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

[Wreckem]

..

 

[manimal]

What I like about stories like this is there is much many of us can agree on. Lets hope politicians spend more time on issues we can actually resolve like this one over the next few years.

 

[Wreckem]

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.

How can the DOJ appeal and file an amicus brief at the same time?

And you didn't prove me wrong. Yes the can force district court cases not to be tried. Unless its a US Attorney who doesn't answer to the DOJ/AG, and can only be fired. Oh look Bush did that all the fucking time. Quick find my a case where the President has ordered the DOJ not to appeal a Circuit Court ruling in a criminal case. Here is a hint. There aren't many.

And today's ruling wasn't a shocker. It was a sure bet.

 

[blankslate]

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

But instead, the socialist obama administration wasted taxpayers money.

By appealing it all the way up to the Supreme Court it was settled in a rather final way. If he hadn't a future administration might have tried to continue the wiretapping. Now we have the word from the highest court in the U.S.

It's a good decision.

As for whether President Obama wanted the Court to find for or against it we don't know. What we do know is that the issue for all practical purposes settled.

 

[the DRIZZLE]

How can the DOJ appeal and file an amicus brief at the same time?

And you didn't prove me wrong. Yes the can force district court cases not to be tried. Unless its a US Attorney who doesn't answer to the DOJ/AG, and can only be fired. Oh look Bush did that all the fucking time. Quick find my a case where the President has ordered the DOJ not to appeal a Circuit Court ruling in a criminal case. Here is a hint. There aren't many.

And today's ruling wasn't a shocker. It was a sure bet.

I'm saying they could have dropped the case and filed an amicus brief in a different case if they were really opposed to this practice. And if it was such a slam dunk there was no reason for the appeal to the SC in the first place. The circuit court already ruled it was unconstitutional, all the DOJ had to do was drop the appeal and it would have been more or less settled anyway. It is rare for a new administration to change course on these issues but it's not unprecedented and the Obama administration did it other cases.

I am glad that we got a definitive ruling from the SC but you can't rationally give Obama credit for something he was on the wrong side of just because it had a good result and you can't pretend he had no other choice because he did.

 

[CanOWorms]

By appealing it all the way up to the Supreme Court it was settled in a rather final way. If he hadn't a future administration might have tried to continue the wiretapping. Now we have the word from the highest court in the U.S.

It's a good decision.

As for whether President Obama wanted the Court to find for or against it we don't know. What we do know is that the issue for all practical purposes settled.

It seems like there is an opening that precludes certain finality. The majority opinion states:

The Government argues in the alternative that even if the attachment and use of the device was a search, it was reasonable—and thus lawful—under the Fourth Amendment because “officers had reasonable suspicion, and indeed probable cause, to believe that [Jones] was a leader in a large-scale cocaine distribution conspiracy.” We have no occasion to consider this argument. The Government did not raise it below, and the D. C. Circuit therefore did not address it. We consider the argument forfeited.

Probably weak, but it's something.

 

[Exterous]

Very good news. I am a little disappointed they didn't delve more into what a 'reasonable expectation of privacy' was but a definate win

 

[mcmilljb]

It seems like there is an opening that precludes certain finality. The majority opinion states:



Probably weak, but it's something.

Doesn't matter. If you have probable cause for a search, you ask for a warrant from a judge. They did not ask for a warrant because they just thought they could do it. If you want to do a search, you either get permission or a warrant. Next time they will get a warrant before putting a GPS device on a car. I don't see any vagueness.

 

[CanOWorms]

Doesn't matter. If you have probable cause for a search, you ask for a warrant from a judge. They did not ask for a warrant because they just thought they could do it. If you want to do a search, you either get permission or a warrant. Next time they will get a warrant before putting a GPS device on a car. I don't see any vagueness.

There are many exceptions to seeking a warrant from a judge.

 

[Howard]

I suspect they will...provided the recording is done in a public place...

Such as on or near a public road?

 

[dmcowen674]

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

... 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.

Negative Ghost Rider

This is no longer need because the Supremes granted warrantless tracking by cell phone and everyone has one of those.

 

[Jhhnn]

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.

It'd take some pretty tortured logic, a la the Bush Admin, to even think that this might be legal, and some equally tortured logic to even dream that the Court would see it any other way. It had Loser! branded on its forehead before it got to the SCOTUS, yet very much needed to get there.

Of all the Justices, it was Sotomayor who recognized the bigger picture, referenced in her separate opinion.

As Wreckem offered, it's important that policy of the DoJ not flipflop with every change of Admin, and that a new Admin not stab the DoJ in the back over efforts they made under orders from the previous Admin. The whole appeal process went pro forma, as it should have, even though the verdict was obvious from the start.

 

[Jhhnn]

Negative Ghost Rider

This is no longer need because the Supremes granted warrantless tracking by cell phone and everyone has one of those.

I believe that's incorrect-

http://www.fletc.gov/training/progr...TrackingIndividualsviaTheirCellularPhones.pdf

 

[IonusX]

to wire tapping:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhTHdzHhG7o

 

[DCal430]

How can the DOJ appeal and file an amicus brief at the same time?

And you didn't prove me wrong. Yes the can force district court cases not to be tried. Unless its a US Attorney who doesn't answer to the DOJ/AG, and can only be fired. Oh look Bush did that all the fucking time. Quick find my a case where the President has ordered the DOJ not to appeal a Circuit Court ruling in a criminal case. Here is a hint. There aren't many.

And today's ruling wasn't a shocker. It was a sure bet.

You are nuts if you think Obama was on the right side of the issue. If Obama supported warrantees GPS trafficking. If he didn't he wouldn't have also defended it in the 9th Circuit court and WON. I repeat the DOJ under Obama defended warrantees GPS trafficking and WON in the 9th circuit. Don't be so blind.

 

[DCal430]

By appealing it all the way up to the Supreme Court it was settled in a rather final way. If he hadn't a future administration might have tried to continue the wiretapping. Now we have the word from the highest court in the U.S.

It's a good decision.

As for whether President Obama wanted the Court to find for or against it we don't know. What we do know is that the issue for all practical purposes settled.

We do know he wanted the courts to find it legal, if he didn't he wouldn't have allowed it to continue under his presidency, but he did.

 

[DCal430]

FYI the 9th circuit case was already going to be appealed to the Supreme Court, there was no need for the Obama admin to appeal the 4th circuit one.

 

[Jhhnn]

We do know he wanted the courts to find it legal, if he didn't he wouldn't have allowed it to continue under his presidency, but he did.

Allowed what to continue? Warrantless GPS tracking or the cases already in the works?

That's an honest question- I don't know the answer.

And what leads us to think that he has his finger on the pulse of absolutely everything that the DoJ is doing, anyway? Presidents delegate, after all...

 

[DCal430]

Allowed what to continue? Warrantless GPS tracking or the cases already in the works?

That's an honest question- I don't know the answer.

And what leads us to think that he has his finger on the pulse of absolutely everything that the DoJ is doing, anyway? Presidents delegate, after all...

Both. The DEA and FBI continued to use warrantees GPS trafficking, now with this ruling they will likely stop.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Negative Ghost Rider

This is no longer need because the Supremes granted warrantless tracking by cell phone and everyone has one of those.

I am sorry but the Supreme court has NOT ruled on warrantless tracking of cell phones!!

This is what is called intellectual dishonesty!

You know you are wrong,,,,,yet you bait your response with "everyone" has one...

Here are links that you are wrong --
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474978672888

In August, a New York federal court found that law enforcement agents are constitutionally obligated to get a warrant based on probable cause before obtaining historical cell phone location information.

And in September, the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals held that judges may order the government to get a warrant for cell phone location information based on probable cause.

http://www.mobileburn.com/17599/news/judge-denies-law-on-warrantless-cellphone-tracking

A U.S. District Court judge in Texas has ruled that a law that allowed the government to obtain cellphone records without a warrant is unconstitutional. The judge said that obtaining information such as a phone's location when a call was placed requires a warrant, as per the Constitution.

Judge Lynn N. Hughes kept her decision brief, stating "The records would show the date, time, called number, and location of the telephone when the call was made. These data are constitutionally protected from this intrusion."

 

[DominionSeraph]

Don't insult me just because I proved you wrong.

This forum soooo needs an animated :ROFL: smiley.

 

[cybrsage]

Such as on or near a public road?

