3 ms·
After reading your point I wondered whether the "reasonable" distinction had any bearing on the requirement for a warrant. The warrant requirement is what I'm m
by rlpb 12y ago
After reading your point I wondered whether the "reasonable" distinction had any bearing on the requirement for a warrant. The warrant requirement is what I'm most interested in here. I came across http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_exception http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_exception which seems particularly relevant. Apparently motor vehicles have a lower expectation of privacy, so I wonder whether this means that a separate ruling is needed on whether GPS trackers on motor vehicles need a warrant.
- extra88 12y agoAs the article states, the Supreme Court has already ruled that putting a GPS tracker on a vehicle requires a warrant. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Jones_(2012) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Jones_(2012)
- _delirium 12y agoYes, this ruling is a pretty straightforward application of United States v. Jones, rather than much of a development in 4th-amendment law. The opinion [1] is 4 1/2 pages long, and doesn't do much more than say exactly that: it points out that the lower court's holding is plainly incompatible with Jones, and sends it back down to be reheard accordingly. [1] http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-593_o7jq.pdf http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-593_o7jq.pdf