Ace of Spades HQ

January 23, 2012

Supreme Court Unanimously Shoots Down GPS Jackbootery
— rdbrewer

But the rationale is still in dispute. The justices were divided 5-4 on why the warrantless use of a GPS tracking device on a vehicle violates the Fourth Amendment.

But the justices divided 5-to-4 on the rationale for the decision, with the majority saying that the problem was the placement of the device on private property. That ruling avoided many difficult questions, including how to treat information gathered from devices installed by the manufacturer and how to treat information held by third parties like cellphone companies.
. . .
The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit overturned his conviction, saying the sheer amount of information that had been collected violated the Fourth Amendment, which bars unreasonable searches.
The Supreme Court affirmed that decision, but on a different ground. Â“We hold that the governmentÂ’s installation of a G.P.S. device on a targetÂ’s vehicle, and its use of that device to monitor the vehicleÂ’s movements, constitutes a Â‘search,Â’ Â” Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the majority.
. . .
In a concurrence for four justices, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. faulted the majority for trying to apply 18th-century legal concepts to 21st-century technologies. What should matter, he said, is the contemporary reasonable expectation of privacy.

So the decision is narrow, and it leaves open many questions. But, for now, it's still a nice swat from a rolled-up Constitution. More from The Volokh Conspiracy.

E plebnista, bitches! Follow me on Twitter.

Posted by: rdbrewer at 10:13 AM | Comments (117)
Post contains 257 words, total size 2 kb.

1 Bad police Bad, no go to the corner

Posted by: Fire with Fire at January 23, 2012 09:38 AM (lcwvr)

2 Barack Obama is a stuttering clusterf*ck of a miserable tyrant.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Team Meteor. Now with Cheesecake at January 23, 2012 09:38 AM (8y9MW)

3 Progressive Auto Insurance/DNC money laundering machine hardest hit.

Posted by: whatever at January 23, 2012 09:39 AM (O7ksG)

Seems to me if you have the knowledge to do this then you can justify a warrant.

Posted by: Have Blue at January 23, 2012 09:39 AM (IKTC8)

5 E plebnista!

Posted by: rdbrewer at January 23, 2012 09:40 AM (ybTot)

6 What is appalling is that 4 justices said it was just dandy with them.

Posted by: Sean Bannion at January 23, 2012 09:40 AM (sbV1u)

7 Seems to me if you have the knowledge to do this then you can justify a warrant.

My thought, too.

Seriously, what is it about the cops that they no longer want to get warrants? If you know enough about someone to suspect they'll lead you, via GPS, to their secret hide-out (or whatever) don't you have at least enough probably cause for a warrant?

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Team Meteor. Now with Cheesecake at January 23, 2012 09:41 AM (8y9MW)

8 If the Police today invented a new technique called "following a suspect around secretly and watching what they do" would the "civil libertarians" be against it?

Posted by: Have Blue at January 23, 2012 09:41 AM (IKTC8)

9 What is appalling is that 4 justices said it was just dandy with them. Posted by: Sean Bannion at January 23, 2012 01:40 PM

It was unanimously shot down. It's just the rationale that is disputed.

Posted by: rdbrewer at January 23, 2012 09:42 AM (ybTot)

10 Just think if Obama gets 4 more years to nominate supreme court justices.

Posted by: whatever at January 23, 2012 09:43 AM (O7ksG)

Barack Husein Obama is a stuttering clusterf*ck of a miserable tyrant.

I denounce myself.

Posted by: Alte Schule at January 23, 2012 09:43 AM (MLJu8)

12 Seriously, what is it about the cops that they no longer want to get warrants? If you know enough about someone to suspect they'll lead you, via GPS, to their secret hide-out (or whatever) don't you have at least enough probably cause for a warrant?

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Team Meteor. Now with Cheesecake at January 23, 2012 01:41 PM (8y9MW)

Maybe getting a warrant to track down that guy who's probably sleeping with your wife isn't such a dandy process...

Posted by: Yoshi, Aggrieved Victim of the White Man at January 23, 2012 09:43 AM (E7NVC)

13 AllenG - It's more that they don't want to do the shoe leather work of tailing suspects. The argument is that this is no different than having a couple of detectives follow a suspect. And they have a small point, but this is so easy and cheap that it can be done on a whim. Detailing a couple of guys to do a tail/stakeout is expensive and uses up resources so you have to be very selective about when you use it.

