Blog Archive

Blog Archive

Wednesday, November 9, 2011

postheadericon Supreme Court Considers Constitutionality Of Having People Tracked By GPS All The Time

Last year, he wrote about a failure (a little surprising, given similar rulings elsewhere) the Court of Appeals for the DC, while saying that the police could use a GPS device to locate a trip , making long-term follow-up has always been beyond the "reasonable expectation" of privacy and a violation of the 4th Amendment. This week, the Supreme Court heard the appeal in this case, and whether such monitoring 24 / 7 was reasonable. The Government's argument is simply that when traveling in public is public and therefore there is no guarantee of confidentiality. However, it seems that the judges recognize a slippery slope quite problematic in the development of this argument:


This argument seems to alarm some of the judges. "If he wins this case, then there is nothing to prevent the police or government oversight 24 hours a day on which the social movement for all citizens of the United States," said Breyer. "And nobody, at least very rarely, sends human beings to follow people 24 hours a day. This happens from time to time. But with the machines, you can. So if you win, suddenly produce it looks like 1984 . "



" This case does not include 24-hour surveillance of all citizens of the United States, "said Dreeben. "It's a drug dealer suspect after suspect for whom there is very strong." But he was not able to explain how pervasive surveillance would before he was constitutionally problematic.


Chief Justice Roberts asked whether the government's theory would allow police to install tracking devices in cars of members of the Supreme Court. Dreeben said he would. He suggested that the legislatures that want to limit this type of surveillance, but said it posed no constitutional problem.


Justice Kennedy asked if the theory of government would allow the installation of a GPS tracking device in the shelter of a suspect. Again, Dreeben argued that it would, provided that only provide information on the movements of suspects in public places.
so I agree with Tim Lee, who wrote the post linked Ars Technica and cited above, indicating that the attorney who was retained, Antoine Jones, seemed to focus on a weakness in his argument. Instead of focusing on the problem that the Court of Appeal said - this "mosaic theory" that the sum total of the 24 / 7 monitoring violated amendment 4 - attorney Jones focused on the issue of the intrusion of installing GPS unit, which seems a little sense when one considers that the monitoring of most of these can now be performed remotely via mobile phones / satellite device without direct connection to a car
Permalink |. Reviews | Send this article

Find best price for : --Supreme----Court----Antoine----Technica----Kennedy----Roberts----Dreeben--

0 comments:

About Me