# Oh, good! A New Constitutional Theory of Privacy!
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oh-good-a-new-constitutional-theory-of-privacy/549942
**Category:** Great Debates
**Created:** [August 11, 2010, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oh-good-a-new-constitutional-theory-of-privacy/549942 "2010-08-11T16:06:12Z")
**Posts on this page:** 11
**Page:** 17
### Author:  [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)
#### Post date: [July 26, 2011, 1:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oh-good-a-new-constitutional-theory-of-privacy/549942/321 "2011-07-26T13:02:40Z")
> [@David42](#):
>
> Now we see why you think dicta is law.
>
> You were probably busy writing poems during the stare decisis lectures you were supposed to be absorbing.
>
> Witty, perhaps, Bricker, but it does nothing to show any support for your view.
>
> Someday you might understand that there is a difference, a difference the supreme court acknowledged, between 24/7 extended surveillance and the point A to point B type of surveillance.
>
> I note you do not respond to my observations on the first through fifth circuits. Of the five, only the fifth actually supports your claim. You can continue to ignore it but that doesn’t make you right.
The next post I make on this subject that’s directed at you will be the one pointing out how the Supreme Court’s decision has mooted your trenchant analysis.
---
### Author:  [@David42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David42)
#### Post date: [July 27, 2011, 1:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oh-good-a-new-constitutional-theory-of-privacy/549942/322 "2011-07-27T13:53:12Z")
Since you can’t argue the points, and have provided mostly caselaw that fails to support your position, you now have to HOPE that since the court deciding Knotts is gone, that the new political makeup of the court will save you.
---
### Author:  [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)
#### Post date: [July 27, 2011, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oh-good-a-new-constitutional-theory-of-privacy/549942/323 "2011-07-27T18:09:38Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#):
>
> If they can legally attach a tracking device to a person(or person’s vehicle) without a warrant, does this mean they could do it to the general public at large without consequence? A tracking chip in a driver’s license would then be legal, right?
I believe the answer is YES (unfortunately). Be prepared for the usual “if you have nothing to hide” argument.
---
### Author:  [@David42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David42)
#### Post date: [July 28, 2011, 2:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oh-good-a-new-constitutional-theory-of-privacy/549942/324 "2011-07-28T14:03:36Z")
> [@SteveG1](#):
>
> I believe the answer is YES (unfortunately). Be prepared for the usual “if you have nothing to hide” argument.
It would too often go into the home. When it does it would constitute a warrantless search of the home for the driver’s license carrier.
---
### Author:  [@MikeF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MikeF)
#### Post date: [August 4, 2011, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oh-good-a-new-constitutional-theory-of-privacy/549942/325 "2011-08-04T17:35:58Z")
“What if instead of just a GPS, they plant a device on my car that detects both its location and its speed, and then mail me a ticket for exceeding the speed limit? Would that be allowed too?”
FYI, most GPS trackers can do just that. Some merely record (log) points every so many seconds and this info is downloaded later but the majority can be set to “real time” tracking so I can watch you from my computer with your current is speed displayed. It would be a rather expensive way to catch speeders but it is a technological no-brainer.
---
### Author:  [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)
#### Post date: [August 4, 2011, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oh-good-a-new-constitutional-theory-of-privacy/549942/326 "2011-08-04T17:47:32Z")
> [@MikeF](#):
>
> “What if instead of just a GPS, they plant a device on my car that detects both its location and its speed, and then mail me a ticket for exceeding the speed limit? Would that be allowed too?”
>
> FYI, most GPS trackers can do just that. Some merely record (log) points every so many seconds and this info is downloaded later but the majority can be set to “real time” tracking so I can watch you from my computer with your current is speed displayed. It would be a rather expensive way to catch speeders but it is a technological no-brainer.
I don’t see any Constitutional infirmity with that scheme.
Of course, it would alert drivers pretty quickly to the presence of the GPS unit.
---
### Author:  [@Rhythmdvl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rhythmdvl)
#### Post date: [January 23, 2012, 4:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oh-good-a-new-constitutional-theory-of-privacy/549942/327 "2012-01-23T16:07:45Z")
> [@Bricker](#):
>
> Now, this kind of analysis makes sense if you’re talking about, say, classified information. But it’s not what the Fourth Amendment says.
