Gunslingr3: “Yes, because I understand the principle behind the ruling. That’s the part you keep trying to evade.”
Obviously, you do not understand the principle. Otherwise you’d realize the key word is ‘reasonable’. It is ‘reasonable’ to expect cell phone data to be protected. It is not ‘reasonable’ to expect what you can see with the naked eye to be protected anymore than it is ‘reasonable’ for a conversation conducted on a street corner to be protected.
You can't even acknowledge the principle. When I asked you what is was you evaded the question.
When I present it to you, you ignore it:
This is the principle upon which they have a based their decision:
“individuals have a REASONABLE expectation of privacy in the whole of their physical movements.”