A victory for us... (Supreme Court ruling on warrantless wireless tracking devices)

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Linflas

Linflas

Lifer
Jan 30, 2001
15,395
78
91
zsdersw said:
... and a defeat for the Obama administration.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...ack-suspects/2012/01/23/gIQA7wL1KQ_story.html

Yes, you're damned right a warrant should be necessary for that.
Click to expand...

I was just going to post this, odd that the Post considers in "Business" news. Too bad they didn't extend it as Alito wanted to wireless devices with GPS built in.

Edit: Just a suggestion you might want to put something in your heading to indicate this is about warrentless wireless tracking to cut down on the reposts.
 
Last edited:
Texashiker

Texashiker

Lifer
Dec 18, 2010
18,811
197
106
What really hurt the case, was when a supreme court member asked the justice department lawyer something like "this would mean you can put a GPS tracker on my car without a warrant?" And the lawyer said something like "yes".
 
OutHouse

OutHouse

Lifer
Jun 5, 2000
36,413
616
126
nice two correct rulings in as many weeks and both unanimous rulings too!

"By attaching the device to the Jeep" that Jones was using, "officers encroached on a protected area," Scalia wrote. He concluded that the installation of the device on the vehicle without a warrant was a trespass and therefore an illegal search.
Click to expand...

if that isnt any more clear i dont know what is.
 
cybrsage

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
Wreckem said:
Ummm this case started under the Bush DOJ. It was the Bush DOJ and FBI that used GPS tracking on Jones. They were also the ones that arrested, tried and convicted him. So why mention Obama?
Click to expand...

Because Obama kept defending in the case (or his justice department did for him). They could have dropped the case and admitted the previous administration did wrong.
 
W

Wreckem

Diamond Member
Sep 23, 2006
9,458
987
126
cybrsage said:
Because Obama kept defending in the case (or his justice department did for him). They could have dropped the case and admitted the previous administration did wrong.
Click to expand...

No administration ever does that. It sets a bad precedent. It creates massive instability for the DOJ which continues to exist no matter who is president. Also the president nor the AG control everything their career civil servants do.

Here is another pro tip. Law enforcement around the country did this for quite a while and have continued doing so as recently as last year. The DOJ just dropping the case would NOT have ANSWERED THE QUESTION of whether it was constitutional and lo and behold, law enforcement still could have done so until the issue came up again.The DOJ defending it did everyone a favor, whether they meant to or not.
 
Last edited:
Texashiker

Texashiker

Lifer
Dec 18, 2010
18,811
197
106
W

Wreckem

Diamond Member
Sep 23, 2006
9,458
987
126
waggy said:
I hope they do. in your home and public they should be able to be recorded.
Click to expand...

Its not really a federal or constitutional issue. And only if you live in Illinois do you really have to worry about getting arrested these days. If you actually followed the issue, all but the Illinois case were resolved at the State Supreme Court level in favor of the person recording.

It was also never an issue in 1 party consent states.
 
W

Wreckem

Diamond Member
Sep 23, 2006
9,458
987
126
Texashiker said:
The case was argued before the supreme court in November 2011

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/11/08/supreme-court-hears-whether-gps-counts-as-big-brother/

So yes, it was obama that tried to uphold the rights of the government over the rights of the people.
Click to expand...

And if they didn't Appeal and Defend before SCotUS, law enforcement around the country(except for the Feds and the LEOs in DC, as the Appellate courts precedent would rule there), would still be able to do this without warrants until the issue came up again.

Yall have no fucking clue what yall are talking about. The Obama admin did everyone a favor by appealing this, whether the DOJ meant it that way or not.
 
Last edited:
Texashiker

Texashiker

Lifer
Dec 18, 2010
18,811
197
106
Wreckem said:
And if they didn't Appeal and Defend before SCotUS, law enforcement around the country(except for the Feds and the LEOs in DC, as the Appellate courts precedent would rule there), would still be able to do this without warrants until the issue came up again.
Click to expand...

No, the obama administration could have let the lower courts ruling stand.

But instead, the socialist obama administration wasted taxpayers money.
 
Linflas

Linflas

Lifer
Jan 30, 2001
15,395
78
91
Wreckem said:
No administration ever does that. It sets a bad precedent. It creates massive instability for the DOJ which continues to exist no matter who is president. Also the president nor the AG control everything their career civil servants do.

Here is another pro tip. Law enforcement around the country did this for quite a while and have continued doing so as recently as last year. The DOJ just dropping the case would NOT have ANSWERED THE QUESTION of whether it was constitutional and lo and behold, law enforcement still could have done so until the issue came up again.The DOJ defending it did everyone a favor, whether they meant to or not.
Click to expand...

