United States v. Jones

[CARLHAYDEN]

United States v. Jones

In United States v. Jones, the government placerd a Global Positioning System tacking device on a suspect’s car without obtaining a search warrant.

In a unanimous decision, the Supreme court ruled that the police violated the Constitution.

Thank god for a Supreme Court which is overruling the violations of the Constitution by the Obama administration.

The New York Times version may be found at: 

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/24/us/police-use-of-gps-is-ruled-unconstitutional.html?_r=4&hp

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

So the Obama administration controls police actions?

[Joe Republic]

Shame to see a coke dealer put back on the streets due to a rogue police department not following proper procedure.

-----

Thank god for a Supreme Court which is overruling the violations of the Constitution by the Obama administration.

CARL, what's your connection between this and Obama?

[Jacobtm]

While Obama doesn't have a hand in this directly, he of course has greatly increased the Government's ability to spy on its own citizens.

Any action protecting people from spying is welcome.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Good decision by the court.  An example of CARL's obsessions to ascribe a case which arose out of a 2005 arrest as being primarily about Obama.  The was equal opportunity executive overreach.

[CaDan]

Those dummies in the media never get it right.

The court didn't say that a warrant was needed. The decision was very narrow. All the court decided was that there was a search. They didn't reach the issue as to the reasonableness of the search.

"The Government argues in the alternative that even if the attachment and use of the device was a search, it was reasonable—and thus lawful—under the Fourth Amendment because “officers had reasonable suspicion, and in-deed probable cause, to believe that [Jones] was a leader in a large-scale cocaine distribution conspiracy.” Brief for United States 50–51. We have no occasion to consider this argument. The Government did not raise it below, and the D. C. Circuit therefore did not address it. See 625 F. 3d, at 767 (Ginsburg, Tatel, and Griffith, JJ., concurring in denial of rehearing en banc). We consider the argument forfeited. See Sprietsma v. Mercury Marine, 537 U. S. 51, 56, n. 4 (2002)."

The 4th Amendment search analysis starts with "was there a search" (the court said YES.) The next question is "if there was a search, was it reasonable?" The court didn't answer this question.

[CARLHAYDEN]

It is really sad how ignorant so many are about the legal system.

So, here's a brief explanation:

First, the brief for the losing side may be found at:

http://volokh.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/DOJJonesBrief.pdf

Second, the Solicitor General (Counsel of Record) is Donald B. Verrilli, Jr., an Obama appointee.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/24/obama-selects-donald-verrilli-as-solicitor-general/

Third, the Obama Justice Department has elected NOT to defend the United States in some cases, which they could have done in this case.

Example:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20035398-503544.html

So, yes, this IS a loss for the Obama regime.