SCOTUS Affirms Cell Phone Location Privacy Rights

[Ben]

SCOTUS has just affirmed that Law Enforcement requires warrants to obtain the cell phone location history of US citizens.

Sadly, in this case I have to applaud the liberals on the SC, as almost all the conservatives dissented. That was actually surprising to me. Maybe I'm missing something in the decision, but then I'm also a, "better 100 guilty men go free than one innocent man jailed" kind of guy.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/06/22/supreme-court-affirms-privacy-rights-cellphone-users-in-big-brother-case.html

[MechAg94]

In dissent, Justice Anthony Kennedy warned “the court’s new and uncharted course will inhibit law enforcement and ‘keep defendants and judges guessing for years to come.’”

“This case should be resolved by interpreting accepted property principles as the baseline for reasonable expectations of privacy,” he added. “Here the government did not search anything over which Carpenter could assert ownership or control. Instead, it issued a court-authorized subpoena to a third party to disclose information it alone owned and controlled. That should suffice to resolve this case.”

I saw this quote.  It sounds like a subpoena was done to get the location data if I read that right.  The article doesn't go into the facts of the case very much.

[PEfarmer]

While some of the "conservative" justices did dissent, reading Gorsuch's separate dissent seems to indicate that he agreed with the result (unlawful search) but objected to the legalistic wrangling of the majority to get there.  His dissent seems to read that the text of the fourth amendment by itself was sufficient to guarantee privacy in the case at hand.  Gorsuch continues to impress the hell out of me. 

[Pb]

GOOD!

Conservative hate for the fourth amendment is disappointing.

[TommyGunn]

Conservatives don't "hate" the forth amendment, they simply interpret it differently than others.  

Given how much data the govt. has already been shown to collect from Mr. and Mrs.  America, however,  I must say I am surprised that no one has gotten around to erasing the 4th from the Bill of Rights yet.

The 2nd amendment is already is well tarnished.  

[Ben]

His dissent seems to read that the text of the fourth amendment by itself was sufficient to guarantee privacy in the case at hand.  Gorsuch continues to impress the hell out of me. 

I would agree with that, but then if it was sufficient to guarantee privacy (as it should be), then it seems like we shouldn't be having cases like this pop up. I recognize that in this case the plaintiffs appear to be slimeball criminals, but it would appear that LE, or at least the LE involved here, were misinterpreting or ignoring the protections the 4th should provide.

Nevertheless, I like Gorsuch as well, but still have a very great concern regarding electronic privacy, and am somewhat hypersensitive to misuse of private information by "the authorities".

[Pb]

Conservatives don't "hate" the forth amendment, they simply interpret it differently than others.  

Most "conservatives" typically interpret it into non existence. The gov can read your e-mail, put tracking devices on your car,  install video cameras in your yard, track your location at all times via cell phone records.... all without a warrant.  Trump's "get the guns first, due process second" is typical.

I am very conservative, and wish that other conservatives didn't crap all over the 4th.  I suspect normal conservative hatred of criminals is responsible.

 (Left wing politicos generally despise the 4th also- Obama comes to mind.)

[Perd Hapley]

Most "conservatives" typically interpret it into non existence. The gov can read your e-mail, put tracking devices on your car,  install video cameras in your yard, track your location at all times via cell phone records.... all without a warrant.  Trump's "get the guns first, due process second" is typical.

I am very conservative, and wish that other conservatives didn't crap all over the 4th.  I suspect normal conservative hatred of criminals is responsible.

 (Left wing politicos generally despise the 4th also- Obama comes to mind.)

   If you're going to make generalizations like that, at least show us some polling on the matter.

[cordex]

   If you're going to make generalizations like that, at least show us some polling on the matter.

Will legislative votes and judicial decisions do?

[Ben]

Will legislative votes and judicial decisions do?

Indeed. You don't have to look far to get a list of "for your safety" conservatives in Congress, the Senate, and elsewhere in our political leadership. Peter "The Terrorists!" King and Jeff "asset forfeiture" Sessions are a couple of big names right off the bat.

Sometimes I think there are more "If you've got nothing to hide..." people on the conservative side than on the progressive side.

[Perd Hapley]

Will legislative votes and judicial decisions do?

If you're leaving out the rank and file from the "most," then probably yes.

[cordex]

If you're leaving out the rank and file from the "most," then probably yes.

Is it not valid to judge the rank and file based on a cross section of the people rank and file repeatedly elect?

[Hawkmoon]

Is it not valid to judge the rank and file based on a cross section of the people rank and file repeatedly elect?

THAT'S NOT FAIR!

You're using logic.

[Pb]

   If you're going to make generalizations like that, at least show us some polling on the matter.

