This is a victory -- if you can call a victory taking something back to where it was all along.
Along those lines, I noted this in the article:
In a footnote, Scalia added that, “Whatever new methods of investigation may be devised, our tsk, at a minimum, is to decide whether the action in question would have constituted a ‘search’ within the original meaning of the Fourth Amendment. Where, as here, the government obtains information by physically intruding on a constitutionally protected area, such a search has undoubtedly occurred.”
If that broader interpretation would hold, that would be awesome news. But by putting it in a footnote, as I understand it, it's more of a dream than anything else. Great philosophy, though. Here's hoping it plays out that way.
The problem -- and the reason it won't, probably -- is that this kind of interpretation needs to be put into a constitutional amendment. If you rely on judicial interpretation, between the legislature and the courts, they'll make a muddled mess out of it.
It's a victory, yes, but probably not huge. The majority opinion, written by Scalia, takes the narrowest of views: that placing a GPS device is a "search", and as such, subject to the limitations set out by the 4th Amendment.
In a (concurring) opinion, Justice Sotomayor agrees with that narrow view, but she asks what will happen when the Government doesn't need to place an actual physical device in one's car in order to record where it's going?
And indeed we're probably already there, so this decision is in fact more about the past than about the future.
In my own opinion (IANAL), the "tracking is a "search"" view does not imply that there needs to be a physical device. So tracking a vehicle (using technology) in any other way is also a "search".
I'd agree. Tracking through any physical method (IE through an OnStar device or built in cellular with GPS) would have to go through the vehicle manufacturer or service provider, which (if the companies behave how they should) should require a warrant simply to receive the data in the first place.
The greatest concern would be when surveillance satellites could be used to track cars inside a city. Or using CCTV traffic cameras for a live-tracking of tagged license plates. The question is would this tracking actually constitute a search. Because a warrant doesn't have to be issued for an undercover cop to follow a car, only probable cause. So does 'probable cause' extend to digital tracking through a CCTV grid, satellite or combination? That's where it gets creepy to me, because IMO this likely won't constitute a search.
The Supreme Court decision actually mentions that the government may "ask" car makers to just give them access to the car's own GPS device. Scary that the Supreme Court even suspects this will happen.
You're over thinking it. Red light cameras can already read the license plate of every car that goes through an intersection. The roving fleet of meter maids in DC drive cars that read the plates of every car they pass.
Until we have drones smart enough to focus on a specific car (vs. a mostly identical model right next to it), the drones will still require human operators, which makes the process not far removed from an old-fashioned tail (similar to the mentioned beeper case).
Targets can be laser painted/marked by a drone or more usually a secondary source and followed by a drone on the specific signature. This is currently actively being done in several combat theatres.
It is highly likely to be already happening in the US, particularly along the borders and in federal investigations.
a 9-0 vote by the supreme on this matter is a huge thing.... much more than simply a majority vote. it sends a loud and clear message about their stance on the matter.
judges and prosecutors will take this, and all the details into consideration moving forward..... i would imagine the judiciary does not like to pass judgement that will beoverturned by thesupreme court as a matter of professional pride in many cases, and prosecutors dontmlike taking on losingcases.
take the win for what its worth, it is huge. ( i had to double check i wasnt linking to the onion when i woke up and saw theheadline.... good job neighbours ! beproud that your supreme mcourt just did what it is supposed to do, andthey did it loud and clear.
a 9-0 vote by the supreme on this matter is a huge thing.... much more than simply a majority vote. it sends a loud and clear message about their stance on the matter.
Tell that to lower/circuit courts who have an annoying habit of giving SCOTUS rulings a big fat middle finger.
I can think of one recent example: District of Columbia v. Heller & McDonald v. Chicago. Lower courts have been generally unwilling to embrace 2nd amendment rights in light of those two decisions.
In Ezell v. Chicago, decided July 6, 2011, the Seventh Circuit reversed a district court decision that the post-McDonald measures adopted by the City of Chicago were constitutional.
It's in the wiki entry. Under related cases. As I previously stated.
attorneys on both sides, plus juries hearing this will do wonders..... judges dont rule alone necessarily (you have the right to trial by your peers, corect?)
Appeals courts will follow the supreme court if a similar cae hits the judges desk - they are not goung to throw the same case at the supreme cort, bad mojo, it would just be rejected saying "we Alredy ruled on that".
also.. while i am pretty sure the supremes are in office for life ( or until they step down voluntarily orprobably a few other things like commit a felony or become incapacitated, etc) - are other judges as secure? The supremes take their duties very seriously it seems to me. they dont rule lightly, and they are not stupid.
while i am pretty sure the supremes are in office for life . . . are other judges as secure?
All judges in federal courts in the United States may stay in office essentially for life. The language in the Constitution is "The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour,"
and "during good behavior" means that unless the judges are formally impeached and convicted of malfeasance (which is very rare) they can stay in office until they decide to resign. This independence of the federal judiciary is considered very important by United States lawyers (whether they are "conservative" or "liberal") for maintaining the civil liberties of Americans. Today's decision is a good example of a decision that was made unanimously contrary to the position taken during litigation of the case by the current presidential administration.
A statement like that which is not part of the official decision are referred to as "dictum". Lower courts review higher court rulings, including dicta, and over time dicta has a way of becoming law.
Scalia is a kind of a Fourth Amendment hardliner when it comes to _the home_, so I'm actually surprised at this result. Fourth Amendment rights in so far as automobiles go have been eroding for years. Note that the concurring opinion wanted to reframe the issue such that there _was_ a reasonable expectation of privacy when it comes to automobiles (which would be a more expansive reading of Fourth Amendment rights).
The supreme court can only rule on issues brought before it, rather then make broad corrections to law. One of the reasons the ACLU case against the Fed over wiretapping was rejected early. (Who are the people being hurt by it, is one of the requirements)
http://www.aclu.org/national-security/federal-appeals-court-...
It seems that footnotes would often be "dicta" - judicial comments not directly relating to the case at issue, and therefore not form binding precedent.
One of the most famous is US v. Carolene (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Carolene_Produ...), but there are hundreds, maybe thousands of examples. Even when they don't contain actual law, footnotes often give insights into why a court decided an issue or interpreted a fact the way it did. These little hints can be invaluable in distinguishing later cases, or giving a later court a foothold to create some new law.
Setting a precedent is, in fact, the creation of new law. This is the basis of the Common Law system that the United States and other former English colonies use. See, for example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law
:). Thanks for the link, it was very educational. However, it actually doesn't seem to apply in this case: "United States federal courts only act as interpreters of statutes and the constitution by elaborating and precisely defining the broad language (connotation 1(b) above), but, unlike state courts, do not act as an independent source of common law (connotation 1(a) above)." [1]
In theory, you're right: courts don't make laws. In practice, courts make law every day. This is intuitively obvious (e.g. If law says you can't do A or C but says nothing about B, and the court says "B is really just like A and C, so B is also prohibited under the law", the court has just made law)[edit: perhaps not so obvious if you don't practice law, but courts do this every day], but also goes deeper: The very idea of judicial review itself was invented by the courts (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison).
While not a footnote, the headnote of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad "indicated that corporations enjoyed the same rights under the Fourteenth Amendment, adopted in 1868, as did natural persons" and has been very influential.
The actual holding in Taylor v. Taintor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taylor_v._Taintor) is not nearly as famous as the paragraph in the majority opinion that gives legal standing to bounty hunters: "Whenever they choose to do so, they may seize him and deliver him up in their discharge; and if that cannot be done at once, they may imprison him until it can be done. They may exercise their rights in person or by agent. They may pursue him into another State; may arrest him on the Sabbath; and if necessary, may break and enter his house for that purpose"
if you can call a victory taking something back
to where it was all along
Yes, I would say you can. Democracy requires constant vigilance by the public (in contrast with the despotism where only the despots and their political machinery need to be vigilant).
Along those lines, I noted this in the article:
In a footnote, Scalia added that, “Whatever new methods of investigation may be devised, our tsk, at a minimum, is to decide whether the action in question would have constituted a ‘search’ within the original meaning of the Fourth Amendment. Where, as here, the government obtains information by physically intruding on a constitutionally protected area, such a search has undoubtedly occurred.”
If that broader interpretation would hold, that would be awesome news. But by putting it in a footnote, as I understand it, it's more of a dream than anything else. Great philosophy, though. Here's hoping it plays out that way.
The problem -- and the reason it won't, probably -- is that this kind of interpretation needs to be put into a constitutional amendment. If you rely on judicial interpretation, between the legislature and the courts, they'll make a muddled mess out of it.