38 ms·

You’re citing that concurrence again. While that concurrence supports your argument, it’s not binding legal precedent. Perhaps someday it will be, but not today

You’re citing that concurrence again. While that concurrence supports your argument, it’s not binding legal precedent. Perhaps someday it will be, but not today.

estearum 2mo ago
No, that concurrence is referencing Katz's reasonable expectation of privacy standard, which is binding legal precedent.
- otterley 2mo ago
  That “reasonable expectation of privacy” standard is just the first step of the analysis and goes into the threshold question of “is this a search?” Because if the answer is “no,” then there’s nothing more to be done, not a search, no warrant needed. But if the answer is “yes,” that’s not an automatic win, it doesn’t mean a warrant is needed yet, because there are further analytical steps down the chain. Also, the court has still not subjected the specific question against the Katz test. If they did, they’d might agree that a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy in their public travels. On the other hand, they might not. I think you should consult a local attorney, because you’re not really understanding what the legal impact of these cases is, and I think a deep discussion with an subject matter expert in person would improve your understanding a lot.
  - estearum 2mo ago
    So in other words, it's not as simple as "plain view doctrine, QED?" or "you're either in public or you're not?" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49275137 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49275137 Who knew? Ah, yes, I did.
    - otterley 2mo ago
      > Who knew? > Ah, yes, I did. Still a dick.
      - estearum 2mo ago
        It's fine to realize that you stepped into this conversation wanting to say "this isn't settled law" but somehow positioned yourself as defending the person insisting "this is settled law." Perhaps your aversion to perceived dickishness made you misread the situation.

You’re citing that concurrence again. While that concurrence supports your argument, it’s not binding legal precedent. Perhaps someday it will be, but not today.

estearum 2mo ago

No, that concurrence is referencing Katz's reasonable expectation of privacy standard, which is binding legal precedent.

otterley 2mo ago
That “reasonable expectation of privacy” standard is just the first step of the analysis and goes into the threshold question of “is this a search?” Because if the answer is “no,” then there’s nothing more to be done, not a search, no warrant needed. But if the answer is “yes,” that’s not an automatic win, it doesn’t mean a warrant is needed yet, because there are further analytical steps down the chain. Also, the court has still not subjected the specific question against the Katz test. If they did, they’d might agree that a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy in their public travels. On the other hand, they might not. I think you should consult a local attorney, because you’re not really understanding what the legal impact of these cases is, and I think a deep discussion with an subject matter expert in person would improve your understanding a lot.
- estearum 2mo ago
  So in other words, it's not as simple as "plain view doctrine, QED?" or "you're either in public or you're not?" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49275137 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49275137 Who knew? Ah, yes, I did.
  - otterley 2mo ago
    > Who knew? > Ah, yes, I did. Still a dick.
    - estearum 2mo ago
      It's fine to realize that you stepped into this conversation wanting to say "this isn't settled law" but somehow positioned yourself as defending the person insisting "this is settled law." Perhaps your aversion to perceived dickishness made you misread the situation.