Slashdot Mirror
Supreme Court Rules Warrants Needed for GPS Monitoring
gambit3 writes "The Supreme Court has issued its ruling in the case of Washington, D.C. nightclub owner Antoine Jones, saying police must get a search warrant before using GPS technology to track criminal suspects. A federal appeals court in Washington overturned his drug conspiracy conviction because police did not have a warrant when they installed a GPS device on his vehicle and then tracked his movements for a month."
Hopefully that'll bring this BS to an end, along with ending the jobs of the officers that continue to pull this stunt.
Is getting a search warrant on someone really that time consuming?
What do I know, I'm just an idiot, right?
Quick someone call the CDC! We have a sudden outbreak of common sense in the Capitol!
A brief read of Justice Sotomayer's concurring opinion seems to characterize the differences in the justice's reasoning as follows:
1.) Scalia, Sotomayer, Roberts, Thomas, and Kennedy formed the majority in the opinion of the court, which relied on the fact that a trespass occured when the physical device was planted on the car. The majority did not look at any issues other than the trespass one because the trespass issue was sufficient to decide the case. Sotomayer describes it his way: "By contrast, the trespassory test applied in the majority’s opinion reflects an irreducible constitutional minimum: When the Government physically invadespersonal property to gather information, a search occurs. The reaffirmation of that principle suffices to decide this case."
2.) Alito, joined by Breyer, Kagan, and Ginsburg, focused more on the impact of obtaining the knowledge - that is, whether GPS tracking data, regardless of whether it's obtained via physical trespass or some other way, falls within the expectation of privacy protected by the fourth amendment. Alito would hold that trespass is irrelevant to 4th amendment law, and that only the expectation of privacy issue is relevant.
3.) Sotomayer (who joined the opinion of the Court), thinks that Alito's dismissal of the trespassory test would do harm to the constitutional protections, but emphasizes that, in other cases where no trespass occurs, the Court should also analyze expectation of privacy.
In sum, we have 5 justices who are willing to apply a trespassory analysis (which means physically attaching a device to a car is subject to the warrant and reasonableness requirements of the 4th amendment), 5 justices who think the expectation of privacy involved in one's movements should provide 4th amendment protection when long-term electronic tracking is used, regardless of whether trespass occurs, and at least 1 who thinks both apply.
It should be noted that, if I'm reading Sotomayer's concurring opinion correctly, the 4 in the majority other than Sotomayer should not be viewed as having rejected the application of the expectation of privacy test to electronic location tracking. Rather, they've emphasized that the expectation of privacy test is in addition to the trespassory test, and expressly declined to evaluate it because the trespassory test was conclusive.
A couple of other notes:
(1) The government did obtain a warrant in this case, but the placed the tracker on the car outside the time and physical location the warrant gave permission for. The Court did not consider the government's argument that the technical violation of the warrant's strictures rendered the search unreasonable, holding that the government waived those arguments. Therefore, we don't have any insight into how strictly the requirements of warrants will be applied.
(2) The Court did not address this, but it's not hard to imagine scenarios where the Court might allow tracking without a warrant. For example, if an officer witnesses a crime but cannot effect an arrest, the Court might allow an officer to plant a device without a warrant due to exigency, and thereafter apply for a warrant. Similarly, the Court might allow a device to be planted during the course of a high-speed chase without warrant, if the means to do so are invented. I want to emphasize this is total speculation on my part, but fourth amendment law goes far beyond "did a search occur?"
(3) Although there's no holding yet, there's very good reason to believe that obtaining GPS data from non-trespassory means, such as from OnStar or a cell phone, will also require a warrant.
It was 9-0.
Scalia, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Kennedy, Thomas, and Sotomayor, JJ., joined. Sotomayor, J., filed a concurring opinion. Alito, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which Ginsburg, Breyer, and Kagan, JJ., joined.
Quick someone call the CDC! We have a sudden outbreak of common sense in the Capitol!
I tried but all I heard on the other end of the line sounded like moaning zombies and muffled screams.
Cookies should require warrants.
As most cookies are not installed by Law Enforcement, you're not quite following the plot.
See, I as a private eye, could install a GPSr device on your car or cookies on your computer to serve me in my private investigations (or even my nefarious plot to take over the world) which has nothing to do with the 4th Amendment -- unless Law Enforcement tries to use any of the data I've gathered.
Your computer is only yours in illusion.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
No, because of the exclusionary rule. (see Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States, 251 U.S. 385 (1920)). The courts have held (rightfully so) that the law itself is more important that ultimate justice. To hold otherwise just encourages misconduct.
"Fruit of the poisonous tree." The problem is that since police and prosecutors are hardly ever prosecuted for unreasonable search and seizure themselves, pretty much the only incentive for them to follow the Fourth Amendment is to see their evidence thrown out of court if it's illegally gathered. If they routinely went to jail for such violations, it might be a different story -- but they don't, and they never will, so this is what we're left with.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
Why bother?
Everything you just said above is supported by our the current President's administration.
Remember it was President Obama's guys arguing in favor of this...not Newt's.
Just saying..
----
The difference between GWB & BO. A "GW" on the left, and an "O" on the right. All the policies are still the same as Reagan and Clinton's.
.. he wasn't trafficking in pirated movies, or the judge would have been merciless.
Currently hooked on AMP
There are two interesting facts about this ruling. First all nine Justices agreed that the use of the GPS without a warrant in this case was unconstitutional. However, 4 of the Justices felt that it might have been Constitutional if done for a shorter period of time. What is interesting about that is that the divide was not along the usual divide. The majority opinion was supported by Scalia (who wrote it), Roberts, Thomas, Kennedy (the "swing" vote) and Sotomayor (generally considered a "liberal" vote). While the minority opinion was written by Alito (generally considered a "conservative" vote) and joined by the rest of the Court's "liberals" (Ginsburg, Breyer and Kagan).
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Cops under your system: That dirty SOB, I know he's guilty of (horrific crime.) It'll be worth going on unpaid suspension for a month just to beat a confession out of him.
Esp. since there will probably be some charitable giving to the cop during his discipline from other members of the force.
Your ad here. Ask me how!
Depends on the judge (I do a lot of subpoena work, on boths sides).
.. I have seen some where the judge says "Apartment #3 is not sufficient to identify the residence" and "Computer equipment does not sufficiently identify the property sought" and the police had to go back and get permission (from the landlord) to take a picture of the door and go back to the judge along with serial numbers and such of the devices.
.. because what if the police work is sloppy and the stolen computer is serial number AB123456 and you have a computer that's DE78910 but the same exact model .. guess which defendant is getting their stuff back.
I have seen some that are "rubber stamped" with only a vague description of what they're after (eg: "computer equipment")
The judge in the 2nd case is doing it right
re (2) : these exist. http://www.starchase.com/
Unfortunately, the exclusionary rule doesn't punish the cop who broke the law. What we need is a doctrine that says any search, arrest, detention, etc that oversteps legal authority is a crime just as if any non-police officer had done it. Then it's just a matter of prosecuting police misconduct as assault, breaking and entering, etc. You can keep the evidence, but the person who broke the law to get it is going to jail. This is the exact same way evidence is treated if it's collected illegaly by a non-cop, btw.
Of course, prosecutors are going to be poorly-disposed towards prosecuting the cops they work with daily. So we'd need an independent meta-justice system to keep tabs on that.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Even crazier -- it was a fucking unanimous decision. Not one of them disagreed with the fundamentals.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
I tried but all I heard on the other end of the line sounded like moaning zombies and muffled screams.
Are you sure you called the CDC and not Congress?
"None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
For the most part people sit and complain about the ruling they don't like, for the ruling they do like they mostly shrug and say, well yes of course.
The Supreme Court is generally disliked by both parties, The conservatives think the Court it too liberal, the Liberals think the court is too conservative. However it is mostly because the way the Court is structured it is outside the normal showboating politics, where a Judge who tends to lean one way will not get his job threatened for "Flip Flopping" or what is more generally called changing ones opinion based on facts.
The biggest problem people usually have is in their minds Legality = Morality while they are rather disjointed. Often they work hand and hand but not all ways. Because it is legal for you to do something it doesn't make it morally rite. Also if it is moral or immoral to do something it shouldn't be legal/illegal, based on moral alone.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
How many police officers would be willing to do their jobs or properly pursue criminals if they didnt get at least some accomodation under the law?
They get accomodation under the law. They are allowed to do all sorts of things normal people can't do, as long as they follow the proper procedures. If you expect to be unable to follow those procedures, I don't really want you as a cop.
cops are pushing suspected criminals because it is their job. I don't think we would get better justice by making a habit of pursuing those that pursue suspects.
The problem occurs when the criminal in question is a cop. If a cop breaks the law, he's a criminal. He deserves to be treated as such. Protecting bad cops is enforcing criminality.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
They got one right?!?!
They got two right, with the recent religious freedom case in Hosana-Tabor vs. EEOC. And just like that case, this was a unanimous decision from SCOTUS. That's two Supreme Court ass-kickings in a row for this administration, from both sides of the aisle. I had always thought that the upcoming "Obamacare" case would be a 5-4 ruling either way, depending on what side of the bed Anthony Kennedy woke up on that morning. Now I'm not so sure. I don't think that one will be unanimous too, but now I wouldn't be surprised if it were 6-3 or 7-2 against. SCOTUS seems to be a lot more attuned to the notion that the Constitution is a restraining order against government lately.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
Actually, in Texas you can. Texas Penal Code - Section 9.42. Deadly Force To Protect Property
-Unresolved symbol? Byte me!
There can't be zombies in the Capital, Zombies eat brains. Duh.