4 ms·

If this was stayed to allow it to go to the circuit appeals court, does it only apply in the Ninth Circuit?

by koenigdavidmj 14y ago

hsmyers 14y ago
Not a lawyer, but I'd say yes.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
ChuckMcM 14y ago
Yes, but hey once the Ninth Circuit throws it out Google and others might be able to plausibly claim[1] they are no longer bound by the gag orders. If it does get by the Ninth circuit then it will go to the Supreme court. Sadly the Supreme Court has been a bit to pro-government to my tastes lately. [1] Google claims their headquarters are in California, they also move all disputes into California, and so they could claim for the purposes of this statute they are a California company, even though their Incorporation papers are in Delaware I believe. Not a lawyer so can't advise but it is my best guess as to how they would position it.
- Zimahl 14y ago
  Sadly the Supreme Court has been a bit to pro-government to my tastes lately. I'd have to disagree. We've seen GPS tracking thrown out and other curbs on invasions of privacy. This court seems very interested in broadly defining privacy.
  - rosser 14y ago
    Concur. As little as I'd have expected to be able to say this when some of the more recent sitting justices were appointed, I think this may be one of the best SCOTUS in recent memory to have such a case appear before them.
  - defen 14y ago
    IANAL but IIRC the GPS tracking was thrown out on narrow technical grounds - without a warrant the cops can't trespass upon your vehicle to install the tracker. They didn't say there was anything inherently wrong with the tracking itself. In other words, it would be just as illegal for the cops to surreptitiously attach an inert brick to your car without a warrant.
    - rayiner 14y ago
      That's not a narrow technical ground. Requiring involvement of the judiciary versus not requiring it is a huge distinction.
      - defen 14y ago
        To clarify - they (in my recollection) didn't say anything about the appropriateness of automated monitoring of people's movements in public places. It's already ok for the cops to tail you without a warrant. But automated vehicle-tracking via drones without a warrant (for example) is still up in the air. No pun intended. It wasn't really a ruling in favor of (or against) privacy.
        eurleif 14y ago
        Seems to me like drones should be treated the same as thermal imaging cameras, which the Supreme Court ruled required a warrant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyllo_v._United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyllo_v._United_States) because they're not in use by the general public, and thus there's a reasonable expectation of privacy. But it was a 5-4 decision, and I guess drones might come into use by the general public, so who knows.
    - chrisbolt 14y ago
      Which brings up the quesion... would it be legal if GPS tracking devices were embedded into government issued license plates?
rayiner 14y ago
If the 9th circuit upheld, then it would be binding in the 9th circuit, but persuasive in the other circuits if challenged on those grounds elsewhere.
- mtgx 14y ago
  So then we should hope this goes to the Supreme Court so it can be upheld there and applied everywhere? Or will most smaller courts apply it in other districts anyway, if the 9th Circuit upholds it?
  - rayiner 14y ago
    It really depends. For politically controversial stuff like this, lower courts ten to be skeptical of out-of-Circuit decisions, especially out of the 9th, which has a reputation for being lala-land. If it were something mundane, or the circuit was say the 2nd rather than the 9th, then district courts elsewhere would probably consider the decision fairly persuasive, absent a contrary decision in their own circuit. But with something like this, who knows? Ideally what would happen is for the case to be appealed, for the 9th circuit to uphold, then for a different circuit to come out the other way so the argument can be made that the Supreme Court needs to resolve the circuit split. That's one typical way controversial things like this make their way up to the Supreme Court.
    - gknoy 14y ago
      > Ideally... the 9th circuit [upholds], then ... a different circuit to come out the other way so ... the Supreme Court needs to resolve the circuit split. I think that is the likely outcome, but I think an ideal one would be one where more than one circuit court affirm this standpoint, and the others follow suit. Wouldn't it then no longer need to go to the Supreme Court?
    - trotsky 14y ago
      The ninth alone might prove rather interesting given the number of non-traditional communications providers operating there.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]

If this was stayed to allow it to go to the circuit appeals court, does it only apply in the Ninth Circuit?

hsmyers 14y ago

Not a lawyer, but I'd say yes.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

ChuckMcM 14y ago

Yes, but hey once the Ninth Circuit throws it out Google and others might be able to plausibly claim[1] they are no longer bound by the gag orders. If it does get by the Ninth circuit then it will go to the Supreme court. Sadly the Supreme Court has been a bit to pro-government to my tastes lately. [1] Google claims their headquarters are in California, they also move all disputes into California, and so they could claim for the purposes of this statute they are a California company, even though their Incorporation papers are in Delaware I believe. Not a lawyer so can't advise but it is my best guess as to how they would position it.

Zimahl 14y ago
Sadly the Supreme Court has been a bit to pro-government to my tastes lately. I'd have to disagree. We've seen GPS tracking thrown out and other curbs on invasions of privacy. This court seems very interested in broadly defining privacy.
- rosser 14y ago
  Concur. As little as I'd have expected to be able to say this when some of the more recent sitting justices were appointed, I think this may be one of the best SCOTUS in recent memory to have such a case appear before them.
- defen 14y ago
  IANAL but IIRC the GPS tracking was thrown out on narrow technical grounds - without a warrant the cops can't trespass upon your vehicle to install the tracker. They didn't say there was anything inherently wrong with the tracking itself. In other words, it would be just as illegal for the cops to surreptitiously attach an inert brick to your car without a warrant.
  - rayiner 14y ago
    That's not a narrow technical ground. Requiring involvement of the judiciary versus not requiring it is a huge distinction.
    - defen 14y ago
      To clarify - they (in my recollection) didn't say anything about the appropriateness of automated monitoring of people's movements in public places. It's already ok for the cops to tail you without a warrant. But automated vehicle-tracking via drones without a warrant (for example) is still up in the air. No pun intended. It wasn't really a ruling in favor of (or against) privacy.
      - eurleif 14y ago
        Seems to me like drones should be treated the same as thermal imaging cameras, which the Supreme Court ruled required a warrant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyllo_v._United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyllo_v._United_States) because they're not in use by the general public, and thus there's a reasonable expectation of privacy. But it was a 5-4 decision, and I guess drones might come into use by the general public, so who knows.
  - chrisbolt 14y ago
    Which brings up the quesion... would it be legal if GPS tracking devices were embedded into government issued license plates?

rayiner 14y ago

If the 9th circuit upheld, then it would be binding in the 9th circuit, but persuasive in the other circuits if challenged on those grounds elsewhere.

mtgx 14y ago
So then we should hope this goes to the Supreme Court so it can be upheld there and applied everywhere? Or will most smaller courts apply it in other districts anyway, if the 9th Circuit upholds it?
- rayiner 14y ago
  It really depends. For politically controversial stuff like this, lower courts ten to be skeptical of out-of-Circuit decisions, especially out of the 9th, which has a reputation for being lala-land. If it were something mundane, or the circuit was say the 2nd rather than the 9th, then district courts elsewhere would probably consider the decision fairly persuasive, absent a contrary decision in their own circuit. But with something like this, who knows? Ideally what would happen is for the case to be appealed, for the 9th circuit to uphold, then for a different circuit to come out the other way so the argument can be made that the Supreme Court needs to resolve the circuit split. That's one typical way controversial things like this make their way up to the Supreme Court.
  - gknoy 14y ago
    > Ideally... the 9th circuit [upholds], then ... a different circuit to come out the other way so ... the Supreme Court needs to resolve the circuit split. I think that is the likely outcome, but I think an ideal one would be one where more than one circuit court affirm this standpoint, and the others follow suit. Wouldn't it then no longer need to go to the Supreme Court?
  - trotsky 14y ago
    The ninth alone might prove rather interesting given the number of non-traditional communications providers operating there.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]