I am at work so can't read the decision on the ussc decision on warrantless location tracking

He seems to be gunning for the third party doctrine as a whole yet appears to think the direction of this chip leads to more confusion, not clarity.

A bit along this line:

https://reason.com/volokh/2018/06/22/first-thoughts-on-carpenter-v-united-sta

So you could look at that language and say tha this is a narrow opinion only about perfect location tracking by Big Brother.
On the other hand, there's lots of language in the opinion that cuts the other way. Although the Court "decides no more than the case before us," it also recasts a lot of doctrine in ways that could be used to argue for lots of other changes. Its use of equilibrium-adjustment will open the door to lots of new arguments about other records that are also protected. For example, what is the scope of this reasonable expectation of privacy in the "whole" of physical movements? Why is there? The Jones concurrences were really light on that, and Carpenter doesn't do much beyond citing them for it: What is this doctrine and where did it come from? (And what other reasonable expectations of privacy in things do people have that we didn't know about, and what will violate them?)

In addition, Carpenter's view of Miller and Smith is narrower than the opinions in Miller and Smith suggest. Carpenter suggests that the third-party doctrine is less of the bright-line rule that the cases suggest and more of a fact-specific standard. At the very least that is going to invite a boatload of litigation on how far this new reasoning goes.

Post #424,436 by boxley 6/22/18 1:26:25 PM 6/22/18 1:26:25 PM Reply	I am at work so can't read the decision on the ussc decision on warrantless location tracking Anyone have access on who voted on the majority? "Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" – Richard Feynman
Post #424,438 by Another Scott 6/22/18 3:06:47 PM 6/22/18 3:06:47 PM Reply	Roberts + the liberals were the majority. Kennedy pouted.
Post #424,439 by boxley 6/22/18 3:20:36 PM 6/22/18 3:20:36 PM Reply	Thanks "Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" – Richard Feynman
Post #424,452 by scoenye 6/22/18 6:17:46 PM 6/22/18 6:17:46 PM Reply	And Gorsuch dissented because he thought this decision didn't go far enough
Post #424,454 by drook 6/22/18 7:51:06 PM 6/22/18 7:51:06 PM Reply	Is that a thing? Do the Supremes typically eschew incrementalism? Are there many examples of cases where justices voted against the half loaf? -- Drew
Post #424,458 by scoenye 6/23/18 11:06:19 AM 6/23/18 11:06:19 AM Reply	Guessing he didn't like the direction of this increment He seems to be gunning for the third party doctrine as a whole yet appears to think the direction of this chip leads to more confusion, not clarity. A bit along this line: https://reason.com/volokh/2018/06/22/first-thoughts-on-carpenter-v-united-sta So you could look at that language and say tha this is a narrow opinion only about perfect location tracking by Big Brother. On the other hand, there's lots of language in the opinion that cuts the other way. Although the Court "decides no more than the case before us," it also recasts a lot of doctrine in ways that could be used to argue for lots of other changes. Its use of equilibrium-adjustment will open the door to lots of new arguments about other records that are also protected. For example, what is the scope of this reasonable expectation of privacy in the "whole" of physical movements? Why is there? The Jones concurrences were really light on that, and Carpenter doesn't do much beyond citing them for it: What is this doctrine and where did it come from? (And what other reasonable expectations of privacy in things do people have that we didn't know about, and what will violate them?) In addition, Carpenter's view of Miller and Smith is narrower than the opinions in Miller and Smith suggest. Carpenter suggests that the third-party doctrine is less of the bright-line rule that the cases suggest and more of a fact-specific standard. At the very least that is going to invite a boatload of litigation on how far this new reasoning goes.

Welcome to IWETHEY!