Duh!! The right decision was made, which is a No Brainer
What is Truly Stunning is that the "conservative" side of the court had no problem disregarding the fourth amendment of the US Constitution, and had no problem allowing the "government" to watch its citizens movements, collect their private communications, and intervene in their private financial matters WITHOUT a warrant ?!?!
4th Amendment text: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized"
Party Over Country
For some reason conservatives are more allied to law & order policies than they are of government overreach when it comes to law enforcement policies. Bootlickers, I guess.
It has been noted that there's a correlation between conservative-leaning politics and authoritarianism.
The word you want here is "warrant", not "warranty". Funny enough, there's almost zero chance any of these companies would support a requirement for warranties...
[...] There are very few true conservatives in D.C. A true conservative believes in preserving the constitution, but unfortunately the left has turned the word conservative into a pejorative, just as the right has done with the true definition of liberal. Democrats and Republicans in Washington D.C. only care about one thing, and that’s maintaining the status quo because that’s how they keep lifetime jobs and get rich. [...]
I'm thinking your argument runs afoul of the "no true Scotsman" fallacy.
I am in full agreement that the majority of both parties in power are protecting the status quo. Corporatism is the true ideology of the duopoly parties.
I don't think the status quo is the issue in this case. This case sounds like a fight over authoritarianism.
Duh!! The right decision was made, which is a No Brainer
What is Truly Stunning is that the "conservative" side of the court had no problem disregarding the fourth amendment of the US Constitution, and had no problem allowing the "government" to watch its citizens movements, collect their private communications, and intervene in their private financial matters WITHOUT a warrant ?!?!
4th Amendment text: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized"
Party Over Country
For some reason conservatives are more allied to law & order policies than they are of government overreach when it comes to law enforcement policies. Bootlickers, I guess.
It has been noted that there's a correlation between conservative-leaning politics and authoritarianism.
You’ll see the exact same attitude in ‘liberal’ leaning politics. Even the article you linked to is an example of this in action, as any thinking person not living in an echo chamber knows authoritarianism is not unique to any party.
While in general a warrant will be required for gathering location records held by cellphone companies going forward it is not going to necessarily be ALWAYS: “We hold only that a warrant is required in the rare case where the suspect has a legitimate privacy interest in records held by a third party”...
That's an important takeaway, SCOTUS is not saying a warrant is always required for personal data.
So this sounds like police-operated cell phone towers used to gather the same info AKA "Stingray" devices will be illegal in many circumstances.
I don't see why one would be connected to the other. SCOTUS' ruling was relatively narrow.
This isn't really a narrow ruling. It's pretty categorical and represents a significant diversion from traditional third-party (Fourth Amendment) doctrine.
To be clear, in the passage from the majority opinion which you quote, the Court isn't saying that the government only needs a warrant to collect historical cell-site location information (CSLI) "in the rare case where the suspect has a legitimate privacy interest in records held by a third party." Rather, it is saying that, when it comes to CSLI, people have a legitimate privacy interest in those records held by third parties such that a warrant is generally required. In other words, the Court is saying that it isn't completely dismantling third-party doctrine. That doctrine still generally applies as it traditionally has. It's just that, when it comes to CSLI, the privacy interest is more substantial than is the case when it comes to many other records held by third parties. In such cases, third-party doctrine doesn't apply as it traditionally has. This ruling means that, for the most part, the government needs a warrant to collect 7 days or more of CSLI records.
That said, the headline...
Supreme Court rules police always need warrant for cell tower location data
... is inaccurate. The Court didn't rule that police always need a warrant to collect CSLI. The Court left open the possibility that a warrant isn't needed for CSLI from less than 7 days. It indicated that it didn't need to decide today whether one was needed to collect CSLI from a shorter period of time. Further, although the Court today found that collecting CSLI (for a period of 7 days or more) represents a Fourth Amendment search, that doesn't mean that a warrant is always needed to collect such information. The Court was clear in that exigent circumstances exceptions to the warrant requirement (for searches) still apply.
I'm thinking your argument runs afoul of the "no true Scotsman" fallacy.
How?
I am in full agreement that the majority of both parties in power are protecting the status quo. Corporatism is the true ideology of the duopoly parties.
BuffyzDead said: the "conservative" side of the court had no problem disregarding the fourth amendment of the US Constitution
Uh… no. Even Wikipedia admits you’re wrong. They’re simply against the “living document” bullshit.
