Sunday, September 26, 2021
HomePatriot DispatchesSometimes The Little Guy Wins

Sometimes The Little Guy Wins

While eyes have been on the state of the nation and candidates trying to prove they are “insert word here”,
one of our courts was looking out for us~~ We The People~~ and did their job.

The Fourth One

In a unanimous decision, the Court ruled that the federal government violated the Fourth Amendment’s ban on unreasonable searches and seizures by surreptitiously, without a warrant, attaching a GPS tracking device on a private vehicle and monitoring the movements of that vehicle on public roads for nearly an entire month. The Government contended that the American people have no reasonable expectation of privacy in a world where the technology available to the government enables it to monitor every American citizen as he moves about on the public highways and byways. The case was United States v. Antoine Jones.

Although the ruling was unanimous, the court split sharply on the reason why the Fourth Amendment was violated. Four justices — Alito, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Kagan — reasoned that the vehicle owner had a “reasonable expectation of privacy” that his movement would not be monitored for such a long period of time. The other five justices — Scalia, Roberts, Thomas, Kennedy, and Sotomayor — put privacy aside, deciding that the search was unreasonable simply because the government, without a warrant, trespassed on the vehicle owner’s private property. (Justice Sotomayor filed a concurring opinion, but also joined in Justice Scalia’s opinion.)

Pamela
I am stone forged from the fires of creation into flesh.

2 COMMENTS

Leave a Reply

2 COMMENTS

  1. Cue the hallelujah chorus on the ruling. But even though the court skipped the privacy issue and went straight to property, note that the government’s argument was that because of the evolution of technology, no one should have any expectation of privacy anymore. Not just that being in public negates their right to privacy, * but that the evolution of technology renders moot constitutional arguments*. i.e., everybody should just surrender to the fact that Big Brother is here and when technology evolves to the point where Bro has the means available to read thoughts, he will do that too.
    Curiously, the government has always had the means available to it – brute force – to supercede constitutional rights, but heretofore has been somewhat restrained in doing so. Now, the fzact that they claim they have technology available to them as justification for using it, can brute force be far behind?

  1. Cue the hallelujah chorus on the ruling. But even though the court skipped the privacy issue and went straight to property, note that the government’s argument was that because of the evolution of technology, no one should have any expectation of privacy anymore. Not just that being in public negates their right to privacy, * but that the evolution of technology renders moot constitutional arguments*. i.e., everybody should just surrender to the fact that Big Brother is here and when technology evolves to the point where Bro has the means available to read thoughts, he will do that too.
    Curiously, the government has always had the means available to it – brute force – to supercede constitutional rights, but heretofore has been somewhat restrained in doing so. Now, the fzact that they claim they have technology available to them as justification for using it, can brute force be far behind?

Must Read