Oh no - how can we fight terrorism now? Think of the children!
mahtso
13 years ago
Information at the Volokh Blog shows that you have overstated the holding of this case: using GPS is a search, but not all seaches require a warrant.
andre
13 years ago
Well, that's a relief, especially considering that the 4th amendment is the only one of the Bill of Rights that still has any relevance in real life.
marco73
13 years ago
During oral arguments in the case, Justice Stevens asked if the government could place a secret tracking device on the cars of the nine Supreme Court justices, without a warrant. It was the government's position, YES.
This ruling will just force authorities to come up with some boilerplate BS for a warrant, using one of their favorites: the unnamed street informer who is 100% trustworthy and competent.
ParatrooperJJ
13 years ago
Negavite Ghostrider - they ruled that placing a GPS tracker was a search under the 4th amendement, not that a warrant was required.
Oh no - how can we fight terrorism now? Think of the children!
Information at the Volokh Blog shows that you have overstated the holding of this case: using GPS is a search, but not all seaches require a warrant.
Well, that's a relief, especially considering that the 4th amendment is the only one of the Bill of Rights that still has any relevance in real life.
During oral arguments in the case, Justice Stevens asked if the government could place a secret tracking device on the cars of the nine Supreme Court justices, without a warrant. It was the government's position, YES.
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/11/scotus-big-brother-gps/all/1
This ruling will just force authorities to come up with some boilerplate BS for a warrant, using one of their favorites: the unnamed street informer who is 100% trustworthy and competent.
Negavite Ghostrider - they ruled that placing a GPS tracker was a search under the 4th amendement, not that a warrant was required.