When did the people start winning victories like this?

This is the one that went greenlit?

We're going to get an article tomorrow about how it was a big accident, Souter put the numbers in the wrong spot.

Gawtdamn activist judges!

Must have thought it was about tracking corporations

Don't worry.

Congress will just give immunity to companies that hand over records like they did with the telecoms.

There is a downside, though, that's not very well clarified in the article. The Supreme Court basically decided here that a GPS unit carries with it the same level of personhood as the corporate entity who initially created it, which very naturally means that for police to "employ" these units in their work would require the same sort of contractual agreement with each unit that police currently must enter into for work with informants and other citizens. Which seems good, on the surface--at least GPS units can't be "drafted" into police work, they must do so freely. But it also means that "ownership" of GPS units now carries with it certain moral and ethical obligations. The matter hasn't been settled legally yet, not completely, but my advice from here on out would be to not ever turn off your GPS. In a very real sense, this could be construed by an aggressive DA as a murder.

Good on you, Scalia. Wonder if this will get some of the people off your back... Just remember to keep towards freedom when you decide the FCC case.

So the DOJ can no longer track the goings on of Goldman Sachs?

According to the analysis at SCOTUS blog, the court has not said police need a warrant. The court has said GPS tracking is a search, leaving lower courts to fight over when a warrant is required. There is already precedent that cars can be searched without a warrant as long as a police officer can think of an excuse to justify the search.

cameroncrazy1984: We're going to get an article tomorrow about how it was a big accident, Souter put the numbers in the wrong spot.

More likely a couple of the checks were delayed in the mail,.

9-0 decision, split 5-4 on the justification.

They had a warrant giving them 10 days to attach a GPS tracker in DC, they attached it on the 11th day in Maryland. Sloppy police work forced the courts hand. Had they attached in DC I doubt the court would have reached this verdict

ZAZ: According to the analysis at SCOTUS blog, the court has not said police need a warrant. The court has said GPS tracking is a search, leaving lower courts to fight over when a warrant is required. There is already precedent that cars can be searched without a warrant as long as a police officer can think of an excuse to justify the search.

I think you are misunderstanding. The use of the GPS as physically putting on the car-would require a warrent. That is not the same as probable cause.

ZAZ: According to the analysis at SCOTUS blog, the court has not said police need a warrant. The court has said GPS tracking is a search, leaving lower courts to fight over when a warrant is required. There is already precedent that cars can be searched without a warrant as long as a police officer can think of an excuse to justify the search.

Yes, but that warrantless search is only allowed if there is probable cause ("a reasonable belief that a person has committed a crime"), and as I recall only at times when there is cause to believe that a delay could result in the destruction of evidence. A search of a car for drugs, for example, can be done because there's a presumption that the drugs will be consumed. Planting a GPS unit on a vehicle cannot (within very limited exceptions, almost all of which would already fall under allowable searches) prevent crimes except by allowing the gathering of evidence of future crimes; a warrant would therefore be required.

/I am *not* a lawyer. Grain of salt, etc...

RoyBatty: So there were three concurring opinions. But it is noted that it was sort of both a 9:0 decision but that Scalia's argument won 5:4.

What does that mean in the future?

What is the legal weight of Alito's opinion in future cases?

Roberts prefers 9-0 decisions. He doesn't like minority opinions in his rulings.

RoyBatty: So there were three concurring opinions. But it is noted that it was sort of both a 9:0 decision but that Scalia's argument won 5:4.

What does that mean in the future?

What is the legal weight of Alito's opinion in future cases?

Officially, it has none. Unofficially, it counts as "dicta", which is often used if subsequent decisions in future decisions by both SCOTUS and lower courts

ArkAngel: Unofficially, it counts as "dicta", which is often used if subsequent decisions in future decisions by both SCOTUS and lower courts

I think you accidentally this sentence.

Why do all care about GPS tracking so much? Roads are public spaces. Most cars and phones track you now already. A police car could follow you around all day without a warrant. Unless you're meeting up with terrorists or dealing drugs, you have nothing to worry about.

RoyBatty: GAT_00: Roberts prefers 9-0 decisions. He doesn't like minority opinions in his rulings.

ArkAngel: Officially, it has none. Unofficially, it counts as "dicta", which is often used if subsequent decisions in future decisions by both SCOTUS and lower courts

Thanks, so Sotomayor wrote her own concurrence but somehow that was considered a vote with Scalia.

Okay, so then, how do they actually vote?

The justices vote, then the Chief Justice assigns the person to write the main decision if he is in the majority. If he isn't, it goes to the most senior member of the majority. The same for the minority opinion. Other justices are free to write other opinions if they wish. After all the opinions are written and finished, the justices make a final vote and sign on to whichever opinions they want (so long as they are on the same side)

Having read the decisions (as opposed to the summary), most of it is Alito and Scalia sniping at each other. The substance of the lengthy concurrence is "I don't like technical rules about whether surveillance required physical contact. We'll call this a violation for now, but in the long run privacy is dead and you'll have to get used to it."

The government didn't argue the automobile exception to the fourth amendment in the appeals court and can't raise it for the first time in the Supreme Court.

leviosaurus: vernonFL: Why do all care about GPS tracking so much? Roads are public spaces. Most cars and phones track you now already. A police car could follow you around all day without a warrant. Unless you're meeting up with terrorists or dealing drugs, you have nothing to worry about.

You're assuming that the GPS only lets police track people when they are on the road. That isn't the case. While they will certainly use it on the road most of the time, the fact is, it also tracks you on private property. A cop can't follow you onto private property without certain provisions in place, like a search warrant.

I haven't read the decision, but I bet that is at least part of it.

Strictly speaking, the device would only track the vehicle's movements, and not the person's movements per se. So once the vehicle comes to a stop somewhere, private property or otherwise, the only information it would yield to police is that's where the vehicle went. Which, presumably, they could already do through other warrantless means.