PDA

View Full Version : SCOTUS Says Warrant Necessary for Phone Location [NO thanks to Gorsuch]




EBounding
06-22-2018, 09:01 AM
Gorsuch dissented in the 5-4 decision

Supreme Court says warrant necessary for phone location data in win for privacy (https://www.cnet.com/news/supreme-court-says-warrant-necessary-for-phone-location-data/)



The US Supreme Court has ruled in favor of digital privacy.

In a 5-4 decision on Friday the justices decided that police need warrants to gather phone location data as evidence for
trials. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the Sixth Circuit court's decision.

Carpenter v. United States is the first case about phone location data that the Supreme Court has ruled on. That makes it a landmark decision regarding how law enforcement agencies can use technology as they build cases. The court heard arguments in the case on Nov. 29.

The dispute dates back to a 2011 robbery in Detroit, after which police gathered months of phone location data from Timothy Carpenter's phone provider. They pulled together 12,898 different locations from Carpenter, over 127 days.

The legal and privacy concern was that police gathered the four months' worth of Carpenter's digital footprints without a warrant. A Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals judge ruled that cellphone location data is not protected by the Fourth Amendment, which forbids unreasonable search and seizure, and therefore didn't require a warrant.

In the Supreme Court's ruling, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that the government's searches of Carpenter's phone records were considered a Fourth Amendment search.

"The Government's position fails to contend with the seismic shifts in digital technology that made possible the tracking of not only Carpenter's location but also everyone else's, not for a short period but for years and years," he wrote.

Roberts pointed out that allowing government access to historical GPS data infringes on Carpenter's Fourth Amendment protections and expectation of privacy, by providing law enforcement with an "all-encompassing record" of his whereabouts. He added that historical GPS data presents an "even greater privacy risk" than real-time GPS monitoring.

Carpenter's attorneys, including lawyers from the American Civil Liberties Union, argued before the Supreme Court that cellphone location data constitutes sensitive digital records and should be protected under the Fourth Amendment.

Phone location data is a hot button issue for privacy advocates. In May, Sen. Ron Wyden asked phone service providers why they were giving away location data to Securus Technologies, a service that monitors calls to prison inmates, which police could use to track anybody's phone in the US, without a warrant.

The Federal Communications Commission opened an investigation into LocationSmart in May this year, a company that boasted that it could find any phone in the US without needing special permission.

The argument has been that phone companies can provide customers' data to law enforcement because they own those records, not the person. During the trial, US Deputy Solicitor General Michael Dreeben told the Supreme Court that people agree to hand over their information to providers for their service.

"It is asking a business to provide information about the business' own transactions with a customer," Dreeben said in November.

Before the trial took place, major tech companies, including Apple, Facebook and Google, filed a friend-of-the-court brief with the Supreme Court, urging the justices to make it harder for law enforcement officials to obtain individuals' data without a warrant.

While the decision sets a ruling for historical GPS data, the Supreme Court said it does not apply to security cameras, business records or real-time location tracking.

William Tell
06-22-2018, 09:49 AM
https://s15-us2.startpage.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=https:%2F%2Fmedia.giphy.com%2Fmedia %2FcxuOJVAllKUXm%2Fgiphy.gif&sp=019a0ccb66109c046d50728ae66ca67c

devil21
06-22-2018, 09:55 AM
Gorsuch batting 1.000 the last couple days.

Cuz judges!

EBounding
06-22-2018, 09:58 AM
I actually thought he would be decent. But he's certainly on the Big Disappointment train.

angelatc
06-22-2018, 10:07 AM
I actually thought he would be decent. But he's certainly on the Big Disappointment train.

I just have to keep reminding myself that he's better than any HRC appointment would have been. And I would want to read the dissent before I pass judgment here. I am glad the court ruled this way, but this is one of those deals where I could make a case either way.

Not familiar with the case, but I am assuming that the cell phone provider just complied with the request and didn't even ask for a warrant.

ETA: And I was right.
http://www.scotusblog.com/2018/06/opinion-analysis-court-holds-that-police-will-generally-need-a-warrant-for-cellphone-location-information/
Over 40 years ago, the Supreme Court outlined what has come to be known as the “third-party doctrine” – the idea that the Fourth Amendment does not protect records or information that someone voluntarily shares with someone or something else. Today the Supreme Court ruled that, despite this doctrine, police will generally need to get a warrant to obtain cell-site location information, a record of the cell towers (or other sites) with which a cellphone connected. In an opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts, the five-justice majority pointed to “seismic shifts in digital technology,” which have allowed wireless carriers to collect “deeply revealing” information about cellphone owners that should be protected by the Constitution.

