https://c-6rtwjumjzx7877x24bbbx2ex78zuwjrjhtzwyx2elta.g00.cnet.com/g00/3_c-6bbb.hsjy.htr_/c-6RTWJUMJZX77x24myyux78x3ax2fx2fbbb.x78zuwjrjhtzwy.ltax2ftunsntsx78x2f62uikx2f61-957_m860.uik_$/$/$/$?i10c.ua=1&i10c.dv=14

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4007967&forum_id=2#36290045)

>>The question we confront today is how to apply the

Fourth Amendment to a new phenomenon: the ability to

chronicle a person’s past movements through the record of

his cell phone signals. Such tracking partakes of many of

the qualities of the GPS monitoring we considered in

Jones. Much like GPS tracking of a vehicle, cell phone

location information is detailed, encyclopedic, and effortlessly

compiled

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4007967&forum_id=2#36290101)

in 2018 he'd need to write about the ladyboi of the house

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4007967&forum_id=2#36290147)

>> Mapping a cell phone’s location over the course

of 127 days provides an all-encompassing record of the

holder’s whereabouts. As with GPS information, the timestamped

data provides an intimate window into a person’s

life, revealing not only his particular movements, but

through them his “familial, political, professional, religious,

and sexual associations.” Id., at 415 (opinion of

SOTOMAYOR, J.).

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4007967&forum_id=2#36290125)

>>At any rate, the rule the Court adopts “must take account

of more sophisticated systems that are already in

use or in development.” Kyllo, 533 U. S., at 36. While the

records in this case reflect the state of technology at the

start of the decade, the accuracy of CSLI is rapidly approaching

GPS-level precision. As the number of cell sites

has proliferated, the geographic area covered by each cell

sector has shrunk, particularly in urban areas. In addition,

with new technology measuring the time and angle of

signals hitting their towers, wireless carriers already have

the capability to pinpoint a phone’s location within 50

meters. Brief for Electronic Frontier Foundation et al. as

Amici Curiae 12 (describing triangulation methods that

estimate a device’s location inside a given cell sector).

Accordingly, when the Government accessed CSLI from

the wireless carriers, it invaded Carpenter’s reasonable

expectation of privacy in the whole of his physical

movements.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4007967&forum_id=2#36290137)

>>4 JUSTICE GORSUCH faults us for not promulgating a complete code

addressing the manifold situations that may be presented by this new

technology—under a constitutional provision turning on what is “reasonable,”

no less. Post, at 10–12. Like JUSTICE GORSUCH, we “do not

begin to claim all the answers today,” post, at 13, and therefore decide

no more than the case before us

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4007967&forum_id=2#36290155)

why didnt gorsuch want to blow it all up in wayfair and overrule 50 yrs of bad decisions tho?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4007967&forum_id=2#36290194)

>>As Justice Brandeis explained in his famous dissent, the

Court is obligated—as “[s]ubtler and more far-reaching

means of invading privacy have become available to the

Government”—to ensure that the “progress of science”

does not erode Fourth Amendment protections. Olmstead

v. United States, 277 U. S. 438, 473–474 (1928)

dont you need a (BRAnDEIS, J., dissenting)?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4007967&forum_id=2#36290173)

>>Technological changes involving cell phones have complex

effects on crime and law enforcement. Cell phones

make crimes easier to coordinate and conceal, while also

providing the Government with new investigative tools

that may have the potential to upset traditional privacy

expectations. See Kerr, An Equilibrium-Adjustment

Theory of the Fourth Amendment, 125 Harv. L. Rev 476,

512517 (2011).

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4007967&forum_id=2#36290185)

>>Appendix to opinion of KENNEDY, J.

APPENDIX

Ҥ2703. Required disclosure of customer communications

or records

“(d) REQUIREMENTS FOR COURT ORDER.—A court order

for disclosure under subsection (b) or (c) may be issued by

any court that is a court of competent jurisdiction and

shall issue only if the governmental entity offers specific

and articulable facts showing that there are reasonable

grounds to believe that the contents of a wire or electronic

communication, or the records or other information

sought, are relevant and material to an ongoing criminal

investigation. In the case of a State governmental authority,

such a court order shall not issue if prohibited by the

law of such State. A court issuing an order pursuant to

this section, on a motion made promptly by the service

provider, may quash or modify such order, if the information

or records requested are unusually voluminous in

nature or compliance with such order otherwise would

cause an undue burden on such provider.”

