Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Courts Privacy United States Your Rights Online

Supreme Court To Weigh In On Warrantless GPS Tracking 191

Posted by Soulskill
from the only-criminals-go-somewhere-incriminating dept.
CWmike writes "In a move with far-reaching privacy implications, the U.S. Supreme Court has decided to hear a case involving the government's authority to conduct prolonged GPS tracking of suspects in criminal cases without first obtaining a court warrant. The government has argued that it has the authority to conduct such searches; privacy advocates have argued that such tracking violates Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure. The Supreme Court's decision in the case will be pivotal because lesser courts around the U.S. have appeared split on the issue in recent years, with some upholding warrantless GPS tracking and others rejecting it. Last August, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia circuit sided with the subject of the Supreme Court hearing, Antoine Jones, a Washington, D.C. man who was convicted in 2008 on charges of possessing and conspiring to distribute more than 50 kilograms of cocaine, and rejected claims by the government that federal agents have the right to conduct around-the-clock warrantless GPS tracking of suspects."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Supreme Court To Weigh In On Warrantless GPS Tracking

Comments Filter:
  • Wrong. Your best bet for predictions is Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27.

    Kyllo held that the use of a thermal imaging device from a public vantage point to monitor the radiation of heat from a person's home was a "search" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, and thus required a warrant. Because the police in this case did not have a warrant, the Court reversed Kyllo's conviction for growing marijuana.

    Majority: Scalia, joined by Souter, Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer

    Dissent: Stevens, joined by Rehnquist, O'Connor, Kennedy

    Kyllo was a win for us, but you can bet Sotamayor and Kagan will follow Stevens lead, and Roberts and Alito will follow Rehnquist/Connor. We get the worst of both the "liberal" and "conservative" Justices.

    See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyllo_v._United_States [wikipedia.org]

  • by hairyfeet (841228) <bassbeast1968 AT gmail DOT com> on Tuesday June 28, 2011 @09:42PM (#36606604) Journal

    Soooo...you're saying you are FOR letting a kid run around with $60+ and not having a fucking clue what he/she spent the money on without the government to tell you so? Maybe that whole "need a license to have a kid' idea isn't such a bad thing.

    I personally as a parent thought the law was bullshit because I don't need to have the government tell me what my kid can/can't play and actually had NO problem with my boys playing a violent game if they so desired. Of course unlike those that sit their kids in front of a box and walk away I actually interacted with my boys, I know, its a concept, and I sat them down and actually showed them how what they saw on the screen was created. I had no worry that mistake game stupidity for reality because they knew how levels were made, how to edit textures, how scripts create the illusion of AI, etc and you know what? By and large they didn't care about the really violent games because those games had nothing to sell themselves with BUT violence and my boys preferred games with decent level design and good combat to just another blood fest.

    Now my oldest is in his second year of pre-med and on the Dean's list, and the youngest is trying to decide whether he wants to go into computer generated art or follow his love of cooking and be a chef. So I think I did just fine without nanny government watching my kids for me, which BTW the movie theaters have NO law that forbids them from letting your kid see an R or NC17 movie, just like the ESRB it is voluntary as it should be.

    Know where your kids are, know what they are doing, and spend some time with them. if that is too much to ask then frankly you shouldn't be having kids in the first place. You can't babyproof the world, nor can you have the state raise your kids for you. When my sister ended up trapped in a bed with terminal cancer and I got two babies dropped in my lap I stepped up to the plate and did my damned job. It was hard as hell, I must have spent three years sleeping in a rocking chair so that the youngest could sleep and frankly i'm probably 3 years behind on decent nights rest now. But that is what it takes to be a parent, it takes long hours and hard work. And frankly if you aren't ready for that or can't even honestly say you know what your kid is buying or playing? Maybe it isn't for you.

  • by Snarky McButtface (1542357) on Tuesday June 28, 2011 @10:03PM (#36606768)
    No, but the police will put a gun to your head while they destroy your phone [aljazeera.net] if you take a photo.

If I have seen farther than others, it is because I was standing on the shoulders of giants. -- Isaac Newton

Working...