Yes, this is a big win for privacy.

Thinking about it, I think Gorsuch got it wrong. The government requires the providers to capture and store this data, so there's nothing "willingly" in play here.

Swordsmyth
06-22-2018, 02:46 PM
Gorsuch isn't perfect, but you can't ignore his good rulings or what Garland shifting the balance of the court left would have done to us.

Zippyjuan
06-22-2018, 04:38 PM
Gorsuch batting 1.000 the last couple days.

Cuz judges!

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-mobilephone/supreme-court-rules-warrants-required-for-cellphone-location-data-idUSKBN1JI1WT


Roberts was joined by the court’s four liberal justices in the majority. The court’s other four conservatives dissented.

Swordsmyth
06-22-2018, 04:44 PM
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-mobilephone/supreme-court-rules-warrants-required-for-cellphone-location-data-idUSKBN1JI1WT

I'd rather keep guns if we had to chose between that and this.

timosman
06-22-2018, 05:02 PM
Isn't it time to require stronger than 5-4 majority for any decision? Why not 6-3 at least? This way a single senile judge can not fuck up the entire country.

TheCount
06-22-2018, 11:00 PM
I'd rather keep guns if we had to chose between that and this.
Is that how it works?

Swordsmyth
06-22-2018, 11:07 PM
Is that how it works?

Yup, with Garland on the court you could kiss the 2ndA goodbye.

dannno
06-23-2018, 12:33 AM
Isn't it time to require stronger than 5-4 majority for any decision? Why not 6-3 at least? This way a single senile judge can not fuck up the entire country.

If the decision gives the Fed Gov more power, it should be at least 6-3, if it gives the Fed Gov less power, then 5-4 is ok.

RonZeplin
06-23-2018, 02:18 AM
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-mobilephone/supreme-court-rules-warrants-required-for-cellphone-location-data-idUSKBN1JI1WT

Roberts was joined by the court’s four liberal justices in the majority. The court’s other four conservatives dissented.

The four formerly "conservative" justices have gone so far down the rathole that they're now NYC progressives, like Donald & the Bernie Bros. What used to be considered liberals are now the conservatives on the court.

No wonder Reuters got confused enough to call the Trumpkins "conservatives".

TheCount
06-23-2018, 08:37 AM
Yup, with Garland on the court you could kiss the 2ndA goodbye.
We should change the Constitution to give the president more than two choices of nominees for the supreme court.

The Rebel Poet
06-23-2018, 09:05 AM
https://i2.wp.com/www.piercedhands.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Moloch.jpg?ssl=1

Swordsmyth
06-23-2018, 03:44 PM
We should change the Constitution to give the president more than two choices of nominees for the supreme court.

If you have someone better in mind you should run in 2020, Trump gave us Gorsuch and there is nothing we can do about it, Gorsuch is possibly the best member of the court and he is light-years better than Garland that Hitlery would have picked.

Swordsmyth
06-23-2018, 03:46 PM
https://i2.wp.com/www.piercedhands.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Moloch.jpg?ssl=1

GOD sided with Nebuchadnezzar and restored him to his kingdom after smiting him, he must have been better than the alternative.

William Tell
06-27-2018, 03:58 PM
I'd rather keep guns if we had to chose between that and this.


If you have someone better in mind you should run in 2020, Trump gave us Gorsuch and there is nothing we can do about it, Gorsuch is possibly the best member of the court and he is light-years better than Garland that Hitlery would have picked.


I'm not going to play that game. For the record, I'm sure you and I are on the same page on virtually every issue the court will rule on, I'm not picking a fight where there is none to be had.

However, for the record what are your other priorities? Napolitano took the liberal side with the cake thing. Gorsuch voted against the 4th Amendment, you say he's still likely the best guy on the court despite that atrocity. Clearly you think he's better than Andrew Napolitano would be? Can you lay out some other issues besides the Cake where you think Gorsuch has a truly strict view that will be better than Napolitano's?

