Supreme Court rules unanimously in favor of drug kingpin

I didn't think such a thing was possible in this day and age, but the United States Supreme Court ruled in favor of a convicted drug kingpin and against the police.

In United States vs. Jones, federal prosecutors argued they don't need search warrants to attach GPS tracking systems to the cars of drug dealers.

At every single level of the judiciary (federal court, court of appeals, and now the Supreme Court), the courts ruled unanimously against this notion.

LINK

What truly shocked me was Chief Justice Roberts' comments about his disappointment at not being able to rule on the "unconstitutional invasion of privacy" required to attach these buggers to cars.

We can has a constitutional right to privacy? Who knew?

Even drug kingpins have rights.

bronzeage said:

Even drug kingpins have rights.

Click to expand...

but..but...what about our children?

Won't somebody think of the children?

Seems to me that it ultimately doesn't say much. They need a warrant, ok. That makes sense I guess although it doesn't really stop anything. Do they need one if they can track without touching his property? Uh...
Can we still use GPS to track? Sure.
Can we still follow people? Sure.
So basically we just need a warrant to attach this fucker to his car but not if we want to follow him and maybe not if we can track without attaching it? Right.

KRCummings said:

Seems to me that it ultimately doesn't say much. They need a warrant, ok. That makes sense I guess although it doesn't really stop anything. Do they need one if they can track without touching his property? Uh...
Can we still use GPS to track? Sure.
Can we still follow people? Sure.
So basically we just need a warrant to attach this fucker to his car but not if we want to follow him and maybe not if we can track without attaching it? Right.

Click to expand...

It's a babby step away from the "9/11 changed everything! EVERYTHING!!!" mindset that the police can do no wrong.

RobDownSouth said:

It's a babby step away from the "9/11 changed everything! EVERYTHING!!!" mindset that the police can do no wrong.

Click to expand...

Considering how narrow the ruling is and how fast technology grows I can see it being totally outdated in a year.

even getting a basic rubber stamped warrant is an inconvenience these days...but the terrorist are every where...

HOO-RA!

Can they not trace his phone like an ex-girlfriend? Why attach a GPS and be all obvious about it?

Drug Kingpin and Supreme Court.

RobDownSouth said:

I didn't think such a thing was possible in this day and age, but the United States Supreme Court ruled in favor of a convicted drug kingpin and against the police.

In United States vs. Jones, federal prosecutors argued they don't need search warrants to attach GPS tracking systems to the cars of drug dealers.

At every single level of the judiciary (federal court, court of appeals, and now the Supreme Court), the courts ruled unanimously against this notion.

LINK

What truly shocked me was Chief Justice Roberts' comments about his disappointment at not being able to rule on the "unconstitutional invasion of privacy" required to attach these buggers to cars.

We can has a constitutional right to privacy? Who knew?

Click to expand...

Interesting how you just brought that up, I just saw an old episode from MIAMI VICE about a young drug kingpin. I know that guys like him would have loved this ruling.

KRCummings said:

Seems to me that it ultimately doesn't say much. They need a warrant, ok. That makes sense I guess although it doesn't really stop anything. Do they need one if they can track without touching his property? Uh...
Can we still use GPS to track? Sure.
Can we still follow people? Sure.
So basically we just need a warrant to attach this fucker to his car but not if we want to follow him and maybe not if we can track without attaching it? Right.

Click to expand...

Maybe.

For most of this nation’s history, a violation of one’s Fourth Amendment rights required the government to commit a physical intrusion or trespass against the specific items enumerated in the Amendment (persons, houses, papers and effects). This principle was upheld in the 20th century cases of Olmstead v. United States (1928) and Goldman v. United States (1942). Olmstead dealt with the tapping of public telephone lines in public buildings and on public streets and with no physical trespass of defendant’s property. Goldman involved use of a “detectaphone” device held up to the wall of an adjoining hotel room. Evidence obtained in both cases was admitted and upheld on appeal by SCOTUS due to lack of trespass on defendant’s owned or controlled space or property.

This precedent, however, was overturned in the 1967 case of Katz v. United States, wherein the government obtained evidence by way of an electronic listening device attached to the exterior of a public phone booth. Said the Court:

“…once it is recognized that the Fourth Amendment protects people -- and not simply "areas" -- against unreasonable searches and seizures, it becomes clear that the reach of that Amendment cannot turn upon the presence or absence of a physical intrusion into any given enclosure.