The case is considered an example of the United States Constitution existing as a “living document”, which argues that the United States Constitution was written to be broad and flexible to accommodate social or technological change over time.
The above is obviously false. The Founders wanted nothing like this. No one who has read anything they wrote could say otherwise.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized"
Correct. So why hasn’t anyone declared the Patriot Act (et. al.) unconstitutional yet? Since it clearly violates the Constitution? Would you like me to list the other “laws” that are unconstitutional and which will get this thread locked?
Party Over Country
Explain in what way “conservatives” are known as NOT being the party of the Constitution, and the way in which liberals ARE known as being the party that gives A SINGLE FLYING FUCK about what the Constitution actually says. Please do this. I’m extremely curious. And since I love flaunting false dichotomies, I’m also curious how anyone who read the Constitution would think that this case could have been ruled in any way other than it was. Of COURSE the government has no power to spy without a warrant. The context is UTTERLY IRRELEVANT, that’s why the Constitution doesn’t LIST any contexts. “Persons, houses, papers, and effects” means… CELL PHONES. All digital stuff. That’s an “effect.”
Pish posh. Conservative Justices are originalists only when it serves their politics. See McDonald v. Chicago for reference. Even Antonin Scalia, patron saint of originalism, rolled with living document precedent for no other reason than it’s the easiest route to a result he valued more than Constitutional rigidity or intellectual integrity.
Duh!! The right decision was made, which is a No Brainer
What is Truly Stunning is that the "conservative" side of the court had no problem disregarding the fourth amendment of the US Constitution, and had no problem allowing the "government" to watch its citizens movements, collect their private communications, and intervene in their private financial matters WITHOUT a warrant ?!?!
4th Amendment text: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized"
Party Over Country
For some reason conservatives are more allied to law & order policies than they are of government overreach when it comes to law enforcement policies. Bootlickers, I guess.
There is good reason to be on the side of law and order. There are plenty of examples where that isnt much of a concern. As for the dessenting judges here we would have to read their opinions to understand their thoughts here which likely vary individually.
By the way this ruling doesnt really look like the home run the media is portraying here. In fact i would say it is pretty confused.
I read a portion of one of the dissenters. He said it would make the jobs of law enforcement more difficult. Cry me a river.
There is good reason not to be on the side of law and order compared to government overreach.
Duh!! The right decision was made, which is a No Brainer
What is Truly Stunning is that the "conservative" side of the court had no problem disregarding the fourth amendment of the US Constitution, and had no problem allowing the "government" to watch its citizens movements, collect their private communications, and intervene in their private financial matters WITHOUT a warrant ?!?!
4th Amendment text: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized"
Party Over Country
There are very few true conservatives in D.C. A true conservative believes in preserving the constitution, but unfortunately the left has turned the word conservative into a pejorative, just as the right has done with the true definition of liberal. Democrats and Republicans in Washington D.C. only care about one thing, and that’s maintaining the status quo because that’s how they keep lifetime jobs and get rich. I mean, you don’t actually think the Clintons became multimillionaires by being entrepreneurs and running legitimate business’ do you?
Every president can become a multimillionaire after office. Books, speaking tours, lobbying, etc. There’s not much nefarious about it.
While in general a warrant will be required for gathering location records held by cellphone companies going forward it is not going to necessarily be ALWAYS: “We hold only that a warrant is required in the rare case where the suspect has a legitimate privacy interest in records held by a third party”...
That's an important takeaway, SCOTUS is not saying a warrant is always required for personal data.
So this sounds like police-operated cell phone towers used to gather the same info AKA "Stingray" devices will be illegal in many circumstances.
I don't see why one would be connected to the other. SCOTUS' ruling was relatively narrow.
This isn't really a narrow ruling. It's pretty categorical and represents a significant diversion from traditional third-party (Fourth Amendment) doctrine.
Great post as usual Carnegie, but FWIW SCOTUS Chief Justice himself categorized this as a narrow ruling even if your opinion differs.
While in general a warrant will be required for gathering location records held by cellphone companies going forward it is not going to necessarily be ALWAYS: “We hold only that a warrant is required in the rare case where the suspect has a legitimate privacy interest in records held by a third party”...