I would say so. Basically, the main argument for recording the police comes from the reasonable expectation of privacy...or the lack thereof. If the police (or anyone) has a reasonable expectation of privacy, then you violate that privacy by recording them. If there is no reasonable expectation of privacy, then it is fine to do it.

There will still be limits applied, but they will be the exception and not the rule.

 

[cybrsage]

Interestingly enough, this was not as egregious an event as I originally thought. The government DID have a warrant to use the tracking device, they simply put it on the car 1 day too late (warrant only good for 10 days and they did it on the 11th day) and in the wrong location (warrant only good in DC, they did it in Maryland). The ruling which was overturned was that it was OK to do because it was reasonable to expect the government to track you via GPS on a public road. The SCOTUS said that was bunk and overturned it. Your car cannot be searched without your consent, and this is just as invasive.

​

No. 10–1259. Argued November 8, 2011—Decided January 23, 2012
The Government obtained a search warrant permitting it to install a Global-Positioning-System (GPS) tracking device on a vehicle registered to respondent Jones’s wife. The warrant authorized installation in the District of Columbia and within 10 days, but agents installed the device on the 11th day and in Maryland. The Government then tracked the vehicle’s movements for 28 days. It subsequentlysecured an indictment of Jones and others on drug trafficking conspiracy charges. The District Court suppressed the GPS data obtained while the vehicle was parked at Jones’s residence, but held the remaining data admissible because Jones had no reasonable expectation of privacy when the vehicle was on public streets. Jones was convicted. The D. C. Circuit reversed, concluding that admission of the evidence obtained by warrantless use of the GPS device violatedthe Fourth Amendment.
[FONT=Century Schoolbook,Century Schoolbook][FONT=Century Schoolbook,Century Schoolbook]Held: [/FONT][/FONT]The Government’s attachment of the GPS device to the vehicle, and its use of that device to monitor the vehicle’s movements, constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment. Pp. 3–12.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-1259.pdf

 

[dmcowen674]

I am sorry but the Supreme court has NOT ruled on warrantless tracking of cell phones!!

This is what is called intellectual dishonesty!

You know you are wrong,,,,,yet you bait your response with "everyone" has one...

Here are links that you are wrong --
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474978672888

In August, a New York federal court found that law enforcement agents are constitutionally obligated to get a warrant based on probable cause before obtaining historical cell phone location information.

And in September, the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals held that judges may order the government to get a warrant for cell phone location information based on probable cause.

http://www.mobileburn.com/17599/news/judge-denies-law-on-warrantless-cellphone-tracking

A U.S. District Court judge in Texas has ruled that a law that allowed the government to obtain cellphone records without a warrant is unconstitutional. The judge said that obtaining information such as a phone's location when a call was placed requires a warrant, as per the Constitution.

Judge Lynn N. Hughes kept her decision brief, stating "The records would show the date, time, called number, and location of the telephone when the call was made. These data are constitutionally protected from this intrusion."

All they have to say is that it is "National Security"

1-12-2012

http://westlawinsider.com/cyberlaw/...holds-wiretap-immunity-for-telecom-companies/

Appeals court upholds wiretap immunity for telecom companies



In December 2005, news agencies began reporting that President George W. Bush had ordered the National Security Agency (NSA) to conduct warrantless eavesdropping of some telecommunications in the U.S.

To accomplish this, it was further reported that the NSA had the cooperation of telecommunications companies to tap into a significant portion of the companies’ telephone and email traffic, both domestic and international.


In response, those telecommunications companies were sued under a wide array of different legal theories by many of their customers starting in January 2006.

In response to this, Congress enacted the FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) Amendments Act (FISAAA), which was signed into law by President Bush on July 10, 2008.


FISAAA contained a provision (located at Section 802) that retroactively granted immunity to telecommunications companies from all civil claims arising out of their “providing assistance to an element of the intelligence community.”

 

[lopri]

I've read the opinion and the justices are all confused and there is no discernable doctrines on informational privacy, except for the no-trespassing which sounds more like a statute than a constitutional law. They're engaging in an exercise in futility, IMO. (Remember that they are not very tech-savvy)

I'd like my privacy as much as anyone, but I also know that I am exercising in futility. 10 years from now, our expectation of privacy will be very different from that of today. (How many of you have cell phones?)