Above: Supreme Court opinions too dry? Go to the movies.
- CSI: 1791: GPS ruling leaves too much doubt - Salt Lake Tribune Editorial
The good news is, all nine justices of the United States Supreme Court agree that the police need a proper search warrant if they are going to secretly attach a GPS tracking device to your car for the purpose of gathering evidence against you.
The bad news is, the majority opinion was written by a justice who thinks the Fourth Amendment only protects you from things that involve physical contact with you or your property. And he thinks that because, when the Bill of Rights was ratified, in 1791, such a physical invasion was all that the language could have referred to.
So, rather that make it clear to law enforcement agencies at all levels that a search is a search is a search, the ruling handed down in the voice of Justice Antonin Scalia will leave both prosecutors and defense lawyers wondering about just how much electronic intrusiveness the law will allow. ...
... The problem is that Scalia’s majority ruling deliberately decided not to decide what limits, if any, apply to modern surveillance methods that do not require anyone to stick a bug on your car. It leaves the door open to all manner of Star Trek gizmos that would allow police to delve into your every move, every financial transaction, every communication, just because they felt like it.
Our only hope, for now, is that police agencies tempted to so ferret into your actions and associations will understand that the Supreme Court is still looking over their shoulder.
So, apparently, is Utah's Rep. Jason Chaffetz. [Sorry to have left you out of this editorial, Jason.]
- Electronic surveillance: Court says warrants needed in GPS tracking - Eugene Register-Guard Editorial
... The ruling is welcome, but the unanimous decision failed to resolve troubling questions about the privacy rights of Americans in the face of intrusive modern surveillance technology.
Congress should answer those questions by approving legislation proposed by Sen. Ron Wyden [and Chaffetz] that establishes clear rules for the use of tracking technologies by law enforcement agencies. ...
- Halting the police state - Ogden Standard-Examiner Editorial
... We are very relieved at the court's decision. It will not hamper law enforcement; rather, it will help assure us that the hard work of our military and local police is rewarded with strong evidence-gathering methods which protect rights and pass constitutional muster.
- Court defends us against GPS spies - Freedom Communications/Colorado Springs Gazette Editorial
... the problem really isn’t attaching something to a car. For example, attaching a piece of gum to a car is not a big deal. The real problem is the tracking without a warrant, whatever method is used. ...
- Navigating the Supreme Court's GPS ruling - Los Angeles Times Editorial
... The decision is a welcome affirmation of the constitutional right to privacy in an era of advanced technology. But the majority opinion's rationale was needlessly narrow. ...
- Court right on GPS ruling - Detroit News Editorial
... The government had argued that using the tracking device was no different than simply staking out or following the vehicle, but the justices were correct to rule that secretly placing an electronic device on a vehicle involves a different level of intrusiveness. ...
- Tracking police - Hutchinson [Kan.] News Editorial
... It seems odd that this issue would go as high as the Supreme Court because common sense tells us that, of course, police should obtain warrants if they want to place a foreign device on a citizen's vehicle. Odd or not, the nation's highest court has ruled - and, thankfully, it ruled unanimously for full disclosure.
