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

101–110 of 122 posts

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

#101

Post by cwp »

IgorPartola wrote: post #93
ajkessler wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Setting a precedent is, in fact, the creation of new law. This is the basis of the Common Law system that the United States and other former English colonies use. See, for example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law

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

#102

Post by pash »

More interesting than the decision—in which Scalia so narrows the scope of the case (to whether attaching a device to a car constitutes a search) that it's pretty boring—are last November's oral arguments.[1a, 1b]

In the oral arguments, there's considerable discussion about whether pervasive GPS or other technologically enabled surveillance in itself is constitutionally permitted. The discussion on this point makes for interesting listening/reading because everyone agrees that the police are permitted persistently to monitor someone over any indefinitely long period (in public, where there is no search) without a warrant. Would equivalent surveillance carried out not by human police officers but rather by technology be allowed? Even though the relevant technologies will soon be so cheap that the authorities would be able to monitor anyone (or everyone) in the country?

Another interesting point brought up in the oral arguments is that the government owns your license plate, so placing a monitoring device on that, rather than the car itself, would not constitute a trespass and so may not constitute a search. Nothing in this decision refutes that logic, so the police may still be able to track you by GPS without a warrant so long as they put the transmitter on your license plate.

1a. Transcript: Oral Argument - Supreme Court [PDF]

1b. Audio: http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/302576-1 [Flash]

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

#103

Post by iamdave »

tokenadult wrote: post #88
andrewpi wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

He gave you one in his post: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._Chicago

which points to related cases. Hope this helps!

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

#104

Post by bartl »

bambax wrote: post #61
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…

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…

In my own opinion (IANAL), the "tracking is a "search"" view does not imply that there needs to be a physical device. So tracking a vehicle (using technology) in any other way is also a "search".

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

#105

Post by wtn »

iamdave wrote: post #103
tokenadult wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

He gave you one in his post: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._Chicago which points to related cases. Hope this helps!

He was asking for examples where lower courts ignored McDonald v. Chicago.

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

#106

Post by digikata »

burgerbrain wrote: post #63
digikata wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The linked article says Rand Paul set off an alert on a full body scan, then refused to be searched. That sounds more like his "protest" is trying to cover up something he didn't realize was carrying after the fact - otherwise why was he not protesting the body scan in the first place.

Rand Paul has on numerous occasions spoken out against the TSA's use of pat downs...

I see no difference in principle between a search using someone's hands and search using X-rays. If one objects to rights violation during a pat-down, why doesn't the same objection apply to backscatter?

A backscatter machine in some ways is even more intrusive than a pat down as it can generate higher resolution images, which can be saved. Furthermore, there is a small, but non-zero risk of bodily harm from the scan -particularly when you multiply the risk by the number of trips and passengers going through the procedure, even a one in a million chance would cause harm far in excess of the risk of terrorist threat that the search is trying to mitigate.

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

#107

Post by IgorPartola »

cwp wrote: post #101
IgorPartola wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Minor correction: courts do not create laws. They merely interpret them, setting a precedent.

Setting a precedent is, in fact, the creation of new law. This is the basis of the Common Law system that the United States and other former English colonies use. See, for example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law

:). Thanks for the link, it was very educational. However, it actually doesn't seem to apply in this case: "United States federal courts only act as interpreters of statutes and the constitution by elaborating and precisely defining the broad language (connotation 1(b) above), but, unlike state courts, do not act as an independent source of common law (connotation 1(a) above)." [1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law#United_States_federa...

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

#108

Post by nknight »

freehunter wrote: post #30
padobson wrote: post #11

What sort of twisty-turvy world have we found ourselves in? A right-leaning Supreme court upholds tennants of the 4th Amendment - the go-to civil liberties ammendment - at the same time a Democratic administration seeks to weaken said ammendment. When Democrats are attacking our civil liberties and Republicans (looking at you, Lamar Smith) are removing our economic freedoms, it's time to take the crackpots seriously…

What sort of twisty-turvy world have we found ourselves in? One where the majority of people refuse to see politicians as politicians. There is no Democrat vs Republican.

As a non-politician with no connection to politics other than as a voter, I have consistently encountered material differences in my rights and standard of living depending on which party was in power.

Your "politicians are all the same" meme might be popular with people who are too lazy to learn about the world, but it rings hollow to anyone not living in willful ignorance.

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

#109

Post by iamdave »

wtn wrote: post #105
iamdave wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He gave you one in his post: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._Chicago which points to related cases. Hope this helps!

He was asking for examples where lower courts ignored McDonald v. Chicago.

In Ezell v. Chicago, decided July 6, 2011, the Seventh Circuit reversed a district court decision that the post-McDonald measures adopted by the City of Chicago were constitutional.

It's in the wiki entry. Under related cases. As I previously stated.

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

#110

Post by cema »

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…

  if you can call a victory taking something back 
  to where it was all along
Yes, I would say you can. Democracy requires constant vigilance by the public (in contrast with the despotism where only the despots and their political machinery need to be vigilant).
Post reply on HN