Posted by: Have Blue at January 23, 2012 09:44 AM (IKTC8)

What is appalling is that 4 justices said it was just dandy with them.

No, they didn't. It's a 9-0 decision saying it's unconstitutional, it's a 5-4 split on the reasons why. That's actually interesting because it brings up all kinds of issues as to what's the holding and what's precedent and what's dicta.

Posted by: alexthechick Team Meteor - sprinkle cupcakes, cookies, cheesecake, ELE what's not to love at January 23, 2012 09:45 AM (VtjlW)

15 Yoshi - If you are going after the guy sleeping with your wife you don't need the Supreme courts permission. You can get the equipment at dozens of outlets.

Posted by: Have Blue at January 23, 2012 09:46 AM (IKTC8)

As the country trends increasingly and increasingly toward becoming a full-out police state, I do really hope conservative republicans realize that deferance to (unjust) authority and celebration of the police will not serve the interests of liberty.

But not a lot of hope.

Posted by: Entropy, Racism Delenda Est at January 23, 2012 09:46 AM (mf67L)

17 We the pee pull!

Posted by: Kirk at January 23, 2012 09:46 AM (ybTot)

18 If you are going after the guy sleeping with your wife you don't need the Supreme courts permission. You can get the equipment at dozens of outlets. Posted by: Have Blue at January 23, 2012 01:46 PM (IKTC

Someone is sleeping with my wife?

Posted by: nevergiveup at January 23, 2012 09:47 AM (i6RpT)

19 Progressive Auto Insurance/DNC money laundering machine hardest hit.

Do I look like a governmental entity?

Posted by: Flo at January 23, 2012 09:47 AM (QKKT0)

20 It's a somewhat interesting question inasmuch as tailing a suspect does not constitute a search and the GPS can only give as much information as a tail could give.

Suppose the police had access to satellites that could track a car. Would that be a search?

Posted by: AmishDude at January 23, 2012 09:48 AM (T0NGe)

21 Someone is sleeping with my wife?

Posted by: nevergiveup at January 23, 2012 01:47 PM (i6RpT)

No, why would you think just becuase we all have a key to your house?

Posted by: The Robot Devil at January 23, 2012 09:48 AM (136wp)

It was unanimously shot down. It's just the rationale that is disputed.
Posted by: rdbrewer

Ah, I got that on the second read. Thanks though.

I had commentus interruptus.

They tell me it gets better with time.

Posted by: Sean Bannion at January 23, 2012 09:48 AM (sbV1u)

23 Someone is sleeping with my wife?

I hope it's not me! hehehehehe

Posted by: Sleeping with co-worker at January 23, 2012 09:48 AM (F6KtL)

Unless that's some really fancy GPS that identifies the driver and all passengers, how does knowing where the vehicle has been prove anything? Are they going to arrest the vehicle? Is it a known Tea Party member?

Posted by: curious (adjective, not the cat piss enthusiast) at January 23, 2012 09:49 AM (ggRof)

25 Someone is sleeping with my wife?

Posted by: nevergiveup at January 23, 2012 01:47 PM (i6RpT)

Hopefully you nevergiveup.

Posted by: Have Blue at January 23, 2012 09:50 AM (IKTC8)

26 15 Yoshi - If you are going after the guy sleeping with your wife you don't need the Supreme courts permission. You can get the equipment at dozens of outlets.

Posted by: Have Blue at January 23, 2012 01:46 PM (IKTC

True, but there are distinct advantages to using the state apparatus.

Suppose the police had access to satellites that could track a car. Would that be a search?

Posted by: AmishDude at January 23, 2012 01:48 PM (T0NGe)

I'd say so. Especially when their camera resolution is such that they can see inside your car.

Posted by: Yoshi, Aggrieved Victim of the White Man at January 23, 2012 09:51 AM (E7NVC)

27 I'm not saying I don't like the outcome, I love it, but I think that the fact that the justices can't agree on the rationale bodes ill for this decision.

Posted by: AmishDude at January 23, 2012 09:51 AM (T0NGe)

28 If the Police today invented a new technique called "following a suspect around secretly and watching what they do" would the "civil libertarians" be against it?

Just randomly? Yes.

The huge difference here is in "size and scope." Right now if the cops wanted to follow everyone in my suburb with a couple of guys each, they'd need more cops than there are citizens.

To do the same thing with GPS units can be done with about 100 cops. And that's for a fair amount of hands-on monitoring, not just compiled reports.