I don't know polling about it.  This is based on what I have seen politicians and judges do; also, I used to be somewhat hostile to the 4th Amendment when I was young, based on it being used to get criminals off.  Conservatives tend to focus on safety, protection from crime and terrorism, and tend to oppose things that make this harder.  Unfortunately, sometimes to the detriment of the 4th.

[Perd Hapley]

Is it not valid to judge the rank and file based on a cross section of the people rank and file repeatedly elect?

Not in all respects. People vote based on different priorities, policies, personality issues, etc. I think we can both come up with a number of areas where Republicans in office are pretty well out of step with the voters.

[Pb]

Interesting, I actually looked up polling on the 4th Amendment, and it is highly contradictory regarding conservative views:

https://today.yougov.com/topics/media/articles-reports/2013/06/07/americas-take-4th-amendment-nsa

Conservatives appear to oppose some types gov spying, but support others.  Interesting!

[MechAg94]

I don't know polling about it.  This is based on what I have seen politicians and judges do; also, I used to be somewhat hostile to the 4th Amendment when I was young, based on it being used to get criminals off.  Conservatives tend to focus on safety, protection from crime and terrorism, and tend to oppose things that make this harder.  Unfortunately, sometimes to the detriment of the 4th.

I guess it depends on what you define to be a conservative.  I think it depends more on how much you trust govt and govt bureaucrats.  IMO, that is not just a right/left thing.  As I get older, I tend to embrace the idea that law enforcement is not supposed to be made easy at my expense.  10 criminals getting away with crime is unfortunate.  1 innocent person getting convicted is a tragedy.  For me I think it was just years of seeing stories of people being run through the legal gauntlet and getting their lives turned upside down, then realizing that could happen to me also in the right circumstances.  

[Ben]

For me I think it was just years of seeing stories of people being run through the legal gauntlet and getting their lives turned upside down, then realizing that could happen to me also in the right circumstances.  

Word.

[RocketMan]

I guess it depends on what you define to be a conservative.  I think it depends more on how much you trust govt and govt bureaucrats.  IMO, that is not just a right/left thing.  As I get older, I tend to embrace the idea that law enforcement is not supposed to be made easy at my expense.  10 criminals getting away with crime is unfortunate.  1 innocent person getting convicted is a tragedy.  For me I think it was just years of seeing stories of people being run through the legal gauntlet and getting their lives turned upside down, then realizing that could happen to me also in the right circumstances.

This, so much this.  There is no reset button to fix a ruined life.

[Perd Hapley]

Sadly, I suspect it has much to do with how often your favorite TV cop catches the bad guy by having instant access to all data on everyone, everywhere.

[TommyGunn]

Sadly, I suspect it has much to do with how often your favorite TV cop catches the bad guy by having instant access to all data on everyone, everywhere.

Sorta why I like this  one,  since we viewers always know he's right!

[dogmush]

Sadly, I suspect it has much to do with how often your favorite TV cop catches the bad guy by having instant access to all data on everyone, everywhere.

My wife watched the remake of Hawaii 5-0 on Netflix a couple months ago, and I ended up asked to leave the room after the 100th or so time I pointed out that cops can't beat, lock up with no recourse, or shoot in the leg anyone they suspect of being a bad guy.

[TommyGunn]

My wife watched the remake of Hawaii 5-0 on Netflix a couple months ago, and I ended up asked to leave the room after the 100th or so time I pointed out that cops can't beat, lock up with no recourse, or shoot in the leg anyone they suspect of being a bad guy.

Five-O does a LOT of illegal cr@p in this series.  In its opening year the Five-O Force absconded with some criminal's major score of $$$$$ to use as operating funds without any official reporting.  They have short-circuited due process any number of times by tying a suspect in a chair in some cinderblock basement, keeping him incommunicado while they make .... doughnut runs, or solve the case, or whatever the episode's screen-writer says.

It's fiction, For ENTERTAINMENT purposes only.    


BLUE BLOODS, following the  Five-O series,  might not be wrong in such an egregious way, they do usually atleast give some voice to laws and various rights suspects have .... if for nothing more than make life harder on Detective Danny Reagan.  
Any one who gets legal info and ejumakashun from a TV series is a fool.

Except maybe for PERRY MASON (the character was created by a trial lawyer and the executive producer was educated in actual law)..... and, well, probably not even THAT series.....

[Doggy Daddy]

I had to quit watching CSI when they went over the top on the self-righteousness and heavy-handedness.  Of course, it always turns out that the "suspects" being mistreated turned out to be guilty in the end, which made all the mistreatment okay. Right?

[just Warren]

Remember my thread on S.W.A.T where in five minutes the Swatties killed more people than L.A.P.D. S.W.AT. will shoot in a year.

Most procedurals are bad but some are fun to watch. Not S.W.A.T.  but others.