is that if you want to attach a GPS tracker to someone's car, you need to have a warrant to do so.
I did not read the decision, but I was making sure when I read this sentence in your post.
Originally Posted by ChitownHusker
Interesting that all nine justices agreed on the result, but they split on how to get there. The majority -- Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy and Sotomayor -- determined that placing a GPS device on a car for more than a month without a valid warrant constitued a search basically because it was a trespass to personal privacy in order to install it. The concurring opinion -- Kagan, Breyer, Ginsburg and Alito -- instead relied on Fourth Amendment law finding that a government investigation could be unconstitutional without a warrant because it violates a person's reasonable expectation of privacy under the Fourth Amendment. I thought Alito's concurring opinion was better reasoned and would have been easier for law enforcement to understand and comply with going forward.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-1259.pdf
"The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." Ayn Rand
-
Originally Posted by ChitownHusker
Interesting that all nine justices agreed on the result, but they split on how to get there. The majority -- Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy and Sotomayor -- determined that placing a GPS device on a car for more than a month without a valid warrant constitued a search basically because it was a trespass to personal privacy in order to install it. The concurring opinion -- Kagan, Breyer, Ginsburg and Alito -- instead relied on Fourth Amendment law finding that a government investigation could be unconstitutional without a warrant because it violates a person's reasonable expectation of privacy under the Fourth Amendment. I thought Alito's concurring opinion was better reasoned and would have been easier for law enforcement to understand and comply with going forward.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-1259.pdf
Pretty impressed with both sides and that Alito and his crew thought that right to privacy was the salient issue and that the majority was trying to limit it to a search and seizure issue... Pretty interesting that a lot of "conservatives" like to complain that "there is no right to privacy in the Bill of Rights"; and Libs think that Conservatives are worse than weak on it, that a perceived arch conservative Bush Stooge writes the concurring opinion (that dissents on the reason)...
Prediction... Alito will prevail in the long run...
Seems like all nine channeled Justice Potter Stewart... they can't really define what is wrong, but they know it when they see it...
Really pretty interesting that there are a bunch of 8-0 and 9-0 decisions on certain issues... More than I can recall... perhaps Roberts and some others are much better at forming consensus views than people thought.
|
|
Reply With Quote