We conclude that the underpinnings of Olmstead and Goldman have been so eroded by our subsequent decisions that the "trespass" doctrine there enunciated can no longer be regarded as controlling. The Government's activities in electronically listening to and recording the petitioner's words violated the privacy upon which he justifiably relied while using the telephone booth, and thus constituted a "search and seizure" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. The fact that the electronic device employed to achieve that end did not happen to penetrate the wall of the booth can have no constitutional significance.”

http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/389/347/case.html

Click to expand...

Additionally, subsequent SCOTUS review of “rights of privacy” cases have been conducted with great reliance upon Justice Harlan’s concurrence in Katz where he stated:

“As the Court's opinion states, 'the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places.' The question, however, is what protection it affords to those people. Generally, as here, the answer to that question requires reference to a 'place.' My understanding of the rule that has emerged from prior decisions is that there is a twofold requirement, first that a person have exhibited an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy and, second, that the expectation be one that society is prepared to recognize as 'reasonable.' Thus, a man's home is, for most purposes, a place where he expects privacy, but objects, activities, or statements that he exposes to the 'plain view' of outsiders are not 'protected,' because no intention to keep them to himself has been exhibited. On the other hand, conversations in the open would not be protected against being overheard, for the expectation of privacy under the circumstances would be unreasonable.”

Click to expand...

I’m not a huge fan of the “reasonable expectation of privacy” rule due to the ambiguity it arguably introduces into Constitutional interpretation by commingling the (objective) prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures with (subjective) reasonable societal expectations. Societal expectations seem a bit fickle to me and not necessarily based on legal rights for the minority. If society ultimately regards the proliferation of security cameras photographing public areas as too intrusive, how will we square that expectation for less intrusion with your right as a small business person to secure the property and inventory of your business establishment?

But in the instant case, Justice Scalia, who authored the Jones opinion would seek to reassure me when he writes, “But as we have discussed, the Katz reasonable-expectation-of-privacy test has been added to, not substituted for, the common-law trespassory test.” By that Scalia simply means that even where no reasonable expectation of privacy exists, the original trespass of the specific property rights (persons, houses, papers and effects) may still serve to constitute an unlawful search.

Indeed, the Court’s essential holding of law in the Jones case is this and nothing more, “We hold that the Government’s installation of a GPS device on a target’s vehicle, and its use of that device to monitor the vehicle’s movements, constitutes a “search.” (Installation and monitoring being the two acts that together comprise the unlawful trespass on one of the defendant's protected "effects" -- his car).

Regarding expectations of privacy, the government contended Jones had none because the movements of the vehicle all occurred on public roads. Again, a significant aspect of Jones is that the Court wouldn’t even consider that argument, since the illegal trespass mooted it.

"But we need not address the Government’s contentions, because Jones’s Fourth Amendment rights do not rise or fall with the Katz formulation. At bottom, we must “assur[e] preservation of that degree of privacy against government that existed when the Fourth Amendment was adopted.” As explained, for most of our history the Fourth Amendment was understood to embody a particular concern for government trespass upon the areas (“persons, houses, papers, and effects”) it enumerates. Katz did not repudiate that understanding."

Click to expand...

Curiously, despite the Court’s unanimous agreement on the conclusion, the Constitutional argument that broke out in Jones was between Scalia’s written opinion for the Court, and Justice Alito’s concurrence to the opinion. Now there’s something you don’t see every day – a concurrence that actually reads like a dissent! In fact, the entire second half of Scalia’s opinion addressed objections raised in Alito’s concurrence.

Those objections centered around Scalia’s dependence on what Alito called “18th century tort law" (the “trespass to chattels”). Instead, said Alito. “I would analyze the question presented in this case by asking whether respondent’s reasonable expectations of privacy were violated by the long-term monitoring of the movements of the vehicle he drove.”

A more detailed analysis of the legal dispute would bore the shit out of everybody here, so I’ll leave it at this: A legal blog I frequent contained five very different interpretations of what todays ruling may or may not mean. That leads me to believe that the entire area of privacy rights and Fourth Amendment law is very unsettled. Today’s ruling ultimately raised more questions than it answered.

Colonel Hogan said:

Maybe.

For most of this nation’s history, a violation of one’s Fourth Amendment rights required the government to commit a physical intrusion or trespass against the specific items enumerated in the Amendment (persons, houses, papers and effects). This principle was upheld in the 20th century cases of Olmstead v. United States (1928) and Goldman v. United States (1942). Olmstead dealt with the tapping of public telephone lines in public buildings and on public streets and with no physical trespass of defendant’s property. Goldman involved use of a “detectaphone” device held up to the wall of an adjoining hotel room. Evidence obtained in both cases was admitted and upheld on appeal by SCOTUS due to lack of trespass on defendant’s owned or controlled space or property.

This precedent, however, was overturned in the 1967 case of Katz v. United States, wherein the government obtained evidence by way of an electronic listening device attached to the exterior of a public phone booth. Said the Court:



Additionally, subsequent SCOTUS review of “rights of privacy” cases have been conducted with great reliance upon Justice Harlan’s concurrence in Katz where he stated:



I’m not a huge fan of the “reasonable expectation of privacy” rule due to the ambiguity it arguably introduces into Constitutional interpretation by commingling the (objective) prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures with (subjective) reasonable societal expectations. Societal expectations seem a bit fickle to me and not necessarily based on legal rights for the minority. If society ultimately regards the proliferation of security cameras photographing public areas as too intrusive, how will we square that expectation for less intrusion with your right as a small business person to secure the property and inventory of your business establishment?

But in the instant case, Justice Scalia, who authored the Jones opinion would seek to reassure me when he writes, “But as we have discussed, the Katz reasonable-expectation-of-privacy test has been added to, not substituted for, the common-law trespassory test.” By that Scalia simply means that even where no reasonable expectation of privacy exists, the original trespass of the specific property rights (persons, houses, papers and effects) may still serve to constitute an unlawful search.

Indeed, the Court’s essential holding of law in the Jones case is this and nothing more, “We hold that the Government’s installation of a GPS device on a target’s vehicle, and its use of that device to monitor the vehicle’s movements, constitutes a “search.” (Installation and monitoring being the two acts that together comprise the unlawful trespass on one of the defendant's protected "effects" -- his car).

Regarding expectations of privacy, the government contended Jones had none because the movements of the vehicle all occurred on public roads. Again, a significant aspect of Jones is that the Court wouldn’t even consider that argument, since the illegal trespass mooted it.



Curiously, despite the Court’s unanimous agreement on the conclusion, the Constitutional argument that broke out in Jones was between Scalia’s written opinion for the Court, and Justice Alito’s concurrence to the opinion. Now there’s something you don’t see every day – a concurrence that actually reads like a dissent! In fact, the entire second half of Scalia’s opinion addressed objections raised in Alito’s concurrence.

Those objections centered around Scalia’s dependence on what Alito called “18th century tort law" (the “trespass to chattels”). Instead, said Alito. “I would analyze the question presented in this case by asking whether respondent’s reasonable expectations of privacy were violated by the long-term monitoring of the movements of the vehicle he drove.”

A more detailed analysis of the legal dispute would bore the shit out of everybody here, so I’ll leave it at this: A legal blog I frequent contained five very different interpretations of what todays ruling may or may not mean. That leads me to believe that the entire area of privacy rights and Fourth Amendment law is very unsettled. Today’s ruling ultimately raised more questions than it answered.

Click to expand...

Wikipedia IS back up!






Just kidding... excellent post Hogan, very informative.

RobDownSouth said:

I didn't think such a thing was possible in this day and age, but the United States Supreme Court ruled in favor of a convicted drug kingpin and against the police.

In United States vs. Jones, federal prosecutors argued they don't need search warrants to attach GPS tracking systems to the cars of drug dealers.

At every single level of the judiciary (federal court, court of appeals, and now the Supreme Court), the courts ruled unanimously against this notion.

LINK

What truly shocked me was Chief Justice Roberts' comments about his disappointment at not being able to rule on the "unconstitutional invasion of privacy" required to attach these buggers to cars.

We can has a constitutional right to privacy? Who knew?

Click to expand...

The government makes and refines the drugs, then puts them out onto the streets.

The CIA is the largest and most powerful drug cartel ever to exist.

RobDownSouth said:

but..but...what about our children?

Won't somebody think of the children?

Click to expand...

Let 'em get their own drug kingpins!

richard_daily said:

Wikipedia IS back up!






Just kidding... excellent post Hogan, very informative.

Click to expand...

Believe me, I know how close I skate to the edge of relevance, and that I need to be able to withstand the satire I might bring upon myself.

But I'll gladly take that risk and laugh at my own expense in return for preparing myself against those who tend to live life by way of the "Cliff Notes."

I think you know the ones who I mean.

Unfortunately, this is how the US Justice system works. Judges have to deal with the facts, and the rules of those facts, presented before them. I bet Andrew Pincus was paid handsomely for his interpretation and usage of the 4th Amendment and thus filing the brief on Antoine Jones' behalf.

