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

31–40 of 122 posts

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

#31

Post by ajkessler »

iandanforth wrote: post #23
ajkessler wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some of our most important caselaw is contained in footnotes.

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 some new law.

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

#32

Post by SoftwareMaven »

"""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."""

So sad to think all those investigations will now have to have proper court oversight (not that I imagine that is too hard to get).

Anybody know how this could effect other, already completed, cases? Could I ask for a retrial/appeal if my conviction was heavily based on this type of evidence?

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

#33

Post by CurtHagenlocher »

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…

The desire of the executive branch to maintain and increase the power of the executive branch is cross-party. That's part of the whole theory of separation-of-powers; the judiciary and the legislature act as a check on executive power.

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

#34

Post by CurtHagenlocher »

iamdave wrote: post #26
dedward wrote: post #22

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. 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,…

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?

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

#35

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

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

#36

Post by thucydides »

The headline for this link is incorrect: the Court did NOT rule that a warrant is necessary for police tracking.

So what was the government trying to do? They really wanted the Supreme Court to rule that installing this GPS receiver was not even a SEARCH within the meaning of the 4th Amendment. The Court said no, this is a search. In the future, they will subject similar GPS installations to 4th Amendment scrutiny.

But on the warrant issue, Scalia explicitly wrote the Court will not answer the question of whether the government needed a warrant on page 12 of the opinion. Why? "The Government did not raise [this argument] below, and the D. C. Circuit therefore did not address it... We consider the argument forfeited."

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

#37

Post by dedward »

raldi wrote: post #17

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?

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 did.

police need tools to do their jobs, ive lived in lands with police forces that aredysfunctional. they need limits too, it just may turn out that the supreme court decision here changes a. lot of things indirectly, rebalancing things a bit.

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

#38

Post by jessriedel »

Anyone know how this is squared with US v. Knotts? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Knotts

>United States v. Knotts, 460 U.S. 276 was a 1983 United States Supreme Court case regarding the use of electronic surveillance devices. The device in question is described as a beeper and can only be tracked from a short distance. The court unanimously held that the use of such devices did not invade a legitimate expectation of privacy, and was therefore allowed, without a warrant, under the Fourth Amendment.

Is it just a distance thing? Or length of time of the surveillance?

Here's the full opinion:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&#3...

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

#39

Post by tzs »

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-...

That article is massively wrong, as you would see if you spent (literally) two minutes looking at the bill.

Here's an earlier description of what the bill ACTUALLY does: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3497599

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

#40

Post by andrewpi »

iamdave wrote: post #26
dedward wrote: post #22

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. 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,…

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.
Post reply on HN