[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Thoughts on this Kai Murros speech

Sen. Kamala Harris Announces 2020 Presidential Candidacy

Woman Fakes Autism to Lure Caregiver Into Sex Trap

FDA threatens to pull e-cigarettes off the market

The Rise of Trump

Prepare for President Trump to call upon American citizens to defend the Republic against the lawless deep state

Roger Stone: Deep State plans to remove POTUS Trump, VP Pence, to install Pelosi and Hillary in COUP

As Marijuana Legalization Expands, the NFL Clings to Prohibition. For Now.

Facing populist assault, global elites regroup in Davos

Man who rescued deer from frozen lake faces fine after taking animal home to nurse back to health

Muslim mob ACID attacks people leaving London nightclub Muslim mob ACID attacks people leaving London nightclub, gang jailed for a total of nearly 60 years

ANOTHER Junk #ANOTHER Junk #FakeNews Report Implodes: Russian Hooker Admits She Made Up Trump-Russia Collusion So Mueller Would Spring Her Report Implodes: Russian Hooker Admits She Made Up Trump-Russia Collusion So Mueller Would Spring Her from Jail

Police Officers more likely to die by suicide than line of duty

Phil Robertson Explains Why America Needs a Wall

Facebook employees were caught writing 5-star reviews for its Portal device on Amazon (tr)

I Believe: The Best She Can Be? | Gillette (Response Film) BANNED ON FACEBOOK

How To Make a WordPress Website - 2019 - For Beginners

Donald Trump is Finished

This is why Native Americans are marching on Washington

Eisenhower’s Nightmare on Steroids; graduated nuclear escalation v2.0

Trump Tweaks Border Stance in Bid to Shift Shutdown Blame

Trump Backs 'Path To Citizenship' For H-1B Recipients: 'Rest Assured That Changes Are Soon Coming'

Television Networks Put Out 90 Percent Anti-Trump Spin in 2018

What We Own...

“NewsGuard” organization founded by globalists to censor independent media has ties to pro-Monsanto American Enterprise Institute propagandists

Driver attempts to destroy giant snowman, not realizing it’s built on a large tree trunk

Newly Elected Sheriff Arrested for Stealing Meth from Evidence Room—Second Day on Job

Chicago cop gets 81-month sentence in Laquan McDonald murder

The circular firing squad: Mueller targets turn on each other

Retired cop, arrested by Bloomfield PD, fatally shoots himself inside police headquarters

LAWSUIT CLAIMS SHEILA JACKSON LEE FIRED A STAFFER TO COVER UP A RAPE

18 U.S. Code § 1622 - Subornation of perjury

New York Bill Allowing Abortions Up to Birth Says a Person is Only “A Human Being Who Has Been Born”

Feds say ‘star’ DEA agent abroad stole millions

Black People Dismantle "White Privilege"

Liberals Threaten to Terrorize and Imprison Trump Supporters

William Barr’s ‘Deep State’ resume: Cover-ups, covert ops, and pardons

Innocent Marine Vet Falsely Arrested, Brutally Strip Searched in Horrific ‘Punishment’

Oklahoma Cops Jail Four Men for Transporting Legal Hemp

Watch a Florida Cop Botch a Drug Field Test on Video, Then Arrest an Innocent Man

Vigilante Anarchist Bus Driver, git 'er done

Racist Bitch Kamala Harris Tries to Bully Kirstjen Nielsen then Kirstjen Gets Fed Up And Fights Back!

Assad points to attempts to divide Church of Antioch in Syria, Lebanon

Trump Cancels Pelosi's Brussels Junket (Gov Shutdown, no jet)

Despite ban, N.H. lawmakers say they will continue to carry guns in the State House

Gun Owners of America Funds Challenge to National Firearms Act in U.S. Supreme Court

War Whores Scramble To Say Syria Attack Means Troops Must Remain

Volunteers Kicked Out of Nat’l Park for Cleaning It During Shutdown—Without a Permit

William Barr’s Connection to Ruby Ridge, Defending FBI Snipers

The 100th Anniversary of the Ratification of the Amendment That Led to Prohibition Is a Reminder of the Lasting Damage Bad Policy Can Do


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

U.S. Constitution
See other U.S. Constitution Articles

Title: Huge Win for Everyone With a Cellphone (and for the Fourth Amendment) at the Supreme Court
Source: Reason
URL Source: https://reason.com/blog/2018/06/22/ ... ects-warrantless-tracking-of-c
Published: Jun 22, 2018
Author: Damon Root
Post Date: 2018-06-23 09:11:00 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 409
Comments: 18

SCOTUS rejects warrantless cellphone location tracking in Carpenter v. United States.

In a blockbuster 5-4 decision issued today, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that warrantless government tracking of cellphone users via their cellphone location records violates the Fourth Amendment. "A person does not surrender all Fourth Amendment protection by venturing into the public sphere," declared the majority opinion of Chief Justice John Roberts. "We decline to grant the state unrestricted access to a wireless carrier's database of physical location information."

The case is Carpenter v. United States. It arose after the after FBI obtained, without a search warrant, the cellphone records of a suspected armed robber named Timothy Carpenter. With those records, law enforcement officials identified the cell towers that handled his calls and then proceeded to trace back his whereabouts during the time periods in which his alleged crimes were committed. That information was used against Carpenter in court.

The central issue in the case was whether Carpenter had a "reasonable expectation of privacy" in the information contained in those records, or whether he had forfeited such privacy protections by voluntarily sharing the information with his cellular service provider. As the Supreme Court put it in United States v. Miller (1976) and Smith v. Maryland (1979), "a person has no legitimate expectation of privacy in information he voluntarily turns over to third parties."

In his ruling today, Chief Justice Roberts "decline[d] to extend Smith and Miller to cover these novel circumstances. Given the unique nature of cell phone location records, the fact that the information is held by a third party does not by itself overcome the user's claim to Fourth Amendment protection." He continued: "Whether the Government employs its own surveillance technology…or leverages the technology of a wireless carrier, we hold that an individual maintains a legitimate expectation of privacy in the record of his physical movements as captured through [cell site location information]."

Roberts' opinion was joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan. Justice Anthony Kennedy filed a dissent, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito. Alito also filed a dissent, which Thomas joined. Thomas also filed a dissent of his own. Justice Neil Gorsuch dissented alone too.

Kennedy, joined by Thomas and Alito, complained that "the Court's stark departure from relevant Fourth Amendment precedents and principles…places undue restrictions on the lawful and necessary enforcement powers exercised not only by the Federal Government, but also by law enforcement in every State and locality throughout the Nation." In their view, the Court should have followed its precedents in Miller and Smith and held that "individuals have no Fourth Amendment interests in business records which are possessed, owned, and controlled by a third party." Cellphone records, they maintain, "are no different from the many other kinds of business records the Government has a lawful right to obtain by compulsory process."

Justice Neil Gorsuch struck an entirely different note in his lone dissent. Indeed, his dissent reads much more like a concurrence. It seems clear that while Gorsuch agreed with the majority that Carpenter deserved to win, he strongly disagreed with them about how the win should have happened.

"I would look to a more traditional Fourth Amendment approach," Gorsuch wrote. "The Fourth Amendment protects 'the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.' True to those words and their original understanding, the traditional approach asked if a house, paper or effect was yours under law. No more was needed to trigger the Fourth Amendment." Furthermore, Gorsuch wrote, "it seems to me entirely possible a person's cell-site data could qualify as his papers or effects under existing law."

"I cannot fault" the majority "for its implicit but unmistakable conclusion that the rationale of Smith and Miller is wrong; indeed, I agree with that," Gorsuch explained. "At the same time, I do not agree with the Court's decision today to keep Smith and Miller on life support." In other words, Gorsuch would scrap these third-party precedents and have the Court start adhering to an originalist, property rights-based theory of the Fourth Amendment. That's how Gorsuch wanted Carpenter to win.

The importance of today's ruling in Carpenter v. U.S. should not be underestimated. Both the majority opinion and Gorsuch's dissent raise questions about the future viability of two key Fourth Amendment precedents. What is more, the decision itself represents a massive win for Fourth Amendment advocates. Carpenter may well be remembered as the most significant decision issued this term.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 13.

#12. To: Nolu chan (#0)

Nolu should come in with something scholarly, I'll state it in plain English.

A justice is with or against the majority solely based on one single word: Upheld, or Not.

The long and winding opinions that explain the justices' reasoning are dicta (individually dictum) - they are not the holding, they are literal opinions. Dictum is not law. Only the holding is law.

Of course, Supreme Court justices never retire, and only die rarely, so when a Justice writes his or her opinion and states the logic by which s/he decided the case, that logic isn't law, but it sure is a good guide to what s/he will probably say the next time a case like that is presented. That Justice is now much more predictable on an issue.

Gorsuch voted with the minority to either uphold or overturn the original decision - they did not give enough data to tell us what the actual HOLDING was (upheld, reversed?) - so he is properly counted with the other justices who so held, even though his obiter dictum was different in its logic than theirs.

Vicomte13  posted on  2018-06-23   13:10:28 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#13. To: Vicomte13 (#12)

they did not give enough data to tell us what the actual HOLDING was (upheld, reversed?)

So dumbshit. the USSC should not have accepted the case, must less the adjudication.

But, despite your esteemed concepts .. they diametrically chose to decide contrary to your opinion.

buckeroo  posted on  2018-06-23   13:19:33 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 13.

#15. To: buckeroo (#13) (Edited)

But, despite your esteemed concepts .. they diametrically chose to decide contrary to your opinion.

I agree with the decision.

Vicomte13  posted on  2018-06-23 16:36:34 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


End Trace Mode for Comment # 13.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com