Upcoming SCOTUS Case

Discussion in 'Off-topic Political' started by Nemo, Sep 2, 2017.

  1. Nemo

    Nemo Man of Myth and Legend

    12,812
    819
    113
    Legal and a bit political. An upcoming SCOTUS case of large interest to most of us methinks.

    Nemo

    https://ballotpedia.org/Carpenter_v._United_States

     
  2. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    67,050
    1,428
    113
    How did the lower courts rule?
     

  3. Nemo

    Nemo Man of Myth and Legend

    12,812
    819
    113
    Per link above, part 2 of posting. I get squawked at for copying over too much.

    Nemo

     
  4. gunsmoker

    gunsmoker Lawyer and Gun Activist

    27,537
    680
    113
    no warrant

    I think the government will win.
    I don't think they SHOULD, but based on the erosion of 4th Amendment law for decades, that's my prediction.

    1-- Your 4th Amd. rights apply to papers and data that's in your possession, not necessarily in the possession of third parties that you have a business relationship with. U.S. v. Miller, a federal tax case (bootleg liquor sold by a Georgia man) held so, regarding Miller's bank records, which the gov't seized through the use of a mere subpoena, not a warrant. (subpoenas are issued routinely and without the same high standards as a warrant).

    2-- Although the substance of one's phone conversations is private (so far), the mere fact that you are accessing the telephone network and placing or receiving a call at a certain time and a certain location is not sufficiently "private" to invoke the 4th Amendment. Cases going back to the 1960s say that the government can monitor who you make and receive phone calls with, and when, without a warrant. But to actually listen to the conversation, THAT requires a warrant. Smith v. Maryland, (U.S. Supreme Ct. 1979).


    3-- An unspoken legal principle guiding most lawyers, and judges, is that government is good and is SUPPOSED to know everything that's going on in the USA. Collecting the data is fine. It's only when the government wrongly uses the data to justify laying hands on people, seizing them, shutting down their businesses, taking their property, etc. that the courts should serve as a check and balance against the government. But spying on citizens is cool, and today's citizens should have a lower expectation of privacy anyway because, well, 9/11 and the War on Terror and neo-Nazis and jihadists and all that.
    (No court case to cite here.)
     
  5. moe mensale

    moe mensale Well-Known Member

    12,617
    1,704
    113
    Two years ago I was stopped in Cartersville by a state trooper. My crime? My Suburban's windows were too heavily tinted and he couldn't see or determine what I was doing in the privacy of my vehicle. I asked him if he'd like to come by the house and check out what was going on inside. No sense of humor and I got the ticket.

    So it's OK for the government to collect all the data that they can possibly get their hands on for the entire population even though 99.999% of said population isn't guilty of anything. But just being government, you know that somebody will eventually get bored and decide to manipulate that data and see what they can possibly do with it. So that they can support their budgets, the "safety" of the American people and their superiors' never ending quest for total control of us dirt people.
     
  6. moe mensale

    moe mensale Well-Known Member

    12,617
    1,704
    113
    BTW, my Suburban's windows are still heavily tinted and I have an official state exemption for it. A knife cuts both ways.