Justice Breyer is Right

You simply can't trust the Supreme Court. I thought CJ Roberts was a good choice, but if he supports this, I will be very disappointed. Don't worry about me, SC Justices disappoint me all the time. But this is a case we can't lose. Justice Breyer is right. I hope they listen to him.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefi...ian-government

Yes, but where do you draw a principled line. I read an interesting article on SCOTUSblog.com on the oral argument and the lawyer for the guy who was convicted said that a GPS tail of one day was OK, but one of more than one day wasn't. Where the fuck do you get that?

http://www.scotusblog.com/2011/11/ar...get-a-warrant/

A GPS tracker has to be installed so I would think it should fall into the same category as a wiretap. This wasn't tracking like your kids cellphone or installing a hidden app on your iphone to track your SO (hobby phones!), or Apple having access to your gps location which is another topic.

a GPS tracker is usually installed under the hood or wheel well. I think they overstepped if their warrant had expired and actually covered the locator in the first place.

I believe the issue at hand is whether the government can track a person using GPS without having to get a warrant. If I am mistaken, let me know. If the government gets a warrant, I think the plan would be Constitutional.

TTH, I don't know where they get that. Creative lawyering, I guess.

I don't know the details of this case; but the correct solution IMO would be to allow a phone function that blocks all (or some) GPS tracking...being voluntary fits with my idea of free and open society.

GPS trackers arent phones. I use them for Penetration testing when it is in scope. If I do anything out of scope I open myself to Legal issues so I would think the Govt would also have to meet 'scope' ie. Have a non-expired Warrant or also face the lawyers.

People will get a new fangled item like OnStar, and marvel at how "it knows where I am at all of the time"

Try saying it like this. "It KNOWS where I am at ALL OF THE TIME".

A GPS tracker has to be installed so I would think it should fall into the same category as a wiretap. This wasn't tracking like your kids cellphone or installing a hidden app on your iphone to track your SO (hobby phones!), or Apple having access to your gps location which is another topic.

a GPS tracker is usually installed under the hood or wheel well. I think they overstepped if their warrant had expired and actually covered the locator in the first place. Originally Posted by budman33

A wiretap is on a private call wherein there is an expectation of privacy. A GPS on an automobile is by definition monitoring of a person when he is in public, where one doesn't have an expectation of privacy. There is a long line of cases that a police officer can follow you (either on foot, or by vehicle) while you are out and about. They put the GPS on your car under the fender well while it is in a public parking lot. It's just a higher tech way to follow you around while you're in public. That would be the government's argument. And the way in which it would distinguish this situation from a wire tap.

The case in question didn't involve a cell phone. It involved a device that was place on the Defendant's vehicle under the bumper (or somewhere similar) while the car was parked in public.

COG, it's just like a copy tailing a guy. No probably cause is needed and since he's in public, there is no expectation of privacy. The difference is, and what seemed to disturb the justices (and me, for that matter) is that this didn't require a person to follow him, and it was 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

Here is a recap of oral argument:

http://www.scotusblog.com/2011/11/ar...get-a-warrant/

From there you should be able to find merits briefs, etc. It's really a fascinating case because to rule for the Defendant they absolutely have to overrule a fairly recent precedent, U.S. v. Knotts (1983) which stated that, "A person traveling in an automobile on public thoroughfares has no reasonable expectation of privacy in his movements from one place to another.”

Well, I still think "probably" cause is needed. It's different to watch a person, it is quite another to place a foreign object on his/her vehicle with the purpose to track them.

Do you really think it is ok for the government to be able to watch our every move? I thought you liked Justice Breyer.

gps tracking is similar to manual surveillance and does not need a warrant at least according to the govt. defense .

If they stick a tracker under the bumper or wheel well, I don't think a warrant is needed. But if they stick it inside the vehicle, then I think a warrant is needed.

there was this story (I don't know if its true) that an airplane mechanic in Alaska was working on an aircraft that wasn't working right and finds this gps tracker inappropriately placed inside the aircraft's innards. He was told by the police to leave it alone or he'll get trouble.

Then police state here we come. No, wait. Police state, here we are.

I think that the Court will turn the case around. The question is will they do it by broadly overruling Knotts, which I'd like to see; or instead by somehow finding a quasi-principled way to limit the surveillance.

Well, I still think "probably" cause is needed. It's different to watch a person, it is quite another to place a foreign object on his/her vehicle with the purpose to track them.

Do you really think it is ok for the government to be able to watch our every move? I thought you liked Justice Breyer. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Probably cause is not needed according to Knotts just to observe a person in public, either directly or via a beeper implanted on his car. Frankly, I think Knotts should be overruled. I think Bryer is the most disappointing of Clinton's appointees because he's the most conservative, but he's correct in this case.

I'm just pointing out that if you accept the premise that you have no reasonable expectation of privacy when in public, this is a hard case. And it's certainly a hard case when you have Knotts out there.

I would discard the "expectation of privacy" test and instead talk about personal autonomy and freedom from government suspicion and interference of you daily activities whether in public or not. However, that flies in the face of hundreds of years of precedent. I just think that technology is such that we need to erect historically unprecedented barriers between the State and the individual to maintain the proper balance between the two and maintain what Justice Douglas called the "right to be left alone."

Of course Constitutional originalists will say that there is no "right to be left alone" and that I would be "legislating from the bench." And if you believe in strict constructionism, sure, I would. But I think that you read the spirit of the document into the present era and take account of present circumstances. And I'm a firm believer in unenumerated rights. But I would have no problem at all telling the government, not "No," but "Hell, no!" in this case. And I'd do it in the most radical way possible to expand the scope of the Forth Amendment.

justice bryer conservative???? lol, I think hes more of a moderate.

That just shows you how liberal TTH is.