[Recovering_Democrat]

...call me "hopeful" that Hussein's appointments of Sotomayor and Kagan are backfiring.

[LS]

This and the backup on SOPA is VERY IMPORTANT and is showing that in the internet/computer age, you have to be doubly vigilant to protect freedom.

[Myrddin]

I would like to see this extended to include the GPS data coming from my cell phone. Monitoring the GPS coordinates coming from my cell phone is no different than conducting a wire tap. Use of that data in a legal context should require an explicit warrant before the data is admissible as evidence in a legal proceeding.

[Scouts Honor]

I’m actually surprised by the ruling, as the government has been only too happy to trample on our 4th amendment rights in the name of the so called “war on drugs”.

[circlecity]

"...call me "hopeful" that Hussein's appointments of Sotomayor and Kagan are backfiring."

I don't think you can read that into this case. One would expect these Justices to take a very broad view of 4th amendment protections. Criminal law is the one place liberal justices are hostile to big, activist government. But don't get me wrong, I don't this this was that broad a reading of the 4th amendment and was pretty much an easy slam dunk decision on the result. Scalia has always been pretty good on the 4th amendment and it doesn't surprise me at all sided with the liberals on the Court here.

[redgolum]

Great news.

[Gene Eric]

Liberty ping.

[abb]

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-1259.pdf

[G Larry]

uh..and what about the GPS I carry on my cell phone?

Can they track me on THAT without a warrent?

[353FMG]

Why the concern for the privacy of local drug dealers when the privacy of law abiding citizens is daily violated?

http://neighbors.whitepages.com/

What else do they know about us?

[Cicero]

I suspect that Scalia is concerned about the rights of citizens against illegal search and seizure, whereas Sotomayor is probably concerned about the rights of illegal immigrant drug dealers.

Never mind, the decision is correct. If the law wants to track drug dealers, they should get a warrant.

[monkeyshine]

Thank God! I was really worried about this one. It could have been 5-4 against, and one or two of “our guys” could have gone against. This gives me some hope that sanity may be restored some day.

[douginthearmy]

This is the second unanimous vote in as many weeks. I’m blown away.

[Pan_Yans Wife]

ping

[xzins]

I have mixed feelings on this one since a warrant had previously been issued for an area and an amount of time.

I don’t think police should randomly be permitted to track people. At the same time, they must have had enough evidence to convince a judge to give them the initial warrant.

As near as I can tell, the judge erred on the side of geography and duration, and I find it odd that the druggie was comfortable after that time and in a different location.

Moreover, we are now 100% CERTAIN that the guy was traffiking drugs. There is no doubt. He is guilty as sin of the charge.

Therefore, the police were reasonable in their suspicions.

[bert]

On the other hand, tracking the GPS in his cell phone is a different matter. He is broadcasting his location to the world and the world can track him

[manc]

wait till obamacare, that is where they ware waiting to rule.

Then there is now forcing religious institutions to do abortions, contraceptives etc

[mvpel]

What a muddle this ruling seems to be - 4 weeks of 24x7 GPS tracking is not okay, but some lesser amount of GPS tracking might be okay? What huh?

[Lazamataz]

Well well! If this court rules like this over a simple GPS signal, New York Citys' plan to electronically frisk everyone won't stand a chance.

[Lazamataz]

Well well! If this court rules like this over a simple GPS signal, New York Citys' plan to electronically frisk everyone won't stand a chance.

[Lazamataz]

Pinging ya to this one. This is nice to see.

Ya know, I bet you Scalia or Thomas is a closet Freeper.

Who knows, you might have banned one of them by accident. LOL