Supreme Court Rules Warrant Needed For GPS Tracking
Related posts:
- Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia Says Executing An Innocent Man Is Not Unconstitutional
- Warrantless Searches On Trial
- Supreme Court Approves Bellevue Gunners’ Second Amendment Challenge to Chicago Ban
- Arizona police officer executes man for telling him a warrant is needed
- FCC Indecency Rules Unconstitutional: Court
{ 2 comments… read them below or add one }
Viewpoint: It is a mistake to use “individual rights” and “freedom” as arguments to protect those who would only destroy. Individual rights were not originated to protect criminals but to bring freedom to honest men. Into this area of protection then dived those who needed “freedom” and “individual liberty” to cover their own questionabl activities. I am not surprise by the ruling of the Supreme court. We will all have to answer to our selfs and offsprings.
It is my understanding that the US PATRIOT ACT allows for secret evidence and testimony to be admitted against individuals – this can come from law enforcement, “subcontractors” or others . Individuals are not able to defend themselves , face their accusors or allowed Discovery . So while the ruling may appear to be consistant with Constitional law , it can be easily circumvented . Persons may have their homes searched , property taken and even cameras placed to record “targets” and innocent family members – and notification can be delayed indefinitely ( section 213)
‘just because law enforcement is supposed to attain a warrant in order for info to be presented to a court , doesn’t mean that warrantless electronic surveillance will never occur – it’s not like they are going to turn themselves in .