Swordsmyth
06-27-2018, 04:06 PM
I'm not going to play that game. For the record, I'm sure you and I are on the same page on virtually every issue the court will rule on, I'm not picking a fight where there is none to be had.

However, for the record what are your other priorities? Napolitano took the liberal side with the cake thing. Gorsuch voted against the 4th Amendment, you say he's still likely the best guy on the court despite that atrocity. Clearly you think he's better than Andrew Napolitano would be? Can you lay out some other issues besides the Cake where you think Gorsuch has a truly strict view that will be better than Napolitano's?

Gorsuch vs. Garland is an entirely different question than Swampy vs. anybody.

Swampy has exposed far bigger problems than just the cake thing and even if that was the only problem we can hope Trump will pick someone perfect, Rand would be just one such option.

William Tell
06-27-2018, 04:14 PM
Oh WOW. We missed something here guys. Rand says Gorsuch was the best on the court and dissented because he wanted a stronger property rights ruling.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNvqbNy7hCA

William Tell
06-27-2018, 04:14 PM
Justice Neil Gorsuch, in his lone dissent, expressed disappointment that the third-party doctrine was not more broadly revisited. Although Gorsuch filed one of the four dissenting opinions (the most written in a single case since Obergefell in 2015), his dissent went farther than the majority and was more like a concurrence on other grounds. The technical reason for Gorsuch deeming it a dissent was that Carpenter’s lawyers did not make the property-based argument Gorsuch favors.

Rather than focus on the reasonable expectation of privacy analysis typically engaged in by the court in recent decades, Gorsuch’s dissent argues that the court should follow a property rights-based theory of the Fourth Amendment. Under that theory, Carpenter had a property interest in his cell phone data. Gorsuch's decision to file a dissent may send a message to future defendants that without inclusion of a property-based argument his concurrence cannot be counted on.

Gorsuch's focus on the property rights argument was foreshadowed by his rulings while serving on the Tenth Circuit. In United States v. Ackerman (2016), Gorsuch invoked property interests in extending Fourth Amendment protections to digital property, applying trespass theory to email. Oddly, in addition to applying a trespass test, the Ackerman court also applied the reasonable expectation of privacy test. Some have theorized that that this was intended to provide a foundation for the tests to be applied as coequals, with the ultimate goal of reuniting trespass theory and the Fourth Amendment.
http://thehill.com/opinion/cybersecurity/394215-gorsuchs-dissent-in-carpenter-case-has-implications-for-the-future-of

kcchiefs6465
06-27-2018, 04:16 PM
Gorsuch vs. Garland is an entirely different question than Swampy vs. anybody.

Swampy has exposed far bigger problems than just the cake thing and even if that was the only problem we can hope Trump will pick someone perfect, Rand would be just one such option.
You had an infinitely better chance of Rand Paul being Secretary of State. King Swamp didn't choose him. Why?

You are thinking Rand Paul might have a shot at SCOTUS?

I mean we can hope Trump picks Ron Paul. It isn't a serious conversation.

phill4paul
06-27-2018, 04:19 PM
Gorsuch vs. Garland is an entirely different question than Swampy vs. anybody.

Swampy has exposed far bigger problems than just the cake thing and even if that was the only problem we can hope Trump will pick someone perfect, Rand would be just one such option.

Rand doesn't have the lawyer chops. Who we'd like to see in there is Mike Lee. He's a junior Senator and has a law degree. That leaves Rand right where he needs to be in his committees.


Mike Lee open to being nominated to Supreme Court

Utah Sen. Mike Lee (R) said in an interview Wednesday that he "would not say no" if he was asked by President Trump to serve on the Supreme Court as Justice Anthony Kennedy's replacement.


"I started watching Supreme Court arguments for fun when I was 10 years old. So if somebody asked me if I would consider that, I would not say no," he told reporters on what he would say if Trump asked him to serve.

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/394467-lee-would-not-say-no-if-trump-asked-him-to-serve-on-scotus

Swordsmyth
06-27-2018, 04:26 PM
You had an infinitely better chance of Rand Paul being Secretary of State. King Swamp didn't choose him. Why?

You are thinking Rand Paul might have a shot at SCOTUS?

I mean we can hope Trump picks Ron Paul. It isn't a serious conversation.

Is it any more likely he will pick Napolitano?

