# 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:** 1 **Showing post:** 281
### Author: ![David42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5f9b8f/32.png) [@David42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David42) #### Post date: [July 18, 2011, 2:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oh-good-a-new-constitutional-theory-of-privacy/549942/281 "2011-07-18T14:44:02Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Heh heh heh. > > Hilarious. Of course, you’re the one _claiming_ that _Garcia_ ignores _Katz_. The _Garcia_ court didn’t think so, and in fact they discuss Katz in their opinion. > > Let’s put it another way: I’ll bet you $200, loser pays the winner’s charity, or $100, loser pays the winner directly, that the Supreme Court will overrule the DC Circuit in _Jones_. > > That will be, when it happens, CURRENT Supreme Court precedent. > > Now how strongly do you like your argument? Let me correct that to _Garcia_ ignores relevant portions of _Katz_. There is no discussion of the idea that some actions in public show there is an expectation of privacy. I think it would be illegal gambling to take you up on your offer. If we hadn’t waived the fourth amendment by talking about it in public, perhaps I’d have taken you up on it. So far as I know, predicting the future is not a part of valid legal analysis. In my opinion, since the supreme court has specifically left open the question for this type of activity, there is a presumption that they do not like it. When it was raised before, they could have said it has no merit instead, closing the door instead of the invitation. There is A LOT you’re not considering. --- _[View the full topic](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oh-good-a-new-constitutional-theory-of-privacy/549942)._