If I were to ask an FBI agent why obtaining a warrant first would have been onerous in this case (or similar ones), what would they say?
They did obtain a warrant. They just didn't follow the rules - installing it too late and in a different state.
Supreme Court rules 9-0 that warrant absolutely needed for police GPS tracking
91–100 of 122 posts
Re: Supreme Court rules 9-0 that warrant absolutely needed for police GPS tracking
#92Earlier 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.
attorneys on both sides, plus juries hearing this will do wonders..... judges dont rule alone necessarily (you have the right to trial by your peers, corect?) Appeals courts will follow the supreme court if a similar cae hits the judges desk - they are not goung to throw the same case at the supreme cort, bad mojo, it would just be rejected saying "we Alredy ruled on that". also.. while i am pretty sure the supremes…
while i am pretty sure the supremes are in office for life . . . are other judges as secure?
All judges in federal courts in the United States may stay in office essentially for life. The language in the Constitution is "The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour,"
http://www.house.gov/house/Constitution/Constitution.html
(Article III, Section 1)
and "during good behavior" means that unless the judges are formally impeached and convicted of malfeasance (which is very rare) they can stay in office until they decide to resign. This independence of the federal judiciary is considered very important by United States lawyers (whether they are "conservative" or "liberal") for maintaining the civil liberties of Americans. Today's decision is a good example of a decision that was made unanimously contrary to the position taken during litigation of the case by the current presidential administration.
Re: Supreme Court rules 9-0 that warrant absolutely needed for police GPS tracking
#93Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you could supply a few examples I would love to learn!
One of the most famous is US v. Carolene ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Carolene_Produ... ), but there are hundreds, maybe thousands of examples. Even when they don't contain actual law, footnotes often give insights into why a court decided an issue or interpreted a fact the way it did. These little hints can be invaluable in distinguishing later cases, or giving a later court a foothold to create s…
Minor correction: courts do not create laws. They merely interpret them, setting a precedent.
Re: Supreme Court rules 9-0 that warrant absolutely needed for police GPS tracking
#94[deleted]
Re: Supreme Court rules 9-0 that warrant absolutely needed for police GPS tracking
#95Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Until we have drones smart enough to focus on a specific car (vs. a mostly identical model right next to it), the drones will still require human operators, which makes the process not far removed from an old-fashioned tail (similar to the mentioned beeper case).
Re: Supreme Court rules 9-0 that warrant absolutely needed for police GPS tracking
#96The 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.
> But small price to pay to retain the freedom of 300 million people I guess.
It was merely a coke dealer. We're not talking a serial child rapist or mass murderer. My neighborhood is full of these guys and its unpleasant, but its just drugs. I think a dealer going free is a very, very, very small cost to pay. So small its not even worth worrying about. You could jail him today and 10 others would take his place. Drugs are funny that way. Demand doesn't really go down past a certain point.
Meanwhile people who cover up child rape are deified because the organization they are part of (large sports organization, organizaed religion) is too sacrosanct to challenge.
Re: Supreme Court rules 9-0 that warrant absolutely needed for police GPS tracking
#97The 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.
It is not really that sad, I would let 100 victim-less criminals go free to force enforcement agencies to obtain warrants before tracking people.
Re: Supreme Court rules 9-0 that warrant absolutely needed for police GPS tracking
#98Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
You're over thinking it. Red light cameras can already read the license plate of every car that goes through an intersection. The roving fleet of meter maids in DC drive cars that read the plates of every car they pass.
Re: Supreme Court rules 9-0 that warrant absolutely needed for police GPS tracking
#99Earlier 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?
I think all you need is a netwrok of surveillance cameras, which is already in place, to varying extents depending on where you live.
Then it's a software challenge to automatically read the licence plates in view and keep track of them in a database.
Re: Supreme Court rules 9-0 that warrant absolutely needed for police GPS tracking
#100Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or perhaps following the car with a drone.
Until we have drones smart enough to focus on a specific car (vs. a mostly identical model right next to it), the drones will still require human operators, which makes the process not far removed from an old-fashioned tail (similar to the mentioned beeper case).
Targets can be laser painted/marked by a drone or more usually a secondary source and followed by a drone on the specific signature. This is currently actively being done in several combat theatres.
It is highly likely to be already happening in the US, particularly along the borders and in federal investigations.