In the meantime, some poor schmuck is probably doing jail time for a joint or some cocaine left in his car by some hitchhiker who made an anonymous call to the police to throw them off the hitchhiker's trail.

Colonel Hogan said:

A more detailed analysis of the legal dispute would bore the shit out of everybody here...

Click to expand...

"A more detailed analysis"?!?!

H3ll, you had me bored @

Colonel Hogan said:

Maybe.

Click to expand...

eyer said:

"A more detailed analysis"?!?!

H3ll, you had me bored @

Click to expand...

After the first sentence, I'm guessing.

At least now I can stop checking my car every time I go out. That was getting old.

KRCummings said:

Seems to me that it ultimately doesn't say much. They need a warrant, ok. That makes sense I guess although it doesn't really stop anything. Do they need one if they can track without touching his property? Uh...
Can we still use GPS to track? Sure.
Can we still follow people? Sure.
So basically we just need a warrant to attach this fucker to his car but not if we want to follow him and maybe not if we can track without attaching it? Right.

Click to expand...

Really fucked up is it not? I bet some detectives were withering around like schizophrenics when the Supreme Court announced its' decision. And unanimously at that.

It would have been sweet victory for them if they could have used the GPS device w/out anyone knowing about it.

Johnny_Ray_Wilson said:

Really fucked up is it not? I bet some detectives were withering around like schizophrenics when the Supreme Court announced its' decision. And unanimously at that.

It would have been sweet victory for them if they could have used the GPS device w/out anyone knowing about it.

Click to expand...

One might think that because the authorities originally obtained a warrant that they had a pretty good idea what their legal obligations were. Contrasted with that is the fact that they let its time limit expire and didn't even execute it within the jurisdiction in which it was issued. Strangely enough, these procedural deficiencies apparently didn't come up in the lower courts, so there was no basis for SCOTUS to toss the case on procedural grounds.

Colonel Hogan said:

Believe me, I know how close I skate to the edge of relevance, and that I need to be able to withstand the satire I might bring upon myself.

But I'll gladly take that risk and laugh at my own expense in return for preparing myself against those who tend to live life by way of the "Cliff Notes."

I think you know the ones who I mean.

Click to expand...

I do, and I honestly do appreciate the post. I read it and absorbed as much of it as I was able. I even found myself agreeing with a position Scalia was taking, which is a rare occasion.

I'm not very well versed in search and seizure law (thankfully), but I definitely value the right of privacy, which has been greatly eroded in the last decade due to various forces, some legal, some technological... This is a case where the technology has been ahead of the laws for some time, and hopefully it will balance out in the long run.

That said, I don't think I'd want to be a drug dealer in these times... It's way too easy for people to keep an eye on you.

Colonel Hogan said:

One might think that because the authorities originally obtained a warrant that they had a pretty good idea what their legal obligations were. Contrasted with that is the fact that they let its time limit expire and didn't even execute it within the jurisdiction in which it was issued. Strangely enough, these procedural deficiencies apparently didn't come up in the lower courts, so there was no basis for SCOTUS to toss the case on procedural grounds.

Click to expand...

True. Which is why I cut to the chase on my interpretation of what may have really happened with no proof of that interpretation. http://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=39767497&postcount=15

Johnny_Ray_Wilson said:

True. Which is why I cut to the chase on my interpretation of what may have really happened with no proof of that interpretation. http://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=39767497&postcount=15

Click to expand...

You may be right. I rarely look at the briefs, and I have no idea how frequently the justices do. Of course, they have to know the plaintiff and defendant's contested issues, I just don't know how much attention they give to amici filings.

Somewhat related question;

Why do you only get half an hour to present your case in the Supreme Court? I mean, they're so rarely in session they seem like the last place that would need a time limit. It's not like traffic court where there are a million people in line behind you. They only hear a handfull of cases a year.

candicame said:

Somewhat related question;

Why do you only get half an hour to present your case in the Supreme Court? I mean, they're so rarely in session they seem like the last place that would need a time limit. It's not like traffic court where there are a million people in line behind you. They only hear a handfull of cases a year.

Click to expand...

The written brief is the formal presentation of the case. Oral arguments are mainly for the justices to ask questions. Since there is no point of law any attorney can contribute to a Supreme Court justice that they haven't heard before, few attorneys get past a couple of sentences before the justices start challenging your position and playing devil's advocate. I can't imagine an attorney wanting more than a half hour of having every weakness of your case being ripped open and exposed just short of ridicule. It can be brutal.