In a unanimous decision Monday, the Supreme Court effectively limited law enforcement's use of GPS products in monitoring vehicles. But do not feel too safe just yet. Due to a split in reasoning, the problem might not be fully resolved.
US v Jones
Drug kingpin Antoine Jones ended up getting a life sentence because a GPS gadget was mounted on a Jeep he owned and tracked his movements for four weeks. This is what started the United States v Jones case.
Jones will have his conviction reversed based on the Supreme Court decision. Even though it was a privacy rights issue that was being looked at, many people are upset that Jones is not behind bars after all that.
Supreme Court not okay with Large Brother watching
Deputy Solicitor General Michael Dreeben, speaking for the government, contended that GPS surveillance is the same principle as traditional low-tech tracking and is simply taking advantage of available technology. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer disagreed: "If you win this case, there is nothing to prevent the police or the government from monitoring 24 hours a day the public movement of every citizen of the United States . . . [That] sounds like '1984'."
Divided in reasoning
There was divided reasoning, 5 to 4, even though the decision was unanimous. The surveillance itself was not the problem, as reported by 5 of the nine justices. They believed it was more about the physical placing of the GPS on Jones' car than other things.
According to Justice Antonin Scalia:
"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."
Scalia said that there was "no reason for rushing forward" in a decision on the other ethical difficulties with the suit, although he did not agree that a warrant was always necessary.
The book "1984" and George Orwell was brought up six times during the suit in the argument from the minority of the judges. They believed that police force agencies should not be able to spy on whoever they want without a cause. That is the point of a warrant. They contended warrants are always necessary.
Are there any other problems?
Some think that the decision does not go far enough in protecting rights guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
The fight will probably never end as the controversy rolls on forever.
US v Jones
Drug kingpin Antoine Jones ended up getting a life sentence because a GPS gadget was mounted on a Jeep he owned and tracked his movements for four weeks. This is what started the United States v Jones case.
Jones will have his conviction reversed based on the Supreme Court decision. Even though it was a privacy rights issue that was being looked at, many people are upset that Jones is not behind bars after all that.
Supreme Court not okay with Large Brother watching
Deputy Solicitor General Michael Dreeben, speaking for the government, contended that GPS surveillance is the same principle as traditional low-tech tracking and is simply taking advantage of available technology. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer disagreed: "If you win this case, there is nothing to prevent the police or the government from monitoring 24 hours a day the public movement of every citizen of the United States . . . [That] sounds like '1984'."
Divided in reasoning
There was divided reasoning, 5 to 4, even though the decision was unanimous. The surveillance itself was not the problem, as reported by 5 of the nine justices. They believed it was more about the physical placing of the GPS on Jones' car than other things.
According to Justice Antonin Scalia:
"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."
Scalia said that there was "no reason for rushing forward" in a decision on the other ethical difficulties with the suit, although he did not agree that a warrant was always necessary.
The book "1984" and George Orwell was brought up six times during the suit in the argument from the minority of the judges. They believed that police force agencies should not be able to spy on whoever they want without a cause. That is the point of a warrant. They contended warrants are always necessary.
Are there any other problems?
Some think that the decision does not go far enough in protecting rights guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
The fight will probably never end as the controversy rolls on forever.
About the Author:
When have you required more info concerning a used or new vehicle and resorted to an online search on "carmax auto finance?" Look no further, everything you must have is located at CarDealExpert.com! Learn more info on Car Deal Expert? Follow the link.
No comments:
Post a Comment