FYI SCROTUMS - GPS Tracking = Good for America

[Amstel]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...78811800873358.html?mod=WSJ_hp_LEFTTopStories

The decision offered a glimpse of how the court may address the flood of privacy cases expected in coming years over issues such as cellphones, email and online documents. But the justices split 5-4 over the reasoning, suggesting that differences remain over how to apply age-old principles prohibiting "unreasonable searches."

The minority pushed for a more sweeping declaration that installing the GPS tracker not only trespassed on private property but violated the suspect's "reasonable expectation of privacy" by monitoring his movements for a month. The majority said it wasn't necessary to go that far, because the act of putting the tracker on the car invaded the suspect's property in the same way that a home search would.
​

This was the question before the court:

Whether the warrantless use of a tracking device on respondent's vehicle
to monitor its movements on public streets violated the Fourth Amendment.

IN ADDITION TO THE QUESTION PRESENTED BY THE PETITION, THE
PARTIES ARE DIRECTED TO BRIEF AND ARGUE THE FOLLOWING
QUESTION: "WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT VIOLATED
RESPONDENT'S FOURTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS BY INSTALLING THE
GPS TRACKING DEVICE ON HIS VEHICLE WITHOUT A VALID
WARRANT AND WITHOUT HIS CONSENT."
​

the court, agreeing to hear the question, limited the question to the specific situation in Jones case. The government didn't track him via cell phone or Onstar. As I said earlier, I believe it is a victory for privacy because we've started the legal discussion about electronic surveillance and unreasonable searches and seizures on favorable terms. The minority expanded their response to include situations that were not part of the US v. Jones case.

 

[fly]

OH
MY
GOD

That is NOT, NEGATIVE, the courts opinion. I said HERRO THIS HERE IS THE MINORITY OPINION, ONLY ONE JUSTICE AGREED WITH THIS. If the WAS the MAJORITY opinion, it would be a win for privacy BUT IT'S NOT.

Did the court tell the Justice Department that they need a warrant to attach a GPS device to a vehicle?

 

[ZRH]

Did the court tell the Justice Department that they need a warrant to attach a GPS device to a vehicle?

No, they said that the act of trespassing that occurred when the device was placed on the car AND the subsequent monitoring of the device TOGETHER constituted an illegal search.

Page 3 of the majority opinion:
We hold that the Government’s installation of a GPS device on a target’s vehicle, and its use of that device to monitor the vehicle’s movements, constitutes a “search.”

Key reasoning on page 5:
The Government contends that ... no search occurred here, since Jones had no “reasonable expectation of privacy” in the area of the Jeep accessed by Government agents (its underbody) and in the locations of the Jeep on the public roads, which were visible to all. But we need not address the Government’s contentions, because Jones’s Fourth Amendment rights do not rise or fall with the Katz formulation. [because the government had already broken 4th amendment by trespassing -ed]

Which leaves the entire question of reasonableness... questionable. Which means that if something comes a long where no trespass to property occurs, it's all up in the air. That is my point.