I do not trust the government at any level. They are supposed to be my employees and servants, not the other way around. I am opposed to anything that makes it easier for them to reverse that dynamic.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Team Meteor. Now with Cheesecake at January 23, 2012 09:51 AM (8y9MW)

29 They tell me it gets better with time.

They probably also told you Saturday Night Live was funny...

Posted by: DarkLord©, Rogue Commenter at January 23, 2012 09:51 AM (GBXon)

30 Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. ...What should matter, he said, is the contemporary reasonable expectation of privacy.

So is he saying that the expectation is of privacy does exist and that is where it went off the tracks? If so God Bless this man.

Posted by: dogfish at January 23, 2012 09:51 AM (NuPNl)

31 Amishdude - The problem I see is that a physical tail represents a decision to delegate scarce resources. Throwing one of a thousand GPS units on a guys car on a whim means that the cops can harass anyone they want for little reason.

Posted by: Have Blue at January 23, 2012 09:53 AM (IKTC8)

32 Unless that's some really fancy GPS that identifies the driver and all passengers, how does knowing where the vehicle has been prove anything?

If they're building up a profile over several days or weeks, they can be relatively certain that the owner of the car is the one who uses it the most. That is, if it stops at any given place once, that's not enough (at least, not without additional corroboration). On the other hand, if every day for two weeks, the car stops twice daily at some location, you can be pretty sure the owner of the car is the one in it.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Team Meteor. Now with Cheesecake at January 23, 2012 09:53 AM (8y9MW)

33 31 Amishdude - The problem I see is that a physical tail represents a decision to delegate scarce resources. Throwing one of a thousand GPS units on a guys car on a whim means that the cops can harass anyone they want for little reason.

Posted by: Have Blue at January 23, 2012 01:53 PM (IKTC

True. But...how is there a Constitutional distinction between the two?

Posted by: AmishDude at January 23, 2012 09:55 AM (T0NGe)

34 What should matter, he said, is the contemporary reasonable expectation of privacy.

So, if thinking law enforcement can't trespass on your private property without a warrant isn't reasonable, what's his reasonable expectation of privacy then?

Posted by: booger at January 23, 2012 09:55 AM (EjNp5)

35 I'm holding out until we can chip all you wingnuts.

Posted by: Ruth Bader Ginsburg at January 23, 2012 09:55 AM (NuPNl)

36 I'm not saying I don't like the outcome, I love it, but I think that the fact that the justices can't agree on the rationale bodes ill for this decision. Posted by: AmishDude at January 23, 2012 01:5

I disagree. I think it's a prudent first step.

Posted by: rdbrewer at January 23, 2012 09:55 AM (ybTot)

37 In this case, the police did get a warrant, but it expired. They didn't get the GPS device on in time, and then couldn't be bothered with getting a new warrant. Competant police work would have prevented this smack-down.

Posted by: SH at January 23, 2012 09:55 AM (gmeXX)

38 "Reasonable expectation of privacy...."

WTF is that? Wording that is completely malleable to mean whatever the gov't wants it to mean. And that ain't good.

Posted by: Lady in Black.....{sigh} at January 23, 2012 09:56 AM (F+Xfj)

39 WTF is that? Wording that is completely malleable to mean whatever the gov't wants it to mean. And that ain't good.

Posted by: Lady in Black.....{sigh} at January 23, 2012 01:56 PM (F+Xfj)

There's a lot of that in the Constitution.

But driving a (presumably) licensed and registered car on public streets doesn't exactly fall into "privacy".

Posted by: AmishDude at January 23, 2012 09:58 AM (T0NGe)

40 Haha, you are all idiots. The feds can track you ANYWHERE through simple triangulation of cellphone antennas and anywhere in a city through security camera grids. There is no privacy. If any government agency wants to know where you were every day, every minute and every second of the past 5 years - they will.

Posted by: Juicer at January 23, 2012 09:58 AM (84c8s)

41 The Supreme Court, as usual, makes everything as clear as mud. I'm starting to think they do it on purpose so that a bunch of lawyer hacks will get work on t.v. to try and explain the ruling. Then again, maybe my paranoid side is just reasserting itself.

Posted by: Some guy you don't know in wisconsin at January 23, 2012 09:59 AM (UqwrW)

Taken to the extreme, this would give police the power to secretly GPS all of us. Then to solve crimes, they could just look up who was around the scene that day. I don't think I need to be a suspect for no other reason than where I drove, and if I am a suspect, it won't be because I gave the police a tip on myself.

Good call from all 9.

Posted by: spongeworthy at January 23, 2012 10:00 AM (puy4B)

43 My expectations are just that, mine. Tossing in that squish word reasonable is screwed up. That's similar to Opie telling us when the amount of money we've make is reasonably enough.

Posted by: dogfish at January 23, 2012 10:00 AM (NuPNl)

44 Can't we just avert our eyes from Uncle Crazy now? He going nowhere.

Posted by: toby928© Perrykrishna at January 23, 2012 10:00 AM (GTbGH)

45 Crap, wrong thread.

Posted by: toby928© Perrykrishna at January 23, 2012 10:02 AM (GTbGH)

46 I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences, who has been GPS chipped, would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life.

Posted by: Sonia Sotomayor at January 23, 2012 10:02 AM (F6KtL)

47 I am sick and tired of seeing the Supreme Court abuse the Reasonable Expectation of Privacy Clause to apply to situations it clearly was never meant to address.

Posted by: The Chap in the Deerstalker Cap at January 23, 2012 10:02 AM (qndXR)

48 There is no privacy. If any government agency wants to know where you were every day, every minute and every second of the past 5 years - they will. Posted by: Juicer

If that's true they are going to be awfully bored by my life.

Posted by: mpfs, back in my cubicle from hell at January 23, 2012 10:05 AM (iYbLN)

49 41 The Supreme Court, as usual, makes everything as clear as mud. I'm starting to think they do it on purpose so that a bunch of lawyer hacks will get work on t.v. to try and explain the ruling. Then again, maybe my paranoid side is just reasserting itself.

Posted by: Some guy you don't know in wisconsin at January 23, 2012 01:59 PM (UqwrW)

Everything a lawyer does is done explicitly to enrich lawyers.

Posted by: AmishDude at January 23, 2012 10:06 AM (T0NGe)

50 45 Crap, wrong thread.
Posted by: toby928Â© Perrykrishna

Please flush, put down the seat and be sure to wash your hands (lavarse las manos) before exiting the thread.

Thank you.

Posted by: mpfs, back in my cubicle from hell at January 23, 2012 10:07 AM (iYbLN)

51 Meggy Mac says "Cars are not people!"

Posted by: Jack Burton Mercer at January 23, 2012 10:16 AM (zEHWj)

52 Take the tracking device...my excessive makeup commands you...

Posted by: Flo the Progressive Spokesslut at January 23, 2012 10:17 AM (RD7QR)

53 I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences, who has been GPS chipped, would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life.

I'd wager that Roberts has never made a tamale in his life.

Posted by: al-Cicero, Tea Party Jihadist at January 23, 2012 10:20 AM (QKKT0)

54 What should matter, he said, is the contemporary reasonable expectation of privacy.

No, Justice Alito, what should matter is the Constitution. Look through it in its entirety, and you will never find the word "privacy," let alone the phrase "reasonable expectation of privacy." This is because the founders understood how malleable those ideas are.

Instead, they specifically said: {{clears throat}} "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Well, where I go is directly attributable to my "person." Therefore, the government doesn't get to know everywhere I go and when unless a Warrant has issued "upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation," which "particularly describ[es]" me, my vehicle they want to follow, and the locations they're looking for me to visit.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Team Meteor. Now with Cheesecake at January 23, 2012 10:20 AM (8y9MW)

55 Posted by: Juicer at January 23, 2012 01:58 PM (84c8s)

Was your old partner Jack Bauer?

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJconservative) at January 23, 2012 10:22 AM (nEUpB)

56 If that's true they are going to be awfully bored by my life.

Posted by: mpfs, back in my cubicle from hell at January 23, 2012 02:05 PM (iYbLN)

Mine too, but I'm checking underneath my sheets just to be sure no cameras or mics are there.

Posted by: Soona at January 23, 2012 10:23 AM (cqLNL)

57 Good for Scalia to stay true to the meaning of the 4th and not to adopt some crazy shadow constitution to cover the situation. I thought that placign the GPS on the jeep was actually a seizure, but whatever.

Posted by: joeindc44 - tebow's new lifting coach at January 23, 2012 10:24 AM (QxSug)

58 Progressive Auto Insurance/DNC money laundering machine hardest hit.

Progressive convinces you to volunteer to have your car tracked. Supreme Court can't do anything about that.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Team Meteor. Now with Cheesecake at January 23, 2012 10:24 AM (8y9MW)

59 Allen G, what if you're on public property or if your data is being held by a 3d party? In those cases, the idea of a reasonable expectation of privacy is the only way to extend the umbrella, don't you think?

Posted by: rdbrewer at January 23, 2012 10:24 AM (ybTot)

60 I thought that placign the GPS on the jeep was actually a seizure, but whatever.

Na. They didn't "seize" anything. "Search" is much closer.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Team Meteor. Now with Cheesecake at January 23, 2012 10:25 AM (8y9MW)

61 53 I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences, who has been GPS chipped, would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life.

I'd wager that Roberts has never made a tamale in his life.
Posted by: al-Cicero, Tea Party Jihadist

Well there ya go, Roberts is obviously a racist, bigoted, homophobe who can't be trusted to interpret the Constitution. Only a person who has lived the experience of tamale making or other ethnic food could possible understand.

Posted by: mpfs, back in my cubicle from hell at January 23, 2012 10:25 AM (iYbLN)

62 There is no privacy. If any government agency wants to know where you were every day, every minute and every second of the past 5 years - they will. Posted by: Juicer
......
Yeah.. but most of us "idiots" know they have to get a warrant to obtain that info from the cell provider.

Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at January 23, 2012 10:28 AM (f9c2L)

63 Well there ya go, Roberts is obviously a racist, bigoted, homophobe who can't be trusted to interpret the Constitution. Only a person who has lived the experience of tamale making or other ethnic food could possible understand.

Well, the Constitution was written by white guys who obviously never made a tamale in their life before.

Posted by: Sonia Sotomayor at January 23, 2012 10:29 AM (F6KtL)

64 Well, the Constitution was written by white guys who obviously never made a tamale in their life before.

I made a hot tamale or two in my time, IYKWIMAITTYD.

Posted by: Thomas Jefferson at January 23, 2012 10:30 AM (QKKT0)

65 Hell, when the gov. did my security check for my military clearance, they pretty much found out everything about me anyway. Plus, with computerized "everything" they have a running record of the rest of my life. I'd be silly to think they don't.

Posted by: Soona at January 23, 2012 10:30 AM (cqLNL)

66 White House sides with TSA in Rand Paul standoff They really are idiots at the White House. Most sane people know it's best not to get in a fight with a rabid dog and his son

Posted by: nevergiveup at January 23, 2012 10:31 AM (i6RpT)

67 Well, where I go is directly attributable to my "person." Therefore, the government doesn't get to know everywhere I go and when unless a Warrant has issued "upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation," which "particularly describ[es]" me, my vehicle they want to follow, and the locations they're looking for me to visit.
Posted by: AllenG
........
So, you've just argued that police cannot tail a suspect without a warrant. Ever.

Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at January 23, 2012 10:31 AM (f9c2L)

68 IMO, the seizure was the act of putting the thing in the jeep. they took posession of the jeep at that time. But from the opinion, it seems that my understanding is wrong, any manipulation of the object, even to perform a search, is a search whereas a seizure must be a confiscation event.

Posted by: joeindc44 - tebow's new lifting coach at January 23, 2012 10:32 AM (QxSug)

69 I made a hot tamale or two in my time, IYKWIMAITTYD.
Posted by: Thomas Jefferson

Um, who you callin' hot tamale there, whitey?

Posted by: Sally Jennings at January 23, 2012 10:34 AM (F6KtL)

70 So, you've just argued that police cannot tail a suspect without a warrant. Ever.

Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at January 23, 2012 02:31 PM (f9c2L)

Private dicks can.

Posted by: Soona at January 23, 2012 10:34 AM (cqLNL)

71 OT: Okay, there is creepy and then there is the...wait for it... The Occubears of Portland. I. Shit. You. Not.

http://tinyurl.com/87njqej

h/t Weasel Zippers

Posted by: mpfs, back in my cubicle from hell at January 23, 2012 10:35 AM (iYbLN)

72 Yeah.. but most of us "idiots" know they have to get a warrant to obtain that info from the cell provider. Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at January 23, 2012 02:28 PM (f9c2L) Not according to ECPA and the Patriot Act. I can assure you there are plenty of traces which were not warranted by a court. Don't be a naive fool.