That's an important takeaway, SCOTUS is not saying a warrant is always required for personal data.
The long running Supreme Court position is a warrant is needed when a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy. The court has until this ruling interpreted that to mean when the police get your info without a warrant from a third party that was ok because you didn’t have a reasonable expectation of privacy. So if your girlfriend or the phone company gave the police your personal information that was ok.
This ruling essentially says it is not always the case if police get your info from third parties that you have no reasonable expectation of privacy.
if the police want location data they need a warrant. This is a loosening of the previous view that no info coming from third parties was protected by the 4th amendment.
the 4th amendment has been whittled away to be almost meaningless. Justices would always say they didn’t want to make police’s jobs harder.
While in general a warrant will be required for gathering location records held by cellphone companies going forward it is not going to necessarily be ALWAYS: “We hold only that a warrant is required in the rare case where the suspect has a legitimate privacy interest in records held by a third party”...
That's an important takeaway, SCOTUS is not saying a warrant is always required for personal data.
The long running Supreme Court position is a warrant is needed when a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy. The court has until this ruling interpreted that to mean when the police get your info without a warrant from a third party that was ok because you didn’t have a reasonable expectation of privacy. So if your girlfriend or the phone company gave the police your personal information that was ok.
This ruling essentially says it is not always the case if police get your info from third parties that you have no reasonable expectation of privacy.
if the police want location data they need a warrant. This is a loosening of the previous view that no info coming from third parties was protected by the 4th amendment.
the 4th amendment has been whittled away to be almost meaningless. Justices would always say they didn’t want to make police’s jobs harder.
this is a welcomed step in the right direction.
The problem with the Fourth Amendment is the ambiguous term "unreasonable"... it keeps changing as government becomes more powerful! What is "unreasonable" to an all-powerful state is probably not the same as "unreasonable" to the People.
Comments
https://washingtonmonthly.com/2018/04/09/authoritarianism-and-the-identity-politics-of-the-republican-party/
The word you want here is "warrant", not "warranty". Funny enough, there's almost zero chance any of these companies would support a requirement for warranties...
I am in full agreement that the majority of both parties in power are protecting the status quo. Corporatism is the true ideology of the duopoly parties.
I don't think the status quo is the issue in this case. This case sounds like a fight over authoritarianism.
To be clear, in the passage from the majority opinion which you quote, the Court isn't saying that the government only needs a warrant to collect historical cell-site location information (CSLI) "in the rare case where the suspect has a legitimate privacy interest in records held by a third party." Rather, it is saying that, when it comes to CSLI, people have a legitimate privacy interest in those records held by third parties such that a warrant is generally required. In other words, the Court is saying that it isn't completely dismantling third-party doctrine. That doctrine still generally applies as it traditionally has. It's just that, when it comes to CSLI, the privacy interest is more substantial than is the case when it comes to many other records held by third parties. In such cases, third-party doctrine doesn't apply as it traditionally has. This ruling means that, for the most part, the government needs a warrant to collect 7 days or more of CSLI records.
That said, the headline...
... is inaccurate. The Court didn't rule that police always need a warrant to collect CSLI. The Court left open the possibility that a warrant isn't needed for CSLI from less than 7 days. It indicated that it didn't need to decide today whether one was needed to collect CSLI from a shorter period of time. Further, although the Court today found that collecting CSLI (for a period of 7 days or more) represents a Fourth Amendment search, that doesn't mean that a warrant is always needed to collect such information. The Court was clear in that exigent circumstances exceptions to the warrant requirement (for searches) still apply.
And then you immediately agree with him.
There is good reason not to be on the side of law and order compared to government overreach.
Every president can become a multimillionaire after office. Books, speaking tours, lobbying, etc. There’s not much nefarious about it.
For anyone interested there's a pretty clearly written and understandable analysis of the ruling to be found here: http://www.scotusblog.com/2018/06/opinion-analysis-court-holds-that-police-will-generally-need-a-warrant-for-cellphone-location-information/
This ruling essentially says it is not always the case if police get your info from third parties that you have no reasonable expectation of privacy.
if the police want location data they need a warrant. This is a loosening of the previous view that no info coming from third parties was protected by the 4th amendment.
the 4th amendment has been whittled away to be almost meaningless. Justices would always say they didn’t want to make police’s jobs harder.
this is a welcomed step in the right direction.