namatad: so umcan I put a gps tracking device on another person's car?I can legally follow that person, therefore, I should be able to legally follow them electronically.right?LOL/keep in mind, I am not talking about stalking. just following, at a distance. never, ever approaching them./I am so going to get my dumbass arrested one of these days just to see what happens.
Omahawg: pfft. they watch me fondle grapefruit now in the grocery store for my own safety*waves at big brother*
MyRandomName: Jones V United States dealt with two primary facts in regards to 4th amendment. First was following a suspect is not a violation, but GPS tracking is due to the aggregation of information. The aggregation of information the GPS tracker allows requires a warrant. The second was the planting of the GPS tracker was trespass onto property, even though visual site if followed was not.Aside from that, Alito and Scalia have been 2 of the justices protecting 4th amendment protections.
yves0010: No one is impartial. Everyone pushes their own agenda. Face it, impartial rulings are a thing of the past.
Studson: This is a classic curtilage argument. It wasn't considered part of the protected area of the home. This doesn't mean that police can put cameras anywhere on your property in all cases, only on areas that don't fall under the umbrella of the 4th amendment. Nothing too surprising in light of 4th Amendment cases. See Dunn, Davis, Riley, etc.It's weird law in general if you ask me, but this case is not a clear erosion of the 4th Amendment IMHO given the history of cases. More so, following in line with precedent.
muck1969: Although I consider myself a 4th amendment advocate, I read the article and agree with the ruling since it is not as invasive as subby states, is based on precedent considering curtilage, and reinforces the fact that privacy simply cannot be expected in an open field.On the other hand, the war on drugs seems like such a waste to include weed.
Shadow Blasko: Fark Me To Tears: "We've got bush!"/obscure?In what universe is revenge of the nerds obscure?
TV's Vinnie: Mrbogey: Oh you can best believe this will go to the USSC. Stuff like this is the meat and potatoes of USSC rulings. I personally think the read it too narrow. The decision will be interesting.Another reason to vote for Obama. If a President Rmoney appoints a couple of mini-Scalias, we'll soon be having cameras mounted in our bathrooms to report us if we fap.
Mrbogey: Oh you can best believe this will go to the USSC. Stuff like this is the meat and potatoes of USSC rulings. I personally think the read it too narrow. The decision will be interesting.
GAT_00: Kelo had nothing to do with a police state. I'm not joining your apples to potatoes comparison.
GAT_00: Kelo was an atrocity and Republicans will uphold any police state regulations that come before the court.
ladyfortuna: This bit is interesting though: "The government also briefly argues that there was no Fourth Amendment search because neither Mendoza nor Magana owned or leased the Property. The court need not address this argument because: (1) it is arguably underdeveloped; (2) the record does not disclose whether Mendoza or Magana leased the Property; and (3) as set forth below, the motion can be denied on other grounds"Millions of people rent or lease their dwelling, yet somehow if they leased this field they aren't protected in some fashion? Because if that's the case, then neither are normal apartment renters.
If you like these links, you'll love
$5 a month since 19 aught diddly.
Sign up for the Fark NotNewsletter!
Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.
When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.
Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.
You need to create an account to submit links or post comments.
Click here to submit a link.
Also on Fark
Submit a Link »
Copyright © 1999 - 2017 Fark, Inc | Last updated: Nov 23 2017 23:31:53
Runtime: 0.537 sec (537 ms)