Posted by: Juicer at January 23, 2012 10:36 AM (84c8s)

73 A powerful solar eruption is expected to blast a stream of charged particles toward Earth tomorrow (Jan. 24), as the strongest radiation storm since 2005 rages on the sun. ???Wasn't that the story line from the movie 2012? And isn't it 2012? Just saying

Posted by: nevergiveup at January 23, 2012 10:37 AM (i6RpT)

74 71 OT: Okay, there is creepy and then there is the...wait for it... The Occubears of Portland. I. Shit. You. Not.

http://tinyurl.com/87njqej

h/t Weasel Zippers

Posted by: mpfs, back in my cubicle from hell at January 23, 2012 02:35 PM (iYbLN)

They just want to be friends to all the little boys and girls. And eat their souls. What's the big deal?

Posted by: joncelli, too stressed by half at January 23, 2012 10:37 AM (RD7QR)

75 trying to apply 18th-century legal concepts to 21st-century technologies.

Umm. Until their are 21st century amendments to the Constitution, the 18th century legal concepts are what we get.

So basically the usual suspects, even while in agreement, couldn't be bothered to actually use the Constitution as a foundation for their opinion.

The words state

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

How secure are your effects (i.e. Your property e.g. Your Vehicle) if another party may install a tracking device upon it without your permission? Seems pretty easy. Also it keeps the decision as non-impactive as reasonable to "answer the question" which I thought was a priority of the court. To not frivolously set precedent when the question before the court did not need new precedent in order to be answered.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose Camellia Sinensis Operative at January 23, 2012 10:38 AM (0q2P7)

76 73 A powerful solar eruption is expected to blast a stream of charged particles toward Earth tomorrow (Jan. 24), as the strongest radiation storm since 2005 rages on the sun.

BRB, need to go to Smart & Final for the big box of tin foil.

Posted by: mpfs, back in my cubicle from hell at January 23, 2012 10:38 AM (iYbLN)

77 So, you've just argued that police cannot tail a suspect without a warrant. Ever.

Strangely, I'm okay with the police having to get a warrant to follow me. Remember that the same rules that make it easier for government to catch actual criminals can be used so that government can harass the innocent as well.

That's what the 4th is about, in fact: the idea, even if it makes it harder to catch real crooks, my person and affects are more important, and you have to prove a good reason for the Government to get their mitts on them- let alone take them away.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Team Meteor. Now with Cheesecake at January 23, 2012 10:38 AM (8y9MW)

78 I think we can at least say we dodged a bullet on this one. I'll take small victories for liberty.

Posted by: David of PA at January 23, 2012 10:39 AM (tPdIW)

79 Ace is really a government operative recording and reporting all our comments. Or not.

Posted by: Soona at January 23, 2012 10:39 AM (cqLNL)

Does this mean that it is unlawful to track people with their cell phones?

Posted by: wheatie at January 23, 2012 10:40 AM (ALwK/)

81 I don't know what you guys are bitchin' about. Just donate to my campaign, vote for me, show your love for my administration and you won't be bothered.

Posted by: King Barack baby! at January 23, 2012 10:41 AM (F6KtL)

82 79 Ace is really a government operative recording and reporting all our comments. Or not.

Posted by: Soona at January 23, 2012 02:39 PM (cqLNL)

We considered recruiting ace for the Nefarious Evil Reptile Secret Corps but we decided he was doing fine on his own. Plus he was never sober enough to come for the interview.

Posted by: Reptoid Agent #235609 at January 23, 2012 10:42 AM (RD7QR)

83 That's what the 4th is about, in fact: the idea, even if it makes it harder to catch real crooks, my person and affects are more important, and you have to prove a good reason for the Government to get their mitts on them- let alone take them away.

Having the Chicago machine in the White House has demonstrated how wise that is, IMO.

Posted by: Ian S. at January 23, 2012 10:42 AM (tqwMN)

This should be added to the sidebar:

"Newt winning in the polls. Fox News shitting bricks by the hour."

Posted by: wheatie at January 23, 2012 10:42 AM (ALwK/)

85 Does this mean that it is unlawful to track people with their cell phones?

Unclear (since the Court made the issue with the GPS unit, itself, as I understand it, not the tracking more generally). That could mean that tracking with a cell phone (since the owner knows it has a GPS unit in it up front) might still be allowable.

Personally, I think it should be illegal to track people with their cell phones without a warrant, too.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Team Meteor. Now with Cheesecake at January 23, 2012 10:43 AM (8y9MW)

86 That's what the 4th is about, in fact: the idea, even if it makes it harder to catch real crooks, my person and affects are more important, and you have to prove a good reason for the Government to get their mitts on them- let alone take them away.
Posted by: AllenG
.........
Ok.. I'm not in law enforcement and I would defer to the opinion of someone who is. But, it seems to me that would put quite a dent in criminal investigations - especially when cops see something suspicious and choose to follow a suspect.

Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at January 23, 2012 10:43 AM (f9c2L)

87 I think I'm going to drive to church this next Sunday just to throw the feds off.

Posted by: Soona at January 23, 2012 10:46 AM (cqLNL)

88 Does this mean that it is unlawful to track people with their cell phones? Posted by: wheatie at January 23, 2012 02:40 PM (ALwK/) Not if she is a lying cheating bitch and you own her ass?

Posted by: nevergiveup at January 23, 2012 10:46 AM (i6RpT)

89 But, it seems to me that would put quite a dent in criminal investigations - especially when cops see something suspicious and choose to follow a suspect.

I'm sure it would. And I'm not, as a practical matter, opposed to on-the-spot, "reasonable suspicion" type carve-outs. But a) they should explicit and b) this wouldn't be one.

Even with reasonable suspicion carve-outs, though, you get the problem (often shown as being a "Good Thing" on cop-drama tv shows) where the Cops "hear" someone screaming for help and break in a door without a warrant.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Team Meteor. Now with Cheesecake at January 23, 2012 10:46 AM (8y9MW)

90 Sorry, if a cop is suspicious then he needs documentable probable cause and possibly a warrant. I used to be super pro-cop but since they've become for profit tools of libtard govts--not so much--we need to watch our constitutional protections extremely carefully and watch for creep.

Posted by: dagny at January 23, 2012 10:46 AM (w+PM8)

91 I think I'm going to drive to church this next Sunday just to throw the feds off. Posted by: Soona at January 23, 2012 02:46 PM (cqLNL) Me to and I'm Jewish so that should really fuck with their minds ha?

Posted by: nevergiveup at January 23, 2012 10:47 AM (i6RpT)

92 IMO, the seizure was the act of putting the thing in the jeep. they took posession of the jeep at that time. But from the opinion, it seems that my understanding is wrong, any manipulation of the object, even to perform a search, is a search whereas a seizure must be a confiscation event. Posted by: joeindc44

If I place a flyer on your windshield can you have me arrested for GTA?

Posted by: weft cut-loop at January 23, 2012 10:47 AM (/jOyr)

93 I think I'm going to drive to church this next Sunday just to throw the feds off.

Me too.

Posted by: Barack Obama at January 23, 2012 10:48 AM (F6KtL)

94 White House sides with TSA against Rand Paul. But of course!

Posted by: baldilocks at January 23, 2012 10:50 AM (T2/zQ)

95 If I place a flyer on your windshield can you have me arrested for GTA?

Posted by: weft cut-loop at January 23, 2012 02:47 PM (/jOyr)

If not not, then I should be able to, at least, kneecap you.

Posted by: Soona at January 23, 2012 10:50 AM (cqLNL)

96 placement of the device on private property

So that would also seem to apply to all these battery powered cameras with antennas and a camo paint job we keep finding.

Posted by: Bob Saget at January 23, 2012 10:50 AM (SDkq3)

97 well you know teddy bears are so cute, I'm sure they won't say things like," Kill the rich, the bankers, and fk the pigs"

Posted by: willow at January 23, 2012 10:53 AM (h+qn8)

98 clever, but whether an act is a "search or seizure" under 4th amendment law is only the first analytical step, you then get to determine if it's unreasonable. putting a flier (or more liekly for police, a ticket) under windshield wiper is more reasonable than placing a foreign object in car that tracks your every move.

Posted by: joeindc44 - tebow's new lifting coach at January 23, 2012 10:54 AM (QxSug)

But people who have vehicles with built-in GPS have a "reasonable expectation of privacy" too. .....However naive that may be.

It seems to me, that in light of the Patriot Act.....this ruling is sort of meaningless. .....They can still do whatever the hell they want to, with the Patriot Act in force. .....Or has this ruling just undermined it? I guess we don't know that yet.

Posted by: wheatie at January 23, 2012 10:54 AM (ALwK/)

100 baldilocks, yeah i hate to think napoliano's homeland security apparatus wouldn't take the fact he is a conservative and therefore a possible terrorrist into acct. i mean they must check it out the most likely persons of interest.