Really? In Shift, U.S. Says Marriage Act Blocks Gay Rights

Agree or disagree with him in that reversal it clearly shows he could have not defended the case if he so desired.
 
W

Wreckem

Diamond Member
Sep 23, 2006
9,458
987
126
Linflas said:
Really? In Shift, U.S. Says Marriage Act Blocks Gay Rights

Agree or disagree with him in that reversal it clearly shows he could have not defended the case if he so desired.
Click to expand...

Yeah and guess what? The DOMA still fucking exists and will continue to until SCotUS decides on it because Congress won't be repealing it for a very long time. SCOTUS won't be ruling on this issue for quite a long while. If Obama defended and appealed, these cases would have worked their way through the court systems much faster. By not appealing cases, Obama is sandbagging on gay rights, whether they want to think that or not. The only way to get rid of gay marriage bans and the DOMA is if SCotUS gets a case. By not appealing the cases, its fewer opportunities for SCotUS to get a crack at the gay marriage issue. It also means its going to take a lot longer for a case to reach SCotUS.

As of today, because the DOJ appealed to SCotUS, GPS tracking without a warrant is illegal in all 50 states + DC. If the DOJ did not appeal, it would not be illegal outside of the Feds and DC. It would have taken many more years to have the question answered and all that while LEOs could do as they please inregards to the issue.

Counter-intuitive maybe. But the DOJ did EVERY GOD DAMN ONE a favor by appealing. Obama would have been doing gays a favor if they appealed in regards to the DOMA. It would have made it to SCotUS sonner and the issue would have been answered once and for all.

Oh and just because an Admin appeals and defends does not mean they are giving it their all. SCotUS cannot declare something unconstitutional, unless they hear the case.
 
Last edited:
T

the DRIZZLE

Platinum Member
Sep 6, 2007
2,956
1
81
Wreckem said:
No administration ever does that. It sets a bad precedent. It creates massive instability for the DOJ which continues to exist no matter who is president. Also the president nor the AG control everything their career civil servants do.

Here is another pro tip. Law enforcement around the country did this for quite a while and have continued doing so as recently as last year. The DOJ just dropping the case would NOT have ANSWERED THE QUESTION of whether it was constitutional and lo and behold, law enforcement still could have done so until the issue came up again.The DOJ defending it did everyone a favor, whether they meant to or not.
Click to expand...

Really? Then why did the Obama administration drop the case against the Blank Panthers who were intimidating voters in Philadelphia over the objections of the prosecutors?
 
airdata

airdata

Diamond Member
Jul 11, 2010
4,987
0
0
Awesome... nothing to do with Obama, but still awesome.

Repeal the patriot act while you're at it.
 
W

Wreckem

Diamond Member
Sep 23, 2006
9,458
987
126
the DRIZZLE said:
Really? Then why did the Obama administration drop the case against the Blank Panthers who were intimidating voters in Philadelphia over the objections of the prosecutors?
Click to expand...

Really? You don't understand a criminal issue and a constitutional issue? Or a district court case and a appellate case?

This all clearly going over your head.

Bottom line is, because the DOJ appealed, this is now illegal. If they didn't it would not because SCotUS wouldn't have been able to hear the case.

Bash Obama all you want. Its now illegal to track vis GPS without a warrant. If there wasn't an appeal by the DOJ, this ruling wouldn't have happened today or anytime in the near future.
 
Last edited:
T

the DRIZZLE

Platinum Member
Sep 6, 2007
2,956
1
81
Wreckem said:
Really? You don't understand a criminal issue and a constitutional issue? Or a district court case and a appellate case?

This all clearly going over your head.

Bottom line is, because the DOJ appealed, this is now illegal. If they didn't it would not because SCotUS wouldn't have been able to hear the case.

Bash Obama all you want. Its now illegal to track vis GPS without a warrant. If there wasn't an appeal by the DOJ, this ruling wouldn't have happened today or anytime in the near future.
Click to expand...

Don't insult me just because I proved you wrong. In hindsight it is certainly good that the case went to the SC but no one knew the results ex ante. The ruling could have affirmed that these was an acceptable practice. It would take some pretty tortured logic to give Obama credit for that.

If he really wanted to take the position in court that using GPS tracking required a warrant he could have filled an amicus brief siding with a defendant who was tracked by state or local police or used other legal methods that the Feds have used in the passed when they viewed state actions as violating individual rights.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom