The cop would be asking for the evidence to be thrown out since four of the Justices did say that it was a violation (at least if it was left in the car for an extended period of time), while four of the other five explicitly said that they were not ruling on that one or the other. The final final Justice expressed partial agreement with the first four while expressing complete agreement with the basis the latter four used to make their ruling.
The first story I read on this (which I cannot find now), led me to believe that it was a DC court which granted the initial warrant. I did find an article that said that the initial warrant was limited to the DC area (although it does not specify why). So, while a federal magistrate is not constitutionally limited on where they can issue a warrant, a magistrate of the District of Columbia would be so limited.
I do not think that would have flown since the key failure was that they installed the GPS outside of the jurisdiction of the court which issued the warrant.
Actually, it does. Because at least four of the Justices indicated that they would have a problem with using tracking information for more than a couple of days and the rest of the Justices refused to say whether or not they would have a problem with that because they felt that a narrower reading of issues decided the case in front of them. This suggests that the Court would require the police to get a warrant to obtain long term tracking information from your cellular provider (although that is by no means sure).
However, because of the way this ruling was written, and the way the Justices split in the opinions they concurred with, I think it is likely that lower courts will tend to be more demanding of warrants in cases going forward. Additionally, we are likely to get some very good rulings from some of those lower courts that will gradually form web of understanding that the Supreme Court will uphold in some future ruling.
Yes it did, or at least, that a warrant is required in any circumstance where a warrant would be required to search the vehicle. It is possible that if the police were in a position where they could search your car without a warrant (and use any evidence so discovered in a court of law), they could attach a GPS to your car without a warrant and use the tracking information in a court of law (this is probably more relevant to using already installed GPS devices, such as Onstar, than it is to installing a GPS)..
You are correct that there is no answer on that yet. However, we do know that 4 of the Justices would have a problem with that, at least if the tracking was for more than a few days. Sotomayer's position seems slightly ambiguous (she doesn't quite come out and outright say that she would have a problem with warrantless GPS tracking if it did not involve trespass, but she suggests that she would). The final four Justices refused to even give a clue how they feel about that. The position of that final four is one that the Supreme Court often likes to find itself in. They make a ruling with the absolute minimum breadth necessary to decide the case in front of them.
My understanding is that there is some ambiguity as to whether the 10 days on the warrant was the time frame until when they had to install the tracker or the time frame under which the warrant was granting them permission to track. In either case, they violated the 10 day time frame by waiting until day 11 to install the tracker and THEN did so outside of the jurisdiction of the court which approved the warrant.
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).
Well considering that it violated Article II, section 2 just last week, why should it be any surprise that it would violate another section of the Constitution?
The difference being that other members of Congress get a bit upset when one of their number is harrassed. They tend to see how such a thing has gotten out of hand when agents of organizations have the temerity to think they have the authority to boss around a member of Congress. The impact would be less if this were Ron Paul rather than his son, as Rand has demonstrated himself to be less doctrinaire (he recognizes that some things he views as wrong are politically impossible to touch at this point, so he spends no time discussing whether they should or should not be done away with).
UH yeah, what is your point? There is a provision to set up something that can be called "death panels". It may be somewhat hyperbolic to do so, but it is not entirely inaccurate. The "death panels" that Palin was referring to were not such that they would not allow physicians to treat anyone over 70, they were/are panels that would set guidelines for treatment for certain conditions that physicians would be penalized for not following. Those guidelines would include purely palliative treatment for certain conditions depending on the age and other health issues of the patient.
No, what you pointed out was that studies found that people have less trust in people who proclaim that they will not be held accountable for their actions unless other human beings catch them than they have in people who proclaim that some higher power will hold them accountable for their actions. This is not the same as being politically correct to criticize them or to not be politically correct to make fun of Christians.
If by "Oversight of Banking" you mean the creation of an unaccountable bureaucracy that will be staffed by bankers and have authority to regulate all types of financial transactions, well then I guess you are right. If on the other hand, you think it is a bad idea to ask two of the politicians who stood in the way of anyone doing anything about the problems in the financial sector before it blew up to write a law to address the problems after it blew up, then maybe the Republicans are on to something.
It's the right wing, tea party & conservative talk radio, that RIGHT NOW TODAY is circulating false emails about physicians not being "allowed" by the Obama administration to treat various ailments in people over 70!
Really? I have not seen any of those. I have however seen quotes from Obama Administration officials suggesting that they would favor such rules (not outright saying so, just suggesting that, and it is possible that they meant something different and worded what they said poorly).
Please tell me a time when in my lifetime when it was not considered politically correct to criticize Christians in the U.S.? Please name the comedian who makes a living belittling atheists? Or even has that as a significant part of their routine? For that matter, when have liberals spent more time using reason and thoughtful discussion to oppose Republicans and not "they want to kill granny" lines?
But it is still not the same sort of effort as regulating SO2. There were a limited number of industries that were significantly effected by SO2 regulation. There are NO industries that will not significantly effected by CO2 regulation.
And you also have to consider the situations where you drawing a gun can force an escalation where both you and the criminal were injured. Finally, there is the "vigilante" thing where you start shooting pickpockets or purse snatchers.
Except of course for the fact that evidence from states with concealed carry laws that make it easy to get a concealed carry permit indicate that those are smaller than the number of violent crimes discouraged by the presence of people with concealed carry..
Slashdot Mirror
The cop would be asking for the evidence to be thrown out since four of the Justices did say that it was a violation (at least if it was left in the car for an extended period of time), while four of the other five explicitly said that they were not ruling on that one or the other. The final final Justice expressed partial agreement with the first four while expressing complete agreement with the basis the latter four used to make their ruling.
The first story I read on this (which I cannot find now), led me to believe that it was a DC court which granted the initial warrant. I did find an article that said that the initial warrant was limited to the DC area (although it does not specify why). So, while a federal magistrate is not constitutionally limited on where they can issue a warrant, a magistrate of the District of Columbia would be so limited.
I do not think that would have flown since the key failure was that they installed the GPS outside of the jurisdiction of the court which issued the warrant.
The "recess" appointment of three people to the National Labor Relations Board and the director of the CFPB while Congress was not in recess.
Actually, it does. Because at least four of the Justices indicated that they would have a problem with using tracking information for more than a couple of days and the rest of the Justices refused to say whether or not they would have a problem with that because they felt that a narrower reading of issues decided the case in front of them. This suggests that the Court would require the police to get a warrant to obtain long term tracking information from your cellular provider (although that is by no means sure).
However, because of the way this ruling was written, and the way the Justices split in the opinions they concurred with, I think it is likely that lower courts will tend to be more demanding of warrants in cases going forward. Additionally, we are likely to get some very good rulings from some of those lower courts that will gradually form web of understanding that the Supreme Court will uphold in some future ruling.
Yes it did, or at least, that a warrant is required in any circumstance where a warrant would be required to search the vehicle. It is possible that if the police were in a position where they could search your car without a warrant (and use any evidence so discovered in a court of law), they could attach a GPS to your car without a warrant and use the tracking information in a court of law (this is probably more relevant to using already installed GPS devices, such as Onstar, than it is to installing a GPS)..
You are correct that there is no answer on that yet. However, we do know that 4 of the Justices would have a problem with that, at least if the tracking was for more than a few days. Sotomayer's position seems slightly ambiguous (she doesn't quite come out and outright say that she would have a problem with warrantless GPS tracking if it did not involve trespass, but she suggests that she would). The final four Justices refused to even give a clue how they feel about that. The position of that final four is one that the Supreme Court often likes to find itself in. They make a ruling with the absolute minimum breadth necessary to decide the case in front of them.
My understanding is that there is some ambiguity as to whether the 10 days on the warrant was the time frame until when they had to install the tracker or the time frame under which the warrant was granting them permission to track. In either case, they violated the 10 day time frame by waiting until day 11 to install the tracker and THEN did so outside of the jurisdiction of the court which approved the warrant.
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).
Well considering that it violated Article II, section 2 just last week, why should it be any surprise that it would violate another section of the Constitution?
The difference being that other members of Congress get a bit upset when one of their number is harrassed. They tend to see how such a thing has gotten out of hand when agents of organizations have the temerity to think they have the authority to boss around a member of Congress. The impact would be less if this were Ron Paul rather than his son, as Rand has demonstrated himself to be less doctrinaire (he recognizes that some things he views as wrong are politically impossible to touch at this point, so he spends no time discussing whether they should or should not be done away with).
UH yeah, what is your point? There is a provision to set up something that can be called "death panels". It may be somewhat hyperbolic to do so, but it is not entirely inaccurate. The "death panels" that Palin was referring to were not such that they would not allow physicians to treat anyone over 70, they were/are panels that would set guidelines for treatment for certain conditions that physicians would be penalized for not following. Those guidelines would include purely palliative treatment for certain conditions depending on the age and other health issues of the patient.
No, what you pointed out was that studies found that people have less trust in people who proclaim that they will not be held accountable for their actions unless other human beings catch them than they have in people who proclaim that some higher power will hold them accountable for their actions. This is not the same as being politically correct to criticize them or to not be politically correct to make fun of Christians.
Can you name one regulation that has made it easier for a small business to compete against a large business?
Or to put it another way, this only works when government regulation is not stacked in favor of the cartel.
If by "Oversight of Banking" you mean the creation of an unaccountable bureaucracy that will be staffed by bankers and have authority to regulate all types of financial transactions, well then I guess you are right. If on the other hand, you think it is a bad idea to ask two of the politicians who stood in the way of anyone doing anything about the problems in the financial sector before it blew up to write a law to address the problems after it blew up, then maybe the Republicans are on to something.
Except that government regulation never benefits the little guy and not the big guy.
It's the right wing, tea party & conservative talk radio, that RIGHT NOW TODAY is circulating false emails about physicians not being "allowed" by the Obama administration to treat various ailments in people over 70!
Really? I have not seen any of those. I have however seen quotes from Obama Administration officials suggesting that they would favor such rules (not outright saying so, just suggesting that, and it is possible that they meant something different and worded what they said poorly).
That would be true if there was a healthcare crisis in the U.S.
Please tell me a time when in my lifetime when it was not considered politically correct to criticize Christians in the U.S.? Please name the comedian who makes a living belittling atheists? Or even has that as a significant part of their routine? For that matter, when have liberals spent more time using reason and thoughtful discussion to oppose Republicans and not "they want to kill granny" lines?
Yes, I oppose fascism.
You are right. The Soviet gulags were much more hospitable than the Cuban prisons.
But it is still not the same sort of effort as regulating SO2. There were a limited number of industries that were significantly effected by SO2 regulation. There are NO industries that will not significantly effected by CO2 regulation.
Well, I guess if you want to live in the gulag, Cuba is wonderful.
And you also have to consider the situations where you drawing a gun can force an escalation where both you and the criminal were injured. Finally, there is the "vigilante" thing where you start shooting pickpockets or purse snatchers.
Except of course for the fact that evidence from states with concealed carry laws that make it easy to get a concealed carry permit indicate that those are smaller than the number of violent crimes discouraged by the presence of people with concealed carry..