DO TSA #39;s THREAT-SPOTTING TIPS THREATEN THE FOURTH AMENDMENT?: Jake MacAulay
Have you ever thought about who could be a potential threat in an airport? Well, according to the Transportation Security Administration that #39;s pretty much anyone who #39;s breathing. The...
By: TheAmericanView
Link:
DO TSA's THREAT-SPOTTING TIPS THREATEN THE FOURTH AMENDMENT?: Jake MacAulay - Video
The Fourth Amendment 1st period
By: Luis Avalos
See the original post:
The Fourth Amendment 1st period - Video
When the government places a location monitor on you or your stuff, it could be violating the Fourth Amendment.
If the government puts a GPS tracker on you, your car, or any of your personal effects, it counts as a searchand is therefore protected by the Fourth Amendment.
The Supreme Court clarified and affirmed that law on Monday, when it ruled on Torrey Dale Grady v. North Carolina, before sending the case back to that states high court. The Courts short but unanimous opinion helps make sense of how the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable search and seizure, interacts with the expanding technological powers of the U.S. government.
It doesnt matter what the context is, and it doesnt matter whether its a car or a person. Putting that tracking device on a car or a person is a search, said Jennifer Lynch, a senior staff attorney at the Electronic Freedom Foundation (EFF).
In this case, that context was punishment. Grady was twice convicted as a sex offender. In 2013, North Carolina ordered that, as a recidivist, he had to wear a GPS monitor at all times so that his location could be monitored. He challenged the court, saying that the tracking device qualified as an unreasonable search.
North Carolinas highest court at first ruled that the tracker was no search at all. Its that decision that the Supreme Court took aim at today, quoting the states rationale and snarking:
The only theory we discern [] is that the States system of nonconsensual satellite-based monitoring does not entail a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. That theory is inconsistent with this Courts precedents.
Then it lists a series of Supreme Court precedents.
And there are a few, as the Court has considered the Fourth Amendment quite a bit recently. In 2012, it ruled that placing a GPS tracker on a suspects car, without a warrant, counted as an unreasonable search. The following year, it said that using drug-sniffing dogs around a suspects front porchwithout a warrant and without their consentwas also unreasonable, as it trespassed onto a persons property to gain information about them.
Both of those cases involved suspects, but the ruling Monday made clear that it extends to those convicted of crimes, too.
More here:
U.S. Supreme Court: GPS Trackers Are a Form of Search and Seizure
Shane McGlaun
This week the US Supreme Court clarified a law by ruling the Torrey Dale Grady v. North Carolina case that had to do with clarification of the Fourth Amendment. The case was sent back to the state high court after a unanimous opinion set down by the Justices helped to clarify how the Fourth Amendment works.
The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable search and seizure. With the clarification the court set down a precedent that says if the government puts a GPS tracker on your car, you, or your belongings it counts as search and is protected by the Fourth Amendment.
After being twice convicted as a sex offender, Grady was forced to wear a GPS monitor at all times to allow authorities to monitor his location. Grady challenged the court sating that the device qualified as unreasonable search.
The highest court in North Carolina ruled the tracker wasn't considered search. The Supreme Court has decided otherwise and sets a precedent that may prevent other convicted criminals from being forced to wear GPS trackers in the future. This case will likely have implications in the state of Wisconsin as well since that state can force repeat sex offenders to wear tracking bracelets.
SOURCE: The Atlantic
Continued here:
Supreme Court rules GPS trackers are a form of search and seizure
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 searchsomething 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 Gradytwice-convicted as a sex offenderwas 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. The Supreme Court agreed, explaining:
The only theory we discern [] is that the State's system of nonconsensual satellite-based monitoring does not entail a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. That theory is inconsistent with this Court's precedents.
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."
Still, the Fourth Amendment takes poor account of digital technology generally, and courts have only ruled on a small number of cases involving GPS data. At some point, as Lynch points out to The Atlantic, the justice system will need to establish how geo-location datanow prolific in phones, cars, watches and moreis governed and protected. In the meantime, though, North Carolina better rethink its policy on issuing GPS trackers to sex offenders. [The Atlantic, Washington Post]
Image by Canned Muffins under Creative Commons license
Original post:
Supreme Court Rules Government GPS Trackers Can Break Fourth Amendment