21–30 of 122 posts
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.
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…
take the win for what its worth, it is huge. ( i had to double check i wasnt linking to the onion when i woke up and saw theheadline.... good job neighbours ! beproud that your supreme mcourt just did what it is supposed to do, andthey did it loud and clear.
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.
I'm curious what the next step is going to be, maybe try to use "onstar" gps data without a warrant, because the way this is worded, it maybe seems the action of placing the tracking device that is the violation, not using an existing one, and they can still do it for "segments" (ie. tracking you for just one leg of a journey and removing it afterwards is legal without a warrant?) Next we have to fight for our bodies…
The government told the justices during oral arguments that that GPS devices have become a common tool in crime fighting, saying it is employed “thousands” of times annually. Wow. So I guess that number is supposed to shrink to zero now? That transition could prove to be very interesting...
all they need to do is get a warrant. they actually had a 10 day warrant in the case in question. they just tracked the guy for 11 days and wanted to use the evidence.
From the first paragraph of the decision: "The warrant authorized installation in the District of Columbia and within 10 days, but agents installed the device on the 11th day and in Maryland. The Government then tracked the vehicle’s movements for 28 days."
And from the footnote on page 2: "1 In this litigation, the Government has conceded noncompliance with the warrant and has argued only that a warrant was not required"
So they got a warrant but messed up and failed to comply with its terms, and to try to preserve the conviction they argued that they didn't have to comply with the warrant.
Edit: Rereading it, andylei's main point is that police just need to get warrants and in order to still be able to use GPS tracking, and that's correct. Apologies for the nitpicking.
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…
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. judges and prosecutors will take this, and all the details into consideration moving forward..... i would imagine the judiciary does not like to pass judgement that will beoverturned by thesupreme court as a matter of professional pride in many cases,…
Tell that to lower/circuit courts who have an annoying habit of giving SCOTUS rulings a big fat middle finger.
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-...
Warrantless everything. It's the future of America. Why they feel the need to do an end-run around judicial overview I have no idea, because you rarely see a judge ever say "no" to law enforcement.
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-...
Warrantless everything. It's the future of America. Why they feel the need to do an end-run around judicial overview I have no idea, because you rarely see a judge ever say "no" to law enforcement.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Warrantless everything. It's the future of America. Why they feel the need to do an end-run around judicial overview I have no idea, because you rarely see a judge ever say "no" to law enforcement.
I think you know the answer: if judges will approve it 95%, law enforcement becomes convinced that the process of obtaining approval is superfluous, and is nothing but a barrier to getting their job done. The problem is, that is a violation of the persons rights. S ome publications report that anywhere from 5-10% of WARRANTED searches were invalid. So imagine if you dropped that prerequisite, what that number would e…
I don't have a problem with giving law enforcement more work to do if it means increased diligence in the court room and due process actually being executed...duly.
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…
One where the majority of people refuse to see politicians as politicians. There is no Democrat vs Republican.