Justices Anthony Kennedy, Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch dissented. Kennedy wrote that the court’s “new and uncharted course will inhibit law enforcement” and “keep defendants and judges guessing for years to come.”
And this is where Kennedy always leaves me hanging. I don’t get him very often.
Good for Roberts. I’m not sure how the other four thought their dissent was the logical approach.
Good.
Law enforcement still has to do some legwork to get probable cause to investigate crimes committed.
Apple, Samsung, Verizon and T-Mobile aren’t going to do it all. And innocent people - hopefully - won’t be tracked.
Not in the Matrix - yet.
The Supreme Court in recent years has acknowledged technology’s effects on privacy.
That is an affront to the memory of Justice Scalia who correctly noted that “The Constitution that I interpret and apply is not living but dead, or as I prefer to call it, enduring. It means today not what current society, much less the court, thinks it ought to mean, but what it meant when it was adopted.”
It is indisputable that “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,” did not apply to cell phone towers when the Fourth Amendment was ratified on December 15, 1791.
And that’s a bad thing because? The “originalist” argument is completely wrong, inasmuch as the Founding Fathers deliberately included a process for amending the Constitution. If it was so infallible and unchangeable, why include that part? It’s just more conservative/fascist propaganda.
I haven’t read it, but it seems odd. A person can be physically followed without a warrant. Police can get a pen register record of phone calls made without a warrant (not the content, but the numbers). Why should location data be subject to a higher standard? They can follow me around all day if they want and see exactly where I go, no warrant needed. It just seems inconsistent to require a warrant to get the same data from my phone. I don’t know whether it is a good or bad decision, it just seems off.
I should have included the snark tag.
I have no problem with the originalist argument when it is applied to a general concept embedded in the Constitution but it is an absurd principle when it is extended to interpretation and application.
But can’t put a tracking device on your vehicle without a warrant. When they obtain the cell records, it is as if they are essentially using your cell phone as a tracking device. Seems like a reasonable decision to me.
True, but to look at your phone location records, ex post facto, is a different sort of search. Their decision may be motivated out of concerns beyond the prosecution of criminals.
As a purely practical matter, any “smart” criminal, or indeed any individual who wishes to actually remain anonymous and undetected, leaves their electronics home.
You have a point. Although, putting a tracking device on my car involves, essentially, trespassing on my property. Getting cell phone location data from Verizon doesn’t. It seems more like just following me around, or getting pen register data.
As a purely practical matter, any “smart” criminal, or indeed any individual who wishes to actually remain anonymous and undetected, leaves their electronics home.
Oh. Crap. 
Ars technica has had a good series of articles about this. Search for “stingray” the FBI has been advising local sheriffs offices that they do not need a warrant to impersonate a cell tower and record the ids of all nearby phones. Secret mass surveillance is the natural technological extrapolation of the legal argument you’re making
OK, what’s the catch? Because you know there’s a catch.
What does the court say the difference is between home phones and cell phones?
Nothing. This is about privacy in your movements. The court addressed access to GPS records some time ago and those need a reasonable cause warrant because people have a rightful expectation of privacy in where they go. They basically stated that information showing your location off cell towers is the same thing. There was nothing addressing your phone calls. In order to get GPS location data, you need reasonable cause. They didn’t use the reasonable cause guidelines for a warrant and so that’s where the decision came to rest.
Thanks. That makes sense. Maybe the AP should hire people who know how to read cases?
Preach. Lol, I brought that up to Josh at one point via email years ago and that didn’t go over very well.
In all the public places you go, but not the private ones. And at great cost. The supreme court does sometimes recognize that a difference in degree can turn into a difference in kind, and this is one of those cases. (Another one is the requirement for a special license to own a fully automatic weapon.) When you can know the travels of everyone in your jurisdiction for a few cents each, that’s qualitatively different from deciding that a suspect is worth the thousands of dollars a week it costs to put on surveillance.
Poor, poor Justice Scalia, he’s dead and the Constitution is still alive and kicking… for now.
Roberts may have used right-wing ideology to obtain his seat, but it looks like every once in a while, he’s forced to vote by his conscience. That none of the other right-wingers voted with the verdict tells you a pant-load about their integrity.