combat_mage_sc posted:
Wow, suprised it wasn't a 5-4 vote.
That's a stupid response.
NonOffensiveName posted:
this is a lose/lose situation...I dont like the fact that its easier for criminals to not be apprehended because of some legal bs warrant but at the same time I wouldnt like it that the government/police can freely track anyone anywhere without their knowledge with no one to answer to. Guess you cant have your cake and eat it too.
Way to be entirely contradictory.
This is a 100% clear cut 4th amendment issue. Placing a tracking device is a search.
P.S. That "legal bs warrant," requirement is what kept many homosexuals out of jail prior to
Lawreence v. Texas
Nailer2357 posted:
The Court's decision was mainly grounded on physical trespass - the fact that the police officers had to commit a trespass in order to install the tracking device. Stated another way, here's what Justice Scalia said: "The Government physically occupied private property for the purpose of obtaining information. We have no doubt that such a physical intrusion would have been considered a 'search' within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment when it was adopted."
This still leaves the door open to other kinds of tracking. Say, for instance, New York places license plate readers all over the states and records everyones' movements. Or the federal government decides to use satellites to record a specific car's position. This decision says nothing about these similarly intrusive cases.
Ars (as usual) has a pretty good
write up on the decision.
This is spot on - because this case is clear 4th amendment, but it's physical trespass.
Edit 2- Scalia always cracks me up - he's the only justice on the court who is 100% predictable, because of his originalist stance.
-----signature-----
Hawkson, Esq.
Nothing is true, everything is permitted.
