In a (concurring) opinion, Justice Sotomayor agrees with that narrow view, but she asks what will happen when the Government doesn't need to place an actual physical device in one's car in order to record where it's going?
And indeed we're probably already there, so this decision is in fact more about the past than about the future.
The greatest concern would be when surveillance satellites could be used to track cars inside a city. Or using CCTV traffic cameras for a live-tracking of tagged license plates. The question is would this tracking actually constitute a search. Because a warrant doesn't have to be issued for an undercover cop to follow a car, only probable cause. So does 'probable cause' extend to digital tracking through a CCTV grid, satellite or combination? That's where it gets creepy to me, because IMO this likely won't constitute a search.
Then it's a software challenge to automatically read the licence plates in view and keep track of them in a database.
It is highly likely to be already happening in the US, particularly along the borders and in federal investigations.
take the win for what its worth, it is huge. ( i had to double check i wasnt linking to the onion when i woke up and saw theheadline.... good job neighbours ! beproud that your supreme mcourt just did what it is supposed to do, andthey did it loud and clear.
Tell that to lower/circuit courts who have an annoying habit of giving SCOTUS rulings a big fat middle finger.
[citation needed] And, yes, I am a lawyer, and I am interested in what actual cases you had in mind as you made the statement in your comment.
which points to related cases. Hope this helps!
It's in the wiki entry. Under related cases. As I previously stated.
Appeals courts will follow the supreme court if a similar cae hits the judges desk - they are not goung to throw the same case at the supreme cort, bad mojo, it would just be rejected saying "we Alredy ruled on that".
also.. while i am pretty sure the supremes are in office for life ( or until they step down voluntarily orprobably a few other things like commit a felony or become incapacitated, etc) - are other judges as secure? The supremes take their duties very seriously it seems to me. they dont rule lightly, and they are not stupid.
All judges in federal courts in the United States may stay in office essentially for life. The language in the Constitution is "The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour,"
http://www.house.gov/house/Constitution/Constitution.html
(Article III, Section 1)
and "during good behavior" means that unless the judges are formally impeached and convicted of malfeasance (which is very rare) they can stay in office until they decide to resign. This independence of the federal judiciary is considered very important by United States lawyers (whether they are "conservative" or "liberal") for maintaining the civil liberties of Americans. Today's decision is a good example of a decision that was made unanimously contrary to the position taken during litigation of the case by the current presidential administration.
I believe the answer to that is "not exactly, it's complicated."
Scalia is a kind of a Fourth Amendment hardliner when it comes to _the home_, so I'm actually surprised at this result. Fourth Amendment rights in so far as automobiles go have been eroding for years. Note that the concurring opinion wanted to reframe the issue such that there _was_ a reasonable expectation of privacy when it comes to automobiles (which would be a more expansive reading of Fourth Amendment rights).
It's one of the checks placed on their authority.
May be influential, but not binding.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law#United_States_federa...
if you can call a victory taking something back
to where it was all along
Along those lines, I noted this in the article:
In a footnote, Scalia added that, “Whatever new methods of investigation may be devised, our tsk, at a minimum, is to decide whether the action in question would have constituted a ‘search’ within the original meaning of the Fourth Amendment. Where, as here, the government obtains information by physically intruding on a constitutionally protected area, such a search has undoubtedly occurred.”
If that broader interpretation would hold, that would be awesome news. But by putting it in a footnote, as I understand it, it's more of a dream than anything else. Great philosophy, though. Here's hoping it plays out that way.
The problem -- and the reason it won't, probably -- is that this kind of interpretation needs to be put into a constitutional amendment. If you rely on judicial interpretation, between the legislature and the courts, they'll make a muddled mess out of it.