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4007967&forum_id=2#36290205)

>>I agree

with JUSTICE KENNEDY, JUSTICE ALITO, JUSTICE

GORSUCH, and every Court of Appeals to consider the

question that this is not the best reading of our

precedents.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4007967&forum_id=2#36290216)

>>This limiting language was important to the founders.

Madison’s first draft of the Fourth Amendment used a

different phrase: “their persons, their houses, their papers,

and their other property.” 1 Annals of Cong. 452 (1789)

——————

8The answer to that question is not obvious. Cell-site location records

are business records that mechanically collect the interactions

between a person’s cell phone and the company’s towers; they are not

private papers and do not reveal the contents of any communications.

Cf. Schnapper, Unreasonable Searches and Seizures of Papers, 71 Va.

L. Rev. 869, 923–924 (1985) (explaining that business records that do

not reveal “personal or speech-related confidences” might not satisfy

the original meaning of “papers”).

(emphasis added). In one of the few changes made to

Madison’s draft, the House Committee of Eleven changed

“other property” to “effects.” See House Committee of

Eleven Report (July 28, 1789), in N. Cogan, The Complete

Bill of Rights 334 (2d ed. 2015). T

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4007967&forum_id=2#36290225)

>>Jurists

and commentators tasked with deciphering our jurisprudence

have described the Katz regime as “an unpredictable

jumble,” “a mass of contradictions and obscurities,” “all

over the map,” “riddled with inconsistency and incoherence,”

“a series of inconsistent and bizarre results that

[the Court] has left entirely undefended,” “unstable,”

“chameleon-like,” “‘notoriously unhelpful,’” “a conclusion

rather than a starting point for analysis,” “distressingly

unmanageable,” “a dismal failure,” “flawed to the core,”

“unadorned fiat,” and “inspired by the kind of logic that

produced Rube Goldberg’s bizarre contraptions.”10

10Kugler & Strahilevitz, Actual Expectations of Privacy, Fourth

Amendment Doctrine, and the Mosaic Theory, 2015 S. Ct. Rev. 205,

261; Bradley, Two Models of the Fourth Amendment, 83 Mich. L. Rev.

1468 (1985); Kerr, Four Models of Fourth Amendment Protection, 60

Stan. L. Rev. 503, 505 (2007); Solove, Fourth Amendment Pragmatism,

51 Boston College L. Rev. 1511 (2010); Wasserstom & Seidman, The

Fourth Amendment as Constitutional Theory, 77 Geo. L. J. 19, 29

(1988); Colb, What Is a Search? Two Conceptual Flaws in Fourth

Amendment Doctrine and Some Hints of a Remedy, 55 Stan. L. Rev.

119, 122 (2002); Clancy, The Fourth Amendment: Its History and

Interpretation §3.3.4, p. 65 (2008); Minnesota v. Carter, 525 U. S. 83, 97

(1998) (Scalia, J., dissenting); State v. Campbell, 306 Ore. 157, 164, 759

P. 2d 1040, 1044 (1988); Wilkins, Defining the “Reasonable Expectation

of Privacy”: an Emerging Tripartite Analysis, 40 Vand. L. Rev. 1077,

1107 (1987); Yeager, Search, Seizure and the Positive Law: Expectations

of Privacy Outside the Fourth Amendment, 84 J. Crim. L. & C.

249, 251 (1993); Thomas, Time Travel, Hovercrafts, and the Framers:

James Madison Sees the Future and Rewrites the Fourth Amendment,

80 Notre Dame L. Rev. 1451, 1500 (2005); Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U. S.

128, 165 (1978) (White, J., dissenting); Cloud, Rube Goldberg Meets the

Constitution: The Supreme Court, Technology, and the Fourth

Amendment, 72 Miss. L. J. 5, 7 (2002)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4007967&forum_id=2#36290250)