Posted by: willow at January 23, 2012 10:55 AM (h+qn8)

101 Suppose the police had access to satellites that could track a car. Would that be a search? Posted by: AmishDude or a drone

Posted by: Jean at January 23, 2012 10:56 AM (WkuV6)

102 Didn't Kirk later go on and plant his own tracking device in what would anatomically be considered that sweet, sweet alien honey's hoohah?

Posted by: Fritz at January 23, 2012 10:57 AM (3raPN)

103 ROMNEY YEAH BANG BANG ROMNEY WOOOOOO BANG BANG BANG YEEEEEHA ROMNEY

Posted by: King Rat at January 23, 2012 11:02 AM (DDSJB)

104 "Reasonable expectation of privacy...."

Wasn't this the legal foundation upon which Roe v Wade was decided?

Posted by: Count de Monet at January 23, 2012 11:03 AM (4q5tP)

105 Great. Killed the thread.

Posted by: Count de Monet at January 23, 2012 11:09 AM (4q5tP)

106 ROMNEY WOOOOOO PEW PEW PEW YEEEEEHA ROMNEY

-Blastin' my celebration pistols

Posted by: King Rat at January 23, 2012 11:11 AM (DDSJB)

107 I miss the days where law enforcement had to show probable cause to get a warrant in order to spy on citizens.

Posted by: FPW at January 23, 2012 11:27 AM (BDNF5)

108

The Occubears of Portland. I. Shit. You. Not.

Any mOr.ons?

When does Spring Bear Season open?

Posted by: garrett at January 23, 2012 11:30 AM (OWXM2)

109 "Narrow" 9-0 is "narrow"? The 5-4 was in the resoning as to why it was wrong. They all agreed that the GPS use in this case was wrong.

Posted by: joated at January 23, 2012 11:39 AM (IP54p)

110 Narrow as in limited to these facts.

Posted by: rdbrewer at January 23, 2012 11:45 AM (ybTot)

111 The equivalence with GPS device tracking isn't a couple of cops following you around in another car. It is a cop sneaking into your car and hiding in your back seat. Also cops cannot enter private property without permission or warrent even if it is a vehicle on public property. Thats why they bring the sniffer dogs before drug busts on the highway. So there is that. I don't know if the SC ruled that as "right to privacy" or "illegal search". Finally, technology wise I find this all more akin to wiretapping a phone. So whatever rules apply to that should apply to Gps.

Posted by: President Chet Roosevelt at January 23, 2012 11:47 AM (4ljGf)

112 Very, very disappointed in Alito, and quite surprised at Sotomayor. What is more remarkable (thought unexpected) is that the liberal judges - the supposed champions of the individual rights, per the media, always on the lookout for state abuses of power - should so casually dispose of the 4th amendment...

Posted by: blindside at January 23, 2012 11:50 AM (x7g7t)

113 "But driving a (presumably) licensed and registered car on public streets doesn't exactly fall into "privacy"."

Not all streets are public, and a GPS tracker doesn't make any distinction between private land and a public roadway.

And neither a license nor a registration gives the state permission to attach things to your car without your knowledge or your permission. If they want to follow someone as they drive around on public streets and watch them as they enter and exit their vehicle, then they're in the clear. If they want to use a tracking device, they need a warrant. The police here didn't take this requirement seriously and attempted to use their incompetence to set a precedent, and now they have reason to regret that.

Posted by: GalosGann at January 23, 2012 12:28 PM (T3KlW)

114 And I just bought a new pair of jackboots ...

Posted by: Honey Badger Whose Name Shall Not Be Spoken at January 23, 2012 01:19 PM (GvYeG)

115 That was, by the way, one of the worst episodes of Star Trek.

Posted by: Jimbo at January 23, 2012 01:26 PM (O3R/2)

116 I think this falls more under a technological proxy 3rd Amendment violation - stick a GPS tracker under your car because it is practical to strap a soldier to the hood to keep tabs on you.

Posted by: Rmoney at January 23, 2012 01:30 PM (7MFxV)

117 I just cant stop reading this. Its so cool, so full of information that I just didnt know. Im glad to see that people are actually writing about this issue in such a smart way, showing us all different sides to it. Youre a great blogger. Please keep it up. I cant wait to read whats next.

Posted by: Sharpening Plane Blade at January 31, 2012 04:10 AM (mIhy6)

Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.

135kb generated in CPU 0.1418, elapsed 0.2656 seconds.
64 queries taking 0.2372 seconds, 245 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.