Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Supreme Court rules 9-0 that warrant absolutely needed for police GPS tracking

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 122 posts

Re: Supreme Court rules 9-0 that warrant absolutely needed for police GPS tracking

#81

Post by arh68 »

raldi wrote: post #48
dedward wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

more importNtly, if the supreme court asks them, what will they say. in this case peosecutors mad it clear they interpreted the law to meanthey could legally gps tag anyone, including then supremejustice's car without a warrant - one imagines this could not have helped their argument, though the supremes, unlike lower courts, are there to be the wisest of the judiciary and keep things on track, iltimately. glad they…

Right, but my question was more like: Clearly this was a major investigation. The FBI was involved, they followed this guy around for a month, they used expensive technology, they appealed all the way to the Supreme Court .. if they're going through all that trouble, would it have been that much more work to just get a warrant first? Is there a long waiting list for warrant hearings? Would the warrant have been unlik…

They just screwed up. They installed the device a day late and outside of DC.

From the last footnote in Alito's opinion, In this case, the agents obtained a warrant, but they did not comply with two of the warrant’s restrictions: They did not install the GPS device within the 10-day period required by the terms of the warrant and by Fed. Rule Crim. Proc. 41(e)(2)(B)(i), and they did not install the GPS device within the District of Columbia...

Re: Supreme Court rules 9-0 that warrant absolutely needed for police GPS tracking

#82

Post by kbutler »

ajkessler wrote: post #13
DanielBMarkham wrote: post #3

This is a victory -- if you can call a victory taking something back to where it was all along. Along those lines, I noted this in the article: In a footnote, Scalia added that, “Whatever new methods of investigation may be devised, our tsk, at a minimum, is to decide whether the action in question would have constituted a ‘search’ within the original meaning of the Fourth Amendment. Where, as here, the government ob…

Some of our most important caselaw is contained in footnotes.

It seems that footnotes would often be "dicta" - judicial comments not directly relating to the case at issue, and therefore not form binding precedent.

May be influential, but not binding.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obiter_dictum

Re: Supreme Court rules 9-0 that warrant absolutely needed for police GPS tracking

#83

Post by delinka »

kip_ wrote: post #76
bambax wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a victory, yes, but probably not huge. The majority opinion, written by Scalia, takes the narrowest of views: that placing a GPS device is a "search", and as such, subject to the limitations set out by the 4th Amendment. In a (concurring) opinion, Justice Sotomayor agrees with that narrow view, but she asks what will happen when the Government doesn't need to place an actual physical device in one's car in order…

Such as accessing the phone carrier's records on where a cell phone has been via its internal GPS?

Or perhaps following the car with a drone.

Re: Supreme Court rules 9-0 that warrant absolutely needed for police GPS tracking

#84

Post by iamdave »

CurtHagenlocher wrote: post #34
iamdave wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

a 9-0 vote by the supreme on this matter is a huge thing.... much more than simply a majority vote. it sends a loud and clear message about their stance on the matter. Tell that to lower/circuit courts who have an annoying habit of giving SCOTUS rulings a big fat middle finger.

That's a pretty broad statement. Got any examples?

A couple can be found here: http://www.askgallonlaw.com/labor/2010/03/lower-court-overru...

Re: Supreme Court rules 9-0 that warrant absolutely needed for police GPS tracking

#86

Post by cluda01 »

nextparadigms wrote: post #2

In the meantime Lamar Smith is pushing a bill so ISP's track and log everything you do online for 18 months, and then to give the data away without a warrant. http://gcn.com/articles/2011/08/05/protecting-children-bill-...

Where did the notion arise that because USA is a representative democracy, that they are somehow not subject to bureaucrats relentlessly trying to increase and concentrate their powers over their constituents?

Re: Supreme Court rules 9-0 that warrant absolutely needed for police GPS tracking

#87

Post by unreal37 »

kip_ wrote: post #76
bambax wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a victory, yes, but probably not huge. The majority opinion, written by Scalia, takes the narrowest of views: that placing a GPS device is a "search", and as such, subject to the limitations set out by the 4th Amendment. In a (concurring) opinion, Justice Sotomayor agrees with that narrow view, but she asks what will happen when the Government doesn't need to place an actual physical device in one's car in order…

Such as accessing the phone carrier's records on where a cell phone has been via its internal GPS?

The Supreme Court decision actually mentions that the government may "ask" car makers to just give them access to the car's own GPS device. Scary that the Supreme Court even suspects this will happen.

Re: Supreme Court rules 9-0 that warrant absolutely needed for police GPS tracking

#88

Post by tokenadult »

andrewpi wrote: post #40
iamdave wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

a 9-0 vote by the supreme on this matter is a huge thing.... much more than simply a majority vote. it sends a loud and clear message about their stance on the matter. Tell that to lower/circuit courts who have an annoying habit of giving SCOTUS rulings a big fat middle finger.

I can think of one recent example: District of Columbia v. Heller & McDonald v. Chicago. Lower courts have been generally unwilling to embrace 2nd amendment rights in light of those two decisions.

Lower courts have been generally unwilling to embrace 2nd amendment rights in light of those two decisions.

[citation needed] And, yes, I am a lawyer, and I am interested in what actual cases you had in mind as you made the statement in your comment.

Re: Supreme Court rules 9-0 that warrant absolutely needed for police GPS tracking

#89

Post by benwerd »

Great judgment. But if I was an overly cynical person, here's where I could see this going:

Data gathered by voluntarily-placed GPS units aren't covered by the ruling. If they want the data, the onus is then on cities to create incentives to place GPS units voluntarily.

Initiatives are started to link road tax to miles driven in any given county - which requires GPS to check.

Cars suddenly begin to have built-in GPS transmission not just for OnStar, but for other applications, like Facebook.

The car becomes a platform, and suddenly laws are enacted that effectively require private citizens to report data to law enforcement.

Law enforcement gets to track _all_ drivers without a warrant.

(Not that I'm arguing for a different ruling - this is great - but I don't trust the government not to take surveillance to its maximum possible level given current technology.)

Re: Supreme Court rules 9-0 that warrant absolutely needed for police GPS tracking

#90

Post by unreal37 »

The irony is that the govt HAD a search warrant in this case, they were 1 day late in installing the device - the search warrant expired after 10 days, and they installed it on the 11th day.

What's somewhat sad is that a drug dealer, who was caught with 97 kilos of cocaine, 1 kilo of cocaine base, and $800,000 cash, gets to go free. But small price to pay to retain the freedom of 300 million people I guess.

Post reply on HN