Swordsmyth
06-27-2018, 04:27 PM
Rand doesn't have the lawyer chops. Who we'd like to see in there is Mike Lee. He's a junior Senator and has a law degree. That leaves Rand right where he needs to be in his committees.



http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/394467-lee-would-not-say-no-if-trump-asked-him-to-serve-on-scotus

If Q is right and RBG goes away soon we might want both.

phill4paul
06-27-2018, 04:40 PM
If Q is right and RBG goes away soon we might want both.

Ohhh, Sheeeit. Mike Lee's brother , Thomas Rex Lee, sits on Utah's Supreme court.


A 2016 paper written by Jeremy Kidd of the Mercer University Walter F. George School of Law and others attempted to measure the "Scalia-ness" of various potential nominees to the Supreme Court to fill the seat left vacant by Justice Antonin Scalia's death.[13] The study created a "Scalia Index Score" combining the various measures of "Scalia-ness," and Lee scored highest. The study found that Lee was the most likely to endorse or engage in originalism in judicial opinions, was second most likely to cite Scalia's non-judicial writings in opinions, and the third most likely to write separately when not writing the majority opinion.[14]

In a 2016 article, Professor John McGinnis of the Northwestern University School of Law argued that Lee was similar to Scalia in being "capable of pressing the intellectual case for following the Constitution as written" because of Lee "has pioneered the application of corpus linguistics to law," and further wrote that if elevated to the U.S. Supreme Court, "Lee would create a transmission belt from the best work of originalists in the academy to the Supreme Court."[15]

Hannah Clayson Smith, writing in the National Review, praised Lee as a possible successor to Scalia because of Lee's similar jurisprudential style to the late Justice, but noted that with respect to Lee's views on judicial precedent, "Justice Lee is more like Justice Thomas than like Justice Scalia." Smith noted that Lee (like Thomas) has repeatedly advocated for overruling precedent that he views as "contrary to the original meaning of the Utah constitution," even if precedent takes a different approach.[16]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Rex_Lee#Similarities_to_Justices_Scalia_and _Thomas

William Tell
06-27-2018, 04:41 PM
Ohhh, Sheeeit. Mike Lee's brother , Thomas Rex Lee, sits on Utah's Supreme court.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Rex_Lee#Similarities_to_Justices_Scalia_and _Thomas He's on the list of 25 as well.

phill4paul
06-27-2018, 04:47 PM
He's on the list of 25 as well.

Ah, didn't see that. I would prefer him over Mike Lee. Keep Mike Lee where he is at and get his brother on the bench. Mike asked if he would accept if nominated today and said "yes." He really should have responded "I'd hope the president would consider my brother who is a sitting state supreme court judge. I have full faith in him and I believe the president should too."

William Tell
06-27-2018, 04:50 PM
Ah, didn't see that. I would prefer him over Mike Lee. Keep Mike Lee where he is at and get his brother on the bench. Mike asked if he would accept if nominated today and said "yes." He really should have responded "I'd hope the president would consider my brother who is a sitting state supreme court judge. I have full faith in him and I believe the president should too."
Yeah, but recommending a family member would get bad press. They are both on the list anyway. Fingers crossed, and Massie's point stands of course.
Thomas Massie‏Verified account @RepThomasMassie (https://twitter.com/RepThomasMassie)









Thomas Massie Retweeted Daniel Horowitz
I literally just had this conversation with another representative. Although recent SCOTUS decisions and the retirement announcement give conservatives much to be excited about, it’s an indication that too much authority has devolved to those nine people.



https://twitter.com/RepThomasMassie/status/1012053319894872065

kcchiefs6465
06-27-2018, 04:54 PM
Is it any more likely he will pick Napolitano?
Not particularly, no.

He has court experience, though, and Rand Paul does not have the same level of qualifications.

It would be like wishing Trump would have picked Napolitano over Paul for Secretary of State. Rand Paul has foreign policy experience. It doesn't make sense.

And this all ignores the simple fact that the Swamp doesn't much care.

phill4paul
06-27-2018, 04:54 PM
Yeah, but recommending a family member would get bad press. They are both on the list anyway. Fingers crossed, and Massie's point stands of course.
https://twitter.com/RepThomasMassie/status/1012053319894872065

A case could be made to Trump that it's time to throw the House Freedom Caucus a bone. With enough flattery, who knows? Lol.