2 ms·

While I personally agree with the ruling, there's a good chance that it will get appealed (and potentially overturned), since US v. Carpenter, decided back in 2

While I personally agree with the ruling, there's a good chance that it will get appealed (and potentially overturned), since US v. Carpenter, decided back in 2017, had a narrow holding. The article mentions that the EFF: > ...asked the court to recognize, as the Supreme Court did in U.S. v Carpenter, that people have a constitutional right to privacy in their physical movements. But SCOTUSblog's reporting of that decision makes it clear that [1]: > Roberts also left open the possibility that law-enforcement officials might not need a warrant to obtain cell-site location records for a shorter period of time than the seven days at issue in Carpenter’s case – which might allow them to get information about where someone was on the day of a crime, for example. There are two dimensions involved: who's being tracked, and how long it's been tracked. In Carpenter's case, someone was tracked for 7 days without a warrant, while in Almonor, it was only 6 hours. Additionally, the EFF post suggests that this was a much more targeted search (one for specific suspects only) than the one in Carpenter. As much as I dislike the idea of warrantless phone tracking, since Roberts crossed over to vote with the liberals on the side of a narrow majority on Carpenter, there's a decent chance this might get overturned on appeal. [1] https://www.scotusblog.com/2018/06/opinion-analysis-court-holds-that-police-will-generally-need-a-warrant-for-cellphone-location-information/ https://www.scotusblog.com/2018/06/opinion-analysis-court-ho...

tonyztan 7y ago
It appears this ruling is based on the Massachusetts State Constitution, not the U.S. Constitution. States are allowed to have stronger protections against searches and seizures than what the 4th Amendment requires, and the U.S. Supreme Court (the only court above the MA Supreme Judicial Court) is unlikely to have the jurisdiction to interpret state constitutions. > "Although the defendant raised both federal and state constitutional claims in Almonor, the court based its decision solely on Article 14 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights, which was drafted before—and served as one of the models for—our federal Bill of Rights. Article 14, one of the cornerstones of the Massachusetts Constitution, is the state’s equivalent to the Fourth Amendment. As the court notes, it 'does, or may, afford more substantive protection to individuals than that which prevails under the Constitution of the United States.'" (From original article.) > "the U.S. Supreme Court may hear appeals from state supreme courts only if there is a question of law under the United States Constitution (which includes issues arising from federal treaties, statutes, or regulations), and those appeals are heard at the Court's sole discretion (that is, only if the Court grants a petition for writ of certiorari)." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_supreme_court#Influence_of_the_federal_Supreme_Court_on_the_state_supreme_courts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_supreme_court#Influence_...)
- phsource 7y ago
  Ah, that makes a lot of sense! I missed that part of the article. It sounds like the decision is safe in Massachusetts, then!

tonyztan 7y ago

It appears this ruling is based on the Massachusetts State Constitution, not the U.S. Constitution. States are allowed to have stronger protections against searches and seizures than what the 4th Amendment requires, and the U.S. Supreme Court (the only court above the MA Supreme Judicial Court) is unlikely to have the jurisdiction to interpret state constitutions. > "Although the defendant raised both federal and state constitutional claims in Almonor, the court based its decision solely on Article 14 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights, which was drafted before—and served as one of the models for—our federal Bill of Rights. Article 14, one of the cornerstones of the Massachusetts Constitution, is the state’s equivalent to the Fourth Amendment. As the court notes, it 'does, or may, afford more substantive protection to individuals than that which prevails under the Constitution of the United States.'" (From original article.) > "the U.S. Supreme Court may hear appeals from state supreme courts only if there is a question of law under the United States Constitution (which includes issues arising from federal treaties, statutes, or regulations), and those appeals are heard at the Court's sole discretion (that is, only if the Court grants a petition for writ of certiorari)." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_supreme_court#Influence_of_the_federal_Supreme_Court_on_the_state_supreme_courts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_supreme_court#Influence_...)

phsource 7y ago
Ah, that makes a lot of sense! I missed that part of the article. It sounds like the decision is safe in Massachusetts, then!