Supreme Court Rules Government GPS Trackers Can Break Fourth Amendment

[Victorious Secret]

 

 

Did the Supreme Court just do something beneficial? Well, of course they did. The SCOTUS only really cares about making rulings when the Constitution is being screwed around with, and lo and behold they've ruled since the constitution was being screwed with.

 

I agree, their ruling makes sense. Can't strap GPS on someones person without getting approval first. It is, of course, a technicality as a ruling. Tracking will still happen, that tracking just won't be eligible for use in court. Not that all needs for tracking ever need to go to court, of course. 

 

 

The Supreme Court has confirmed in a ruling that if the government places a GPS tracker on someone's person or their belongings, the act counts as a search—something that remains protected by the Fourth Amendment.

 

As part of a case referred to as Grady v. North Carolina, the Supreme Court heard about how Torrey Dale Grady—twice-convicted as a sex offender—was made to wear a GPS monitor at all times by North Carolina officials. In court, Grady challenged this, claiming it qualified as an unreasonable search. 

 

 It also listed some Supreme Court precedents to make its case, including a case where a tracker placed on a car without a warrant counted as unreasonable search. "It doesn't matter what the context is, and it doesn't matter whether it's a car or a person," Jennifer Lynch, a senior staff attorney at the Electronic Freedom Foundation, told The Atlantic. "Putting that tracking device on a car or a person is a search."

 

 

http://gizmodo.com/supreme-court-rules-government-gps-trackers-can-break-f-1694717207

[Trik'Stari]

Wow, they did something right, that won't actually matter in the long run.

 

Business as usual for the SCOTUS

[jecho]

Criminals committing felony or greater should lose some rights. Rights should be the reward for being a law abiding part of society. Although, I agree with the ruling in the general sense.

[jecho]

deleted copy

[qwertywarrior]

but the government always uses secret interpretations for this reason

its odd they arnt using it now

[Real_PhillBert]

I'm surprised this even went the the SCOTUS. Pretty under handed case lol.

[MonkeyFace]

As much as I agree with the ruling, I just wish the plaintiff wasn't a twice convicted sex offender...he's being tracked for life regardless of wearing a GPS or not.  

[Yog]

As much as I agree with the ruling, I just wish the plaintiff wasn't a twice convicted sex offender...he's being tracked for life regardless of wearing a GPS or not.  

 

I was thinking of the same thing. The lawyer for the case said something to the effect of "if we do it it for sex offenders now, and tomorrow we do it for thieves, at what point do we do it for anyone committing a minor misdemeanor"...and I agree - I'm a big fan of slippery slope arguments because the slope is always slippery - but whenever I make that argument I state "there should be a line drawn that can't be crossed or moved." Now, I don't know where that line should be that says "People on this side can't be tracked | People on this side should be tracked" but to me it seems like a twice convicted sex offender should be on the side being tracked.

[mr moose]

I was thinking of the same thing. The lawyer for the case said something to the effect of "if we do it it for sex offenders now, and tomorrow we do it for thieves, at what point do we do it for anyone committing a minor misdemeanor"...and I agree - I'm a big fan of slippery slope arguments because the slope is always slippery - but whenever I make that argument I state "there should be a line drawn that can't be crossed or moved." Now, I don't know where that line should be that says "People on this side can't be tracked | People on this side should be tracked" but to me it seems like a twice convicted sex offender should be on the side being tracked.

 

I don't see why they can't make a law that states they have to be tracked if their crime is one of grievous physical harm to another person. The word grievous excludes on off assaults and misdemeanors, however there is no way to argue that rape or attempted murder is not grievous.

[Yog]

I don't see why they can't make a law that states they have to be tracked if their crime is one of grievous physical harm to another person. The word grievous excludes on off assaults and misdemeanors, however there is no way to argue that rape or attempted murder is not grievous.

 

One thing I've noticed is those sorts of laws always do tend to creep out of their original scope because besides what's in the constitution/bill of rights there doesn't seem to be a function in our legal system that says "you can't ever amend this law to expand it beyond its original intent". In fact, our system of law these days is practically designed to creep beyond its original scope, what with "legal precedence" being practically the only thing used in court cases these days.