United States v. United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan
Also known as the Keith case
[June 19, 1972, decided 8-0]
Government officials used electronic surveillance [wiretapping] to record conversations of people it suspected of conspiring to destroy government property and bombing a CIA building. This activity was done without a search warrant.
The Supreme Court ruled that government officials must obtain a warrant before beginning electronic surveillance, even if domestic security issues are involved. The "inherent vagueness of the domestic security concept", and the potential for abusing it to shut down political dissent, make the Fourth Amendment's protections especially important when the government engages in spying on its own citizens.
United States v. Jones
[January 23, 2012, decided 9-0]
Police investigators asked for and received a warrant to attach a GPS tracking device to the underside of Antoine Jones' car, but then exceeded the warrant's scope in both geography and length of time. Antoine Jones was arrested in October 2005, for drug possession after police used the GPS device to follow him for a month.
The Supreme Court ruled that attaching a GPS device to a vehicle and then using the device to monitor the vehicle’s movements constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment. The police here had a warrant, but they exceeded the scope of the warrant in time and place. The search was invalid and evidence obtained was excluded.
Did you guess right?
Here's Wednesday's hint - V is for Voting. Can you guess the case and what it's about? Leave a comment!
So that whole 'you need warrant for that' should be taken a lot more seriously in all those police shows that do these things without one. :) Good to know.
ReplyDeleteDiscarded Darlings - Jean Davis, Speculative Fiction Writer, A to Z: Editing Fiction
Well, as noted in a few of my A to Z posts, there are quite a few exceptions to the warrant requirement. But I'm sure that TV writers and producers sometimes sacrifice accuracy for the story, altho doing it too much will cause folks who know these things [like cops and lawyers] to stop watching the show if it isn't sufficiently accurate. So it's a balancing act.
DeleteThe "inherent vagueness of domestic security" is a powerful statement against frankly fascist impulses to rigidly control in the supposed name of "safety first."
ReplyDeleteAs the technology makes spying so terribly easy, keeping up ethically and legally will continue to be a challenge.
It's already a challenge, but you're right, it will continue to be more and more challenging, I'm sure.
DeleteThat's a 1972 case which was before all the "homeland security" and domestic terrorism concerns. It seems that surveillance/loss of privacy is an even hotter issue now. Maui Jungalow
ReplyDeleteYou're right. Definitely a hot issue right now.
DeleteYes, tracking definitely changes things. But we're being tracked by websites every day...I think the difference is they aren't monitoring one individual and everything they do. They're looking at the activities of everyone who visits their website, then placing cookies that watch where they go afterward? Seems the cookie would be a violation of some sort...
ReplyDeleteIf the government was placing the cookie, definitely. But private companies are not required to obtain a warrant, only the government.
DeleteNowadays these perpetrators just post it on Facebook or Twitter. Who needs a warrant?
ReplyDeleteLOL yes!
Delete