HN user

irishmoss

5 karma
Posts0
Comments2
View on HN
No posts found.

I can't imagine how the Justice Sotomayor could have been any more clear in this issue:

  I would not assume that all information voluntarily disclosed
  to some member of the public for a limited purpose is, 
  for that reason alone, disentitled to Fourth Amendment protection. 
  [citations omitted] 
  Resolution of these difficult questions in this case is unnecessary, 
  however, because the Government's physical intrusion on Jones' Jeep 
  supplies a narrower basis for decision.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-1259.pdf

When Ginsburg, Breyer, and Kagan feel surveillance is so obviously unconstitutional as to provide an even narrower basis than actual trespassing, and Sotomayor writes a separate opinion for the sole purpose of conveying she'd be the 4th vote, I find it hard to imagine how any judge could uphold this surveillance in good faith.