>
> Is it?
Apparently, it is.
UPDATE:
[Supreme Court says search warrants needed when police use GPS devices to track suspects](http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/supreme-court-says-search-warrants-needed-when-police-use-gps-devices-to-track-suspects/2012/01/23/gIQA7wL1KQ_story.html)
Haven’t seen any analysis or detail about the ruling yet. Not even the split. But it sounds like we can score 1 for personal freedom and the Constitution (if my assumptions are correct–will depend on the holding).
---
### Author:  [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)
#### Post date: [January 23, 2012, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oh-good-a-new-constitutional-theory-of-privacy/549942/328 "2012-01-23T16:30:30Z")
> [@Rhythmdvl](#):
>
> Apparently, it is.
>
> UPDATE:
>
> [Supreme Court says search warrants needed when police use GPS devices to track suspects](http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/supreme-court-says-search-warrants-needed-when-police-use-gps-devices-to-track-suspects/2012/01/23/gIQA7wL1KQ_story.html)
>
> Haven’t seen any analysis or detail about the ruling yet. Not even the split. But it sounds like we can score 1 for personal freedom and the Constitution (if my assumptions are correct–will depend on the holding).
It was a clean sweep for the good guys.
---
### Author:  [@Rhythmdvl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rhythmdvl)
#### Post date: [January 23, 2012, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oh-good-a-new-constitutional-theory-of-privacy/549942/329 "2012-01-23T16:32:13Z")
Whoa, a bit more info is up on WaPost, and it looks good (good because I agree with it).
It was a _unanimous_ decision. Scalia wrote the main opinion, Sotomayor and Alito wrote concurring opinions.
> [@](#):
>
> Associate Justice Antonin Scalia said that the government’s installation of a GPS device, and its use to monitor the vehicle’s movements, constitutes a search, meaning that a warrant is required.
>
> “By attaching the device to the Jeep” that Jones was using, “officers encroached on a protected area,” Scalia wrote.
>
> All nine justices agreed that the placement of the GPS on the Jeep violated the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable search and seizure.
>
> Scalia wrote the main opinion of three in the case. He was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Sonia Sotomayor.
>
> Sotomayor also wrote one of the two concurring opinions that agreed with the outcome in the Jones case for different reasons.
>
> Justice Samuel Alito also wrote a concurring opinion in which he said the court should have gone further and dealt with GPS tracking of wireless devices, like mobile phones. He was joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan.
---
### Author:  [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)
#### Post date: [January 23, 2012, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oh-good-a-new-constitutional-theory-of-privacy/549942/330 "2012-01-23T16:56:02Z")
> [@Bricker](#):
>
> ]Now, this kind of analysis makes sense if you’re talking about, say, classified information. But it’s not what the Fourth Amendment says.
>
> Is it?
> [@Rhythmdvl](#):
>
> Apparently, it is.
No, it’s not.
As I said in my [new thread on the subject](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=639442):
> [@](#):
>
> I was Wrong About the GPS, but …
>
> …right about the mosaic.
The Supremes did not accept the invitation to create a “mosaic theory of privavcy.” I’m happy about that.
They decided, instead, that this was a trespass, and that _Katz_’s language that “the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places,” is wrong. The Fourth Amendment, they said, protects places, just as it did for most of the coutnry’s history, pre-Katz.
---
### Author:  [@lawbuff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lawbuff)
#### Post date: [January 23, 2012, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oh-good-a-new-constitutional-theory-of-privacy/549942/331 "2012-01-23T17:08:11Z")
> [@Rhythmdvl](#):
>
> Haven’t seen any analysis or detail about the ruling yet. Not even the split. But it sounds like we can score 1 for personal freedom and the Constitution (if my assumptions are correct–will depend on the holding).
Opinions are generally posted on the SC’s web page the day it is handed down. This was a 9-0 vote.
The SW was valid for 10 days, but the GPS was installed on the 11th.
[http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-1259.pdf](http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-1259.pdf)
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oh-good-a-new-constitutional-theory-of-privacy/549942.md?page=16)