4 ms·

Yes you're right. The "signed by five" was a misphrasing on my part. What I meant is that both the concurring opinions (signed by 5 collectively) agreed on thi

Yes you're right. The "signed by five" was a misphrasing on my part. What I meant is that both the concurring opinions (signed by 5 collectively) agreed on this same point: > society’s expectation has been that law enforcement agents and others would not—and indeed, in the main, simply could not—secretly monitor and catalogue every single movement of an individual’s car for a very long period. In this case, for four weeks, law enforcement agents tracked every movement that respondent made in the vehicle he was driving. We need not identify with precision the point at which the tracking of this vehicle became a search, for the line was surely crossed before the 4-week mark. So no, I'm not arguing from shaky ground. And no, ample attitude is warranted against people not just advocating for unbounded state surveillance, but insisting that it is already a foregone conclusion.

otterley 2mo ago
> What I meant is that both the concurring opinions (signed by 5 collectively) agreed on this same point: [...] I agree with you that the two concurrences are aligned about this. Interestingly, it did not make it into the majority opinion, even though there was a majority on this point. It probably wasn't included because it wasn't needed in order to reverse the lower court's decision; the physical violation was enough to merit a unanimous decision. > ample attitude is warranted against people not just advocating for unbounded state surveillance, but insisting that it is already a foregone conclusion. No, it isn't. It is possible, and better, to disagree with someone while remaining courteous--even on subjects you have strong feelings about. From our Guidelines: > Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes.
fluidcruft 2mo ago
It's actually far more dangerous to presume we are already protected (your position) particularly based on reading tea leaves in flimsy ancillary opinions when the Court has shown itself fully happy to blow precedent out of the water, particularly with regards to privacy rights which are grounded in interpretation of the Constitution and not actual text (see Dobbs).
- estearum 2mo ago
  Obviously not true given that a wannabe dictator would literally say what you are saying ("it's just plain view doctrine! Always been this way! 4th Amendment doesn't prevent me from flying a drone over you to and from your home every day!") A wannabe dictator, inversely, would not say nor be happy with what I am saying: You have a right to exist as a private individual, even if going out in public would leak vast amounts of information to a drone hovering overhead.
  - fluidcruft 2mo ago
    Obviously sending a drone over private property is not the same as willingly and knowingly displaying a license plate in public for all to see.
    - otterley 2mo ago
      The Supreme Court has already held in three cases that air surveillance, even from an altitude as low as 400 feet, does not constitute a search: California v. Ciraolo (1986), Dow Chemical Co. v. United States (1986), and Florida v. Riley (1989).
      - fluidcruft 2mo ago
        How does that help your argument?
        otterley 2mo ago
        You may be confusing me with estearum. I'm just adding data to the discussion. I did say earlier, though: > although the "plain view" doctrine has been weakened somewhat over the last couple decades, it's not completely dead yet. The aerial surveillance cases are applicable examples of that point.
      - estearum 2mo ago
        None of these is relevant to the analysis here: > society’s expectation has been that law enforcement agents and others would not—and indeed, in the main, simply could not—secretly monitor and catalogue every single movement of an individual’s car for a very long period. In this case, for four weeks, law enforcement agents tracked every movement that respondent made in the vehicle he was driving. We need not identify with precision the point at which the tracking of this vehicle became a search, for the line was surely crossed before the 4-week mark. Altitude has nothing to do with it. Completeness and cost of picture does.

otterley 2mo ago

> What I meant is that both the concurring opinions (signed by 5 collectively) agreed on this same point: [...] I agree with you that the two concurrences are aligned about this. Interestingly, it did not make it into the majority opinion, even though there was a majority on this point. It probably wasn't included because it wasn't needed in order to reverse the lower court's decision; the physical violation was enough to merit a unanimous decision. > ample attitude is warranted against people not just advocating for unbounded state surveillance, but insisting that it is already a foregone conclusion. No, it isn't. It is possible, and better, to disagree with someone while remaining courteous--even on subjects you have strong feelings about. From our Guidelines: > Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes.

fluidcruft 2mo ago

It's actually far more dangerous to presume we are already protected (your position) particularly based on reading tea leaves in flimsy ancillary opinions when the Court has shown itself fully happy to blow precedent out of the water, particularly with regards to privacy rights which are grounded in interpretation of the Constitution and not actual text (see Dobbs).

estearum 2mo ago
Obviously not true given that a wannabe dictator would literally say what you are saying ("it's just plain view doctrine! Always been this way! 4th Amendment doesn't prevent me from flying a drone over you to and from your home every day!") A wannabe dictator, inversely, would not say nor be happy with what I am saying: You have a right to exist as a private individual, even if going out in public would leak vast amounts of information to a drone hovering overhead.
- fluidcruft 2mo ago
  Obviously sending a drone over private property is not the same as willingly and knowingly displaying a license plate in public for all to see.
  - otterley 2mo ago
    The Supreme Court has already held in three cases that air surveillance, even from an altitude as low as 400 feet, does not constitute a search: California v. Ciraolo (1986), Dow Chemical Co. v. United States (1986), and Florida v. Riley (1989).
    - fluidcruft 2mo ago
      How does that help your argument?
      - otterley 2mo ago
        You may be confusing me with estearum. I'm just adding data to the discussion. I did say earlier, though: > although the "plain view" doctrine has been weakened somewhat over the last couple decades, it's not completely dead yet. The aerial surveillance cases are applicable examples of that point.
    - estearum 2mo ago
      None of these is relevant to the analysis here: > society’s expectation has been that law enforcement agents and others would not—and indeed, in the main, simply could not—secretly monitor and catalogue every single movement of an individual’s car for a very long period. In this case, for four weeks, law enforcement agents tracked every movement that respondent made in the vehicle he was driving. We need not identify with precision the point at which the tracking of this vehicle became a search, for the line was surely crossed before the 4-week mark. Altitude has nothing to do with it. Completeness and cost of picture does.