SCOTUS Rules police need a warrant for cell phone location data

[Captainant 28,272]

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-402_h315.pdf

 

Thank fucking god this went the right way.

[Cheeseweasel 26,439]

Outstanding ruling.

WTF was Kennedy thinking by dissenting? His rulings are all over the place.

[SDG 3,319]

Good, now they just need to rule on the CAF and we’re on our way to making things right.  

[chainsaw 10,207]

what is the caf

[SDG 3,319]

Civil asset forfeiture. 

[chainsaw 10,207]

When people say "taxation is theft," I always point to that.  Taxes are at least a theoretical purchase of public services and public goods.  If you benefit from them (and nobody doesn't) then you have to pay your fair share, just like everyone else.

But civil asset forfeiture?  Yeah, that's straight up theft.

[Hank Scorpio 17,886]

You cannot tax me I am a sovereign man and I do not recognize your authority to make me pay taxes on the 4 jet skis I bought with the unreported income I make from selling scrap metal. 

[Jerry Callo 8,917]

A narrow ruling with the correct outcome.  I was concerned to see that Gorsuch dissented until I read the dissent.  Gorsuch gets it.

[TwiceHorn 31,868]

17 hours ago, Hank Scorpio said:

You cannot tax me I am a sovereign man and I do not recognize your authority to make me pay taxes on the 4 jet skis I bought with the unreported income I make from selling scrap metal. 

I have a common law trust!!

[GRHorn 105]

On 6/23/2018 at 7:40 AM, Jerry Callo said:

A narrow ruling with the correct outcome.  I was concerned to see that Gorsuch dissented until I read the dissent.  Gorsuch gets it.

Cliff’s notes on that for the non legal crowd?

[Jerry Callo 8,917]

The majority came up with the right result for the wrong reasons.  They actually make the issue more fuzzy going forward.  Gorsuch goes back to the late 60's ruling in Katz and the next major 4th Amendment cases, Smith and Miller, to say they were wrongly decided then and even more inapplicable now.  Both the "reasonable expectation of privacy" doctrine and the "third party" doctrine were stretches when created by the Court back then and are nearly unusable in this day and age with technology.

[GRHorn 105]

1 minute ago, Jerry Callo said:

The majority came up with the right result for the wrong reasons.  They actually make the issue more fuzzy going forward.  Gorsuch goes back to the late 60's ruling in Katz and the next major 4th Amendment cases, Smith and Miller, to say they were wrongly decided then and even more inapplicable now.  Both the "reasonable expectation of privacy" doctrine and the "third party" doctrine were stretches when created by the Court back then and are nearly unusable in this day and age with technology.

Thanks.  I was surprised to see he voted against. 

[po elvis 2,137]

After reading the whole thing, I am with Thomas.

Quote

This case should not turn on “whether” a search occurred. Ante, at 1. It should turn, instead, on whose property was searched. The Fourth Amendment guarantees individuals the right to be secure from unreasonable searches of “their persons, houses, papers, and effects.” (Emphasis added.) In other words, “each person has the right to be secure against unreasonable searches . . . in his own person, house, papers, and effects.” Minnesota v. Carter, 525 U. S. 83, 92 (1998) (Scalia, J., concurring). By obtaining the cell-site records of MetroPCS and Sprint, the Government did not search Carpenter’s property. He did not create the records, he does not maintain them, he cannot control them, and he cannot destroy them. Neither the terms of his contracts nor any provision of law makes the records his. The records belong to MetroPCS and Sprint.

 

[bernorange 8,380]

Someday, some telecom is going to make huge bucks by structuring their customer contracts so that the customer owns the records and only grants the telecom license to use it for business purposes.

[ousuxndallas 65]

After reading the whole thing, I am with Thomas.

This case should not turn on “whether” a search occurred. Ante, at 1. It should turn, instead, on whose property was searched. The Fourth Amendment guarantees individuals the right to be secure from unreasonable searches of “their persons, houses, papers, and effects.” (Emphasis added.) In other words, “each person has the right to be secure against unreasonable searches . . . in his own person, house, papers, and effects.” Minnesota v. Carter, 525 U. S. 83, 92 (1998) (Scalia, J., concurring). By obtaining the cell-site records of MetroPCS and Sprint, the Government did not search Carpenter’s property. He did not create the records, he does not maintain them, he cannot control them, and he cannot destroy them. Neither the terms of his contracts nor any provision of law makes the records his. The records belong to MetroPCS and Sprint.

 
I concur. Very good argument by Thomas.