• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

warrantless wiretapping not illegal says federal court

Dulanic

Diamond Member
Oct 27, 2000
9,800
400
136
I am far from a paranoid privacy person... shit I use progressive snapshot which tracks my driving. However, warrants are required for a reason for shit like this. Sure, this time it may have worked out, but what about when the police start tracking people for no reason?

I have a feeling this eventually gets overturned or pushed up to the SCOTUS.
 
Last edited:

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
29,807
3,325
126
Overturned?

I suspect that in our quest to become North Korea, Americans will embrace this.
 

MrColin

Platinum Member
May 21, 2003
2,403
3
81
It still illegal for civilians to record audio of police abuse however.
 

DCal430

Diamond Member
Feb 12, 2011
6,021
9
81
First, it should be noted this applies to wireless GPS tracking only.

Interesting this case given SCOTUS has already ruled a warrant MUST be given for GPS tracking (as mentioned in the article). The OP story will most likely get overturned.
Actually the Supreme Court NEVER ruled the actual tracking was illegal. 5 of the justices ruled that placing the device on the vehicle was illegal, they refused to rule on the tracking part. The other 4 said placing the device was irrelevant and the actual tracking was unconstitutional. In the end the majority of the court NEVER said actual tracking was illegal.

The 4 concurrent judges were very critical of the majority for not ruling on the bigger picture.

The good news is we know at least 4 of the Justices will view this as being unconstitutional, so it shouldn't be hard to get another judge from the 5.
 
Last edited:

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
20,495
724
126
Actually the Supreme Court NEVER ruled the actual tracking was illegal. 5 of the justices ruled that placing the device on the vehicle was illegal, they refused to rule on the tracking part. The other 4 said placing the device was irrelevant and the actual tracking was unconstitutional. In the end the majority of the court NEVER said actual tracking was illegal.

The 4 concurrent judges were very critical of the majority for not ruling on the bigger picture.

The good news is we know at least 4 of the Justices will view this as being unconstitutional, so it shouldn't be hard to get another judge from the 5.
It did.

HERE is the actual ruling, and in its syllabus says:
Held: 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.(emphasis mine)
 

DCal430

Diamond Member
Feb 12, 2011
6,021
9
81
It did.

HERE is the actual ruling, and in its syllabus says:
Actually no, it ruled that both TOGETHER are not allowed, that the us of the device was ONLY illegal because it was placed their illegally. Not that actual GPS tracking without a warrant was illegal. It was ruled on very narrow grounds.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
20,495
724
126
Actually no, it ruled that both TOGETHER are not allowed, that the us of the device was ONLY illegal because it was placed their illegally. Not that actual GPS tracking without a warrant was illegal. It was ruled on very narrow grounds.
Im not trying to quibble (really Im not) but I disagree. The SCOTUS is very exact when publishing their rulings. Taking English grammar into account, it appears the part of the sentence ", and its use of that device to monitor the vehicle's movements," is a non-restrictive modifier. Therefore, two independant ideas or thoughts. If the SCOTUS' intent was the use of the monitor would be fruit of the poisonous tree so to speak, the sentence in question should read ", and its subsequent use of that device to monitor the vehicle's movements,", or, alternatively, remove the first comma.

Ive actually read quite a few lawyer's blogs on this, and it does appear to be fuzzy.
 

DCal430

Diamond Member
Feb 12, 2011
6,021
9
81
Im not trying to quibble (really Im not) but I disagree. The SCOTUS is very exact when publishing their rulings. Taking English grammar into account, it appears the part of the sentence ", and its use of that device to monitor the vehicle's movements," is a non-restrictive modifier. Therefore, two independant ideas or thoughts. If the SCOTUS' intent was the use of the monitor would be fruit of the poisonous tree so to speak, the sentence in question should read ", and its subsequent use of that device to monitor the vehicle's movements,", or, alternatively, remove the first comma.

Ive actually read quite a few lawyer's blogs on this, and it does appear to be fuzzy.
But if you read the full ruling they make it clear that they are not ruling if its use alone is unconstitutional.
 

Pr0d1gy

Diamond Member
Jan 30, 2005
7,776
0
76
Wow, the court approved removing our freedoms in the name of "security" again, yet still have done nothing about the grand theft nation perpetrated by their buddies up on wall mart street?


'Murica, Fuck yeah!
 

thraashman

Lifer
Apr 10, 2000
10,909
1,057
126
Slightly confused here. From the article it says.

In this case however, officials obtained Skinner’s number from another member of the ring, and then a court order that required the cellphone company to disclose “cell site information, GPS real-time location, and ‘ping’ data” for Skinner’s phone.
Wouldn't this constitute getting a warrant? Sounds like that's exactly what they did. Is this incorrect in the article?
 

mect

Platinum Member
Jan 5, 2004
2,170
1,107
136
Im not trying to quibble (really Im not) but I disagree. The SCOTUS is very exact when publishing their rulings. Taking English grammar into account, it appears the part of the sentence ", and its use of that device to monitor the vehicle's movements," is a non-restrictive modifier. Therefore, two independant ideas or thoughts. If the SCOTUS' intent was the use of the monitor would be fruit of the poisonous tree so to speak, the sentence in question should read ", and its subsequent use of that device to monitor the vehicle's movements,", or, alternatively, remove the first comma.

Ive actually read quite a few lawyer's blogs on this, and it does appear to be fuzzy.
For the ruling to be interpreted as you are stating, I believe it would need to say "or" instead of "and". But I'm no lawyer, so maybe someone that is can chime in.
 

Mean MrMustard

Diamond Member
Jan 5, 2001
3,144
10
81
Wow, the court approved removing our freedoms in the name of "security" again, yet still have done nothing about the grand theft nation perpetrated by their buddies up on wall mart street?


'Murica, Fuck yeah!
What case(s) are pending against the "buddies up on wall mart street"?

What have they done that was apparently unconstitutional?
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY