Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: TheEaglehasLanded
Wow. I agree with the three dissenting judges but on the surface this would appear to mean the established law is no expectation of privacy for any record kept about you that isn't physically on your property... finance records, phone records, Internet records ...anything.
8 posted on 05/11/2006 9:35:48 PM PDT by gondramB (He who angers you, in part, controls you. But he may not enjoy what the rest of you does about it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: gondramB

All easily distinguishable. In this case, the government didn't look at the subject matter, which it would with all of that stuff; rather, they just determined that a call was made.


12 posted on 05/11/2006 9:37:37 PM PDT by Gordongekko909 (I know. Let's cut his WHOLE BODY off.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson