3 ms·
I don't. My point is just that the Supreme Court can set a precedent, so it's possible that if the case were brought to them they might decide that it's covered
by jakelazaroff 5y ago
I don't. My point is just that the Supreme Court can set a precedent, so it's possible that if the case were brought to them they might decide that it's covered under the Fourth Amendment (or something similar) without needing additional legislation.
- tcmart14 5y agoI think this could win with a supreme court with judges who have a looser interpretation of the constitution, which right now is not the supreme court we have. The majority of the justices right now have a stricter interpretation and would not see government buying data as "search and seizure." The better solution would be to have laws legislated. However, unfortunately, there is so much gridlock because congress members are just chasing after Ws for their respective parties and minimizing Ls.
- tzs 5y agoI don't see any reasonable way they could find a way to expand the Fourth Amendment to cover this without it also covering things like the government using information given to them by informants and witnesses without a warrant.