SCOTUS gets one right
Some semblance of common sense returns: The Supreme Court ruled unanimously Monday that police must get a search warrant before using GPS technology to track criminal suspects.
10 Responses to “SCOTUS gets one right”
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
January 23rd, 2012 at 1:06 pm
That’s refreshing.
January 23rd, 2012 at 1:22 pm
Proves the blind hog theory correct.
January 23rd, 2012 at 1:45 pm
Simply following precedent.
If you cannot use your own senses to track a vehicle, you need a warrant.
January 23rd, 2012 at 3:36 pm
The weird thing is Sotormayor rules in favor of it & Alto did not. Haven’t read the opinions yet, but curious none-the-less. We can only hope that she’s as open to 2A cases as well. Nice to see the 4th making a Judicial comeback
January 23rd, 2012 at 4:14 pm
Holy crap. Sotomayor’s opinion is downright libertarian!
What the heck!?!
January 23rd, 2012 at 4:23 pm
PMain says “The weird thing is Sotormayor rules in favor of it & Alto did not.”
Umm, I heard it was a 9-0 slam-dunk. Did I miss something?
January 23rd, 2012 at 5:06 pm
This case was all about lazy policing. People cutting corners for no reason, really. There was more than adequate PC to get a warrant. They just couldn’t be bothered with the few exra steps.
January 23rd, 2012 at 8:13 pm
I don’t think we’ve seen the end of this… not with Onstar, cell phones, etc…
January 23rd, 2012 at 8:57 pm
9-0, different reasoning used but they all ended up in the same place.
January 24th, 2012 at 11:16 am
Sorry to rain on your parade, but as usual, news reporting of SCOTUS decisions is invariably completely wrong as they try to create an exciting narrative they end up completely messing up the often crutial details.
In this case, the court did not rule that you need a warrant to track people with GPS. All they ruled is that doing such constitutes a serach for the purposes of the fourth ammendment.
The ruling explicitly leaves open the questions of whether or not performing this search without a warrant is a reasonable or unreasonable search, and if unreasonable what the remedy is (so we don’t know if the exclusionary principle applies to any evidence gained or not).
Much better analysis of the ruling and how its not the huge victory everyone is portraying:
http://www.scotusblog.com/2012/01/reactions-to-jones-v-united-states-the-government-fared-much-better-than-everyone-realizes/