Get HuskerMax™ on your iPhone. Click here for details. Get tickets for all home and away games here.
Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Supreme Court rules that using GPS violates privacy

  1. #1
    Habitual Line Crosser
    Husker Poyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lincoln, NE
    Posts
    14,961

    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



    Quote Originally Posted by CornfieldCounty View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonuvahusker View Post
    I'm reaching the point of becoming a lunatic here


  2. #2
    Moderator
    ChitownHusker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Allen, Texas
    Posts
    29,892
    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


  3. #3
    The Tech Support Guy
    Huskermedic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, United States
    Posts
    22,002
    As long as they get a warrant I am good with it.

  4. #4
    God of Huskermax

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Overland Park, KS
    Posts
    58,799
    Well....that settles that!

  5. #5
    Oh my!
    Red_in_Blue_Land's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    West Bloomfield, MI
    Posts
    13,970
    Quote Originally Posted by ChitownHusker View Post
    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

    "Hillary has been cheated on more than a blind woman playing Scrabble. With gypsies." Dennis Miller

    1 - 20 - 17
    "Change is Coming"

  6. #6
    Moderator
    ChitownHusker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Allen, Texas
    Posts
    29,892
    Quote Originally Posted by Red_in_Blue_Land View Post
    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


  7. #7
    All American

    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    na
    Posts
    20,198
    Great news!

  8. #8
    Oh my!
    Red_in_Blue_Land's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    West Bloomfield, MI
    Posts
    13,970
    Quote Originally Posted by ChitownHusker View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by ChitownHusker View Post
    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

    "Hillary has been cheated on more than a blind woman playing Scrabble. With gypsies." Dennis Miller

    1 - 20 - 17
    "Change is Coming"

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by ChitownHusker View